Joe O'Reilly (Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I join in the welcome to the gentlemen from the Men’s Shed. Like me, I can see that they have a lot of accumulated life experience. They can only be impressed by being present in the Seanad when we are discussing such a serious matter. It has to give them some confidence in the institution that this is the material we are dealing with and that we are trying to alleviate one of the greatest social ills of our time.

I will revert to a sentence I said last night, in that it is great that we are here and it is wonderful that this is what we are doing. This will be an organic process. If we get the Bill passed and get the authority up and going, we can only hone it to better effect as time goes on.

I will respond to some of the amendments as succinctly as I can. Regarding amendment No. 47, I agree with Senators Gavan and Warfield in principle, in that there is merit in having people on the authority with personal life experience and who, thank God, have come out the other end. I know such people, as I am sure the Minister of State does. They are people with a great deal to offer, so the principle of the first subsection is good. The amendment’s second subsection is also good, in that we should not employ people with a vested interest in the industry. I assume that such provisions are within the Minister of State’s reasoning and are matters that he will ensure, insofar as practicable, in any case. I commend the principles to him and am interested in hearing his response to the details in terms of whether they are realistically a legislative prerogative. The amendment should be instructive to the process and perhaps he can show positivity in his response, as doing so would be in order.

Regarding amendment No. 49, reducing and eliminating compulsive gambling is implicit in Senator Higgins’s effort here – I agree with her and support the amendment – and will be a central remit of the authority. She rightly, eloquently and passionately set out all of the difficulties associated with gambling. I have done that in the past myself and do not propose to do so again, but some of the Senator’s concerns around prevention, supporting addicts, helping them to recover and so on will be dealt with by the social fund from the industry. The fund’s function will be to deal with the results of addiction.

I would like the Minister of State to raise with the Government something that has never been done properly. Indeed, it is our duty to raise it in our respective parties, which I propose to do at a parliamentary party meeting shortly. I am referring to the Department of Health needing to play a larger role and publicly accept its responsibility for dealing with addiction and its outworkings and for bringing an addict back to full life in society, as it were. This is a function of the Department, yet it has never properly budgeted for it or addressed it. My distinguished colleague, Deputy Stanton from Cork, who has been a pioneer in this regard and a strong advocate for dealing with gambling down the years, has always been of the view, and has always publicly stated, that the Department of Health needs to play a larger role in dealing with the outworkings and realities of addiction. There need to be sections within the Department with specific budgets to deal with this issue.

In a general sense, the social fund will deal with many of the important issues that have rightly been raised by supporting addicts and eliminating compulsive and problem gambling. I would like to hear the Minister of State on this, but apart from licensing and legal interventions, I assume it is implicit in the role of the authority that it will advertise prevention and do all it can proactively in an education campaign.

I wished to respond briefly to the amendments and say what I thought. This is an historic occasion and we are doing something that will be societally impactful. I spoke to a GAA guy the other day who thanked me for my input on the sports capital grant application for his club. I told him-----