I welcome the Minister. Before we commence, I remind the House that a Senator may speak only once on Report Stage, except the proposer of an amendment who may reply to the discussion on the amendment. Each amendment must be seconded.
National Lottery Bill 2012: Report and Final Stages
I move amendment No. 1:
"7. The employment rights of employees of the National Lottery and the contractual rights of agents of the National Lottery shall be protected by this Act.".
It is crucial that we give clarity to the staff and agents of the national lottery that they will be protected under this arrangement. Former staff of Anglo Irish Bank and Irish Nationwide Building Society were not given such protection and the Government set an unfortunate precedent in this regard. There are concerns that this will be used again by the national lottery if a foreign operator wins the licence.
The wider issue, which is not related to the amendment but which is important, is the availability of national lottery permits to business people who do not currently hold them.
That is a wider issue but I want it put on the record. This section, if added to the Bill, would provide that general protection to employees and agents that is required to give them peace of mind and to prevent a repeat of the debacle that happened with Anglo Irish Bank and Irish Nationwide Building Society.
I second the amendment.
I thank Senator Thomas Byrne for tabling the amendment and giving me the opportunity, as I have done repeatedly on Second and Committee Stages, to assure the House that the contractual rights of the employees of the current national lottery will be fully protected. As I indicated previously, my officials have had discussions regarding the staff of the national lottery with the company itself and relevant parties such as the management of the national lottery, An Post and all the trade union representatives. Those discussions have been ongoing and focused on clarifying the issues that arise for workers in the context of the next licence. I cannot be entirely prescriptive because it will depend on the nature of the next licensee but I can assure the House we are mindful of the legal rights of staff and they will be safeguarded. Therefore, I do not believe the amendment is necessary.
I accept what the Minister has said.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 2 and 4 to 16, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together, by agreement.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 7, to delete lines 12 to 19.
If the Minister says he is changing his approach to the issue of the regulator, I will move the rest of the amendments, but, if not, I may withdraw them, even though they are being discussed together. I had suggested a slimmed down version of the regulator and that we proceed with the model that has applied heretofore. There is the possibility of an independent prominent businessman doing it as a side job or that it would be done within the Department as an independent office. We object to the creation of another quango because, effectively, that is what is being done. This is the Government that was to have had a bonfire of the quangos similar to the Government across the water but it never works out that way. One would have thought there was no need to put in place another regulator and the costs associated with it. Has the Minister developed his thoughts on the ethical issues of the regulator? I did not table an amendment on the matter because, clearly, it is a major issue. I hope the Minister will consider whether it is sufficient for the regulator to declare his interests rather than impose a prohibition on certain interests being held by the regulator. It may be a bigger issue.
I second the amendment.
I thank Senator Thomas Byrne for tabling this and the series of related amendments which go to the heart of whether a regulator should be established. For this process, the Minister is the regulator and will remain the regulator until the new office is established. As I indicated, the original Government decision on the approach to the next lotto licence was formulated at the end of 2011. We have given a great deal of consideration to all the component parts. Members acknowledged that on the last occasion I was in the House. They have not always agreed with the conclusions we have arrived at, but it was acknowledged that a great deal of thought has gone into the structure of the licensing arrangement. It was considered that for the purposes of the next lotto licence a better outcome could be achieved if the office of the regulator was an independent body, separate from Government. While there are differing views on the experience of regulatory regimes, there is no doubt some have been more successful than others. As I indicated on the last occasion, often that is due partly to the way the terms of reference given to the regulator are framed by Government.
This is a modest proposal and it will be a modest office. It will be better not to have a career civil servant doing the job on a part-time basis, although this was a suggestion which was reasonably made, to ensure all the games are robust and the numerous licensing arrangements are adequately policed because it is a very extensive business of the order of €700 million or €800 million per annum, and hopefully it will grow a bit more than this. As I indicated, the legislation makes the regulator accountable to the Houses of the Oireachtas. The regulator can be brought in and questioned and this is a better way. A regulator is much more open to having this type of discussion with a committee than a civil servant might be. The Senator might be interested to know we are also preparing new working arrangements for civil servants to make them more accountable and free them from some of the constraints in their way to interact with committees of the Houses. This is something I want to do separately.
The Bill provides that the regulator's office will be fully funded by the proceeds of the lotto so there will be no Exchequer cost. It will be a modest office. Even after the enactment of legislation the Minister will determine the number of staff and their remuneration and conditions. There will be no incentive for the empire to grow. As I indicated, it is not directly pertinent to this legislation but Senators expressed the view there is a much broader question of the regulation of gambling which needs to be addressed. I hope this modest proposal for a regulator for the lotto might migrate into having wider functions, but I do not want to trespass on the turf of my colleague the Minister for Justice and Equality, who I understand will bring general gambling legislation and co-ordination before the Houses before the end of the year.
Another area in which I have expertise, or some involvement, relates to premium rate telephone calls. Vulnerable people can be abused by such a service. The regulatory body was a one-man office with access to legal advice. There is a generally held view that a quango means a multi-storey office block, but in actual fact there are examples of very good regulatory bodies which operate out of a shoebox. What is important is the expertise the regulators bring to the table and we should not lose sight of this.
We will not persuade the Minister so I am happy to withdraw the amendment noting the point has been made. There is no question that a quasi-autonomous non-governmental organisation is being created here today. The Government should redouble its efforts to close down unnecessary quangos, non-governmental bodies and regulators.
I hope the person who will become the regulator reads this debate and the expertise and research which has been done on regulatory capture, finds out what it is and commits to not being captured. Most regulators get captured in some way. It is usually benign and not malign or corrupt, but regulators can acquire too much knowledge of the industry and sometimes forget the consumers and the public interest and see everything from the point of view of the industry they regulate. I am concerned about this and I hope the regulator, whoever he or she is, does not fall into this trap. In my view it is more likely than not that he or she will. I will withdraw all of the amendments subsequent to this one.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 3 to 17, inclusive, not moved.
Amendment No. 18 has been ruled out of order.
Amendment No. 18 not moved.
Amendment No. 19 not moved.
Amendment No. 20 has been ruled out of order.
Amendment No. 20 not moved.
Amendment No. 21 not moved.
Bill received for final consideration.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."
I thank the Minister for the debate. We, as a party, did not have fundamental differences about the issue. However, we did not agree that the regulator should be appointed and felt that it could be done quite adequately from within Government. We await the concrete implementation of the Minister's plan to put the money aside for the children's hospital, which must be central to the debate. The Minister gave a solemn commitment on it on Committee Stage in the Dáil and before the Seanad. His commitment was recorded and must be remembered by us. It will be a burden on the Minister throughout the rest of the year as this process continues. That is critical. We felt that there should be a more robust approach but that has not happened. We now depend on him implementing the measure.
My party has no problem with the process. It looks like the legislation will be passed so we wish the process all the best. The good causes which have benefited from these projects want the scheme to continue. We have all acknowledged the fact that the communities that received funding from the national lottery needed the money. The children's hospital also needs to be built as a matter of urgency. God speed to the legislation. We wish the Minister and his staff well in the implementation if, as expected, the legislation is passed.
It is interesting to hear Fianna Fáil mention God and the lottery in the same sentence.
I have championed the non-sale of the lottery over the past seven or eight months. It has been a wonderful learning experience. I now know how to take on a Bill and understand amendments. I understand the way that politics works and how Bills are passed in the House. I have also never considered that the comments made during the debate were personal.
The lottery has played a huge role in a part of the city that I have worked in for 25 years. I have a great belief that the funds of the public are the funds of the public. I understand why we are privatising the funds. I understand that many Senators have argued that privatisation is not necessarily bad if done well, and I accept their argument. I accept that we need the money and that we need the money upfront. I also accept that we need the money for something as wonderful as the children's hospital and, therefore, cannot argue against the initiative.
I am worried about the amount of money that will be extracted over the 20-year period. I am also worried about the problem of online interactive sales and gambling. I have been assured by the Minister that the online activity will be restricted. I counter that we should restrict it ourselves.
I did not table amendments today because I have made arguments to support my case over the past four or five debates and did not wish to repeat myself. To be fair to Senator Byrne, we both sang off the same hymn sheet but I did not feel the need to repeat myself.
I wish the Minister great luck with the initiative and hope that he gets the price. Its Hobson's choice. If one constrains bidders from the gambling sector, the price will be reduced, but if one does not constrain them, one has the problem of gambling.
As I said on the first day of the debate, I greatly admire the Minister. He is very good and able. Had the Bill been in other hands, I may not have given it such a smooth run and I may not have got such a smooth run for my money.
It was a real learning exercise and I wish the Minister great luck with it. Hopefully, I will not have the same argument with the Minister when it comes to other State assets, such as Coillte, on which the Minister might look more kindly. I wish the Minister the best of luck and thank him for his grace and mannerly language to me throughout the entire debate.
I concur with much of what Senator Byrne has said. On a note of caution and in a word of advice to the Minister, he should sell hard. Members may be surprised that I am aware of at least one consortium that is coming together to tender for the national lottery. Those concerned are Irish and hopefully, it may stay in such hands and additional jobs will be created. More particularly, it is to be hoped the new children's hospital will proceed and will be something about which all Members are proud in the years to come.
I compliment Senator Marie-Louise O'Donnell and the Opposition on what has been a highly constructive debate. It has shown the good side of this Chamber in the way in which matters are taken here in a very serious way. I have mentioned previously the Minister's bona fides and his commitment to protecting State assets and believe this to be true. He has shown great ability to save us in many respects from the worst effects of the desire of the IMF and the troika that Ireland should sell off a great deal more than the national lottery, were they to have had the way they would have liked to have had, on first entering this country.
On a point of information, there was nothing in the original troika agreement about the sale of assets. There was a reference to a review of what we might be able to sell but there was nothing forcing us to sell. Repetition of that point must be stopped.
While I do not disagree with Senator Byrne's point, it is pretty well known that while it may not have been written in blood in the agreement-----
It was not.
-----it certainly was very well-known and commented on in the wider media. I do not believe I am taking this point out of thin air.
As everyone else has noted, it is important to get the best deal possible under this licence. From the outset, I have been on record as stating the children's hospital really matters to me. It really matters to the people of Ireland and to all participants in this debate. I hope the Minister will do such a good deal that there will be a few bob left over, which can be put towards more stimulus within the economy, as everyone is concerned that the economy should make progress. Members have come to the conclusion of what has been a productive debate. Irrespective of Senator Byrne's comments, it has been a highly positive debate and a number of good matters have been brought forward by the Opposition and the Independent Senators.
I thank all contributors. I believe this to be the fifth time I have been in this House to discuss the lottery. While there are a great many highly significant issues under my Department's remit, it is interesting that this matter has taken a considerable time. I commend people on that, as it is important that due diligence be done. In addition, the last time I was in this Chamber, someone mentioned passion and I am all in favour of it. It is a good thing for people to feel strongly about any issue. It is important, as it does not happen often enough that people would argue their case. While I do not wish to take up Members' time, I have laid out what must be done and perhaps I might make a few small reports to the House. In respect of the children's hospital, the timescale for its construction has moved out more than the Government had expected. I had hoped there would be a juxtaposition of the sale of the lottery licence, the payment of an upfront cash amount to the State and the construction. However, that is not going to happen quite as serendipitously or in as dovetailed a fashion as I originally had envisaged. Nevertheless, periodic reports are now coming to the Cabinet on the phasing of the national children's hospital, which I believe will be a flagship project.
I said previously that I am committed, once the sale is completed and money is allocated to the State, to depositing the money. In the other House there was a strong view, supported by Fianna Fáil in this House, that it must be clear the money would be deposited somewhere and not dissipated away from the children's hospital. I said I would come back once we had determined the sum of money and explain how that would happen.
We differed about the regulator but we made our points. A number of Members talked about expressions of interest. I have stayed away from all of that area and I set up a protocol in the beginning for the sale of State assets. I have not been involved and I have not received any representations for it. I read the newspapers, however, and I saw today in The Irish Times that there is one significant international company hoping to make a joint bid with An Post. I heard from a Seanad colleague today that another domestic bid is coming. Perhaps there will be a number of bids.
Senator O'Donnell is right; this is a balancing act and it is not my intention to maximise the upfront payment at the cost of not having a regulated lottery. The lottery is regulated so there is a cost to be paid for that which I am willing to recommend to the House rather than having an open-ended bid for money. On balance, I think this is right.
Senators are aware there are limited online sales for the current lottery. That is how we will migrate, with most of our business being done online over the next 20 years. It would be appropriate to provide the facility for the lottery to do it.
I do not want to end in a discordant fashion but there has been much debate about whether the sale of State assets was included in the original troika agreement. The original troika agreement stated the Government would consider the report of the then ongoing McCarthy report. At my first meeting with the troika after the Government was formed, it was strongly of the view and understood a quantum of €5 billion of State assets would be sold. The agreement in the programme for Government is a considerably lesser sum but the key is we sell nothing that is strategic. We can debate what is strategic and what is not but the items that are in line for sales, as I indicated last week, are non-strategic in my judgment. If there are other bodies such as Coillte, we will have another discussion about those matters.
I thank Senators for a constructive and courteous debate. Views were expressed with passion and thoughtful and considered amendments were tabled.
Question put:
The Seanad divided: Tá, 25; Níl, 6.
Tá
- Brennan, Terry.
- Burke, Colm.
- Coghlan, Eamonn.
- Coghlan, Paul.
- Comiskey, Michael.
- Conway, Martin.
- Cummins, Maurice.
- D'Arcy, Jim.
- Harte, Jimmy.
- Hayden, Aideen.
- Healy Eames, Fidelma.
- Higgins, Lorraine.
- Keane, Cáit.
- Kelly, John.
- Landy, Denis.
- Moloney, Marie.
- Moran, Mary.
- Mulcahy, Tony.
- Mullins, Michael.
- Noone, Catherine.
- O'Keeffe, Susan.
- O'Neill, Pat.
- Quinn, Feargal.
- Sheahan, Tom.
- Whelan, John.
Níl
- Norris, David.
- Ó Clochartaigh, Trevor.
- O'Brien, Mary Ann.
- O'Donnell, Marie-Louise.
- Reilly, Kathryn.
- Zappone, Katherine.
Tellers: Tá, Senators Paul Coghlan and Aideen Hayden; Níl, Senators Trevor Ó Clochartaigh and Kathryn Reilly.
Question declared carried.