Barry Ward (Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 121:

In page 64, to delete lines 24 to 37, and in page 65, to delete lines 1 to 9 and substitute the following: “ “maximum relevant payment and maximum winnings” means such amount or amounts set by the Authority, with the consent of the Minister, in regulations made under subsection (2) of section 81;”.

Amendment No. 121 refers to section 80 of the Bill which is Part 5. Essentially this section deals with preliminary, general matters and definitions which will apply to Part 5. Currently in this Part, there is a significant and lengthy definition of what constitutes a maximum relevant payment and maximum winnings. They are set out there and make reference to columns in Schedule 2. I do not have a problem with there being a benchmark for what maximum winnings or maximum payments should be. Again, I think with a view to making this Bill operable, it should be setting these limits but what I am proposing in this amendment is, rather than setting out an exhaustive set of figures, that we would perhaps even set a minimum standard but would ultimately give the power to the regulator to decide from time to time what those amounts should be.In order to change these amounts, we will have to amend the legislation. That is an unnecessarily rigid approach because the value of these figures will change over time. We are in a decreasing inflationary environment now but who is to say that in one or ten years inflation will not be higher and the value of the money and the figures in the Schedule and Bill may change dramatically? Rather than the Government having to come back to these Houses to seek approval to increase or decrease the sums, which is highly unlikely, to a figure that is reflective, it is better to index-link them but that is probably difficult. Rather than that, the power should be given to the regulator to set them from time to time. I propose that instead of the five-paragraph definition of "maximum relevant payment and maximum winnings", I suggest that means such amount or amounts set by the authority with the consent of the Minister in regulations made under section 81(2). It is proposed that when this legislation becomes law and the regulator or authority is up and running, it will have the power to make regulations. I do not suggest that it would be able to do that with free rein or without supervision. The next section provides for that power and states that the party may prescribe any of the following and sets out the powers the regulator will have to make regulations. I do not even propose that she would be able to make them in isolation; she would have to do so in consultation with and with the consent of the Minister. There is still democratic control from the ministerial office. Rather than setting out a series of amounts and maximums, would we not be better off with a starting point and leaving it up to the regulator or the authority to decide in one year, ten years, or, let us hope, 20 or 50 years - as long as the body is in being - to modify those amounts to reflect the reality of the value of money at that time? It makes more sense, which I said on Committee Stage, that I would rather the regulator had more power and discretion to do that because she and her team are the ones who will be closest to the coalface in dealing with the issues that arise. I would rather empower her to make those changes than have them set solidly and prescribed in legislation.