Pearse Doherty (Donegal South West, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

Sa chéad dul síos, chuirim fáilte roimh an mBille. Bille teicniúil atá ann ó thaobh an earnáil seo, ach níl dabht ar bith le roinnt bliain anois go bhfuil sé thar am agus muid ag fanacht ar sa Teacht. Tá fhios againn gur tháinig sé aníos an chéad uair sa mBille Airgeadais i 2011. Ó thaobh dul chun cinn ó shin, bhí sé ar an gclár oibrithe, an clár reachtaíochta, anuraidh. Is muid ag déileáil leis an gcoiste airgeadais, ábhar imní dúinn nach raibh sé i bhfeidhm. Níl dabht ar bith go bhfuil airgead caillte ag an Stát mar gheall ar nach raibh an Bille i bhfeidhm ó 2011. Tuigfimid gur féidir €20 milliún in aghaidh na bliana a thabhairt isteach nuair a mbeidh an Bille i bhfeidhm. Bhí ciorruithe €20 milliún ar daoine gan mórán, agus is mór an trua é nach rabhamar ábalta an Bille seo a thógáil níos luaithe. Comhlachtaí móra agus comhlachtaí beaga atá i gceist anseo is iad ag glacadh le geall ar an idirlíon agus a leithead. I mo thuairim, níl siad ag íoc an méid cheart.

Tá an Bille os comhair na Dála anois, agus is maith an rud é sin. Tabharfaidh Sinn Féin tacaíocht don Bhille. Ba cheart go mbeadh a leithead ann. Mar atá ráite agam go mion is go minic, agus mar atá curtha chun tosaigh agam ar son mo pháirtí i doiciméad maidir leis an gcáinaisnéis, is féidir leis an ráta a ardú ó 1% go 3%. An plé a bhí againn anuraidh agus i mbliana ag an choiste airgeadais – bhí an tAire Hayes ag an gcoiste ag an am sin más buain mo chuimhne – agus an plean a bhí ann ná an reachtaíocht a fhoilsiú ar dtús agus go síleann an tAire go bhfuil scóip ann an ráta a ardú amach anseo. Aontaím leis sin agus tá sé sin ceart go leor. Tá súil agam go dtarlóidh sin.

Ceann de na himníthe móra atá ag Sinn Féin ná conas a n-oibríodh seo. An mbeidh na hacmhainní ceart ann sa dóigh gur féidir cinntiú go bhfuil na dlíthe agus an reachtaíocht á chur i bhfeidhm? Beimid ag déileáil le daoine taobh amuigh den tír agus bhféidir go mbeadh siad ag obair in éadain an Bille. Céin dóigh inar féidir linn iad a fháil ciontach más rud é nach bhfuil siad lonnaithe sa tír seo?

Is muid ag déileáil leis an Idirlíon, éiríonn rudaí iontach gasta agus aontaím leis an méid a dúirt an Teachta McGrath gur chóir súil géar a chineál ar an mBille agus go mbeadh athbhreithniú ann go rialta, ní amháin in aghaidh bliain, ach in aghaidh gach cúpla mí chun a chinntiú nach bhfuil rudaí ag athrú agus go bhfuil an Bille ag oibriú i gceart. Más fiú é sin a dhéanamh, beidh tacaíocht ina leith ó Shinn Féin.

The Bill is welcome and long overdue. The previous version of the Bill sat on the Order Paper for well over a year. This legislation had its origins in the Finance Bill 2011 which provided for the intention to tax online betting and betting exchanges. There is no moral or economic argument for online betting and betting exchanges to remain outside the tax net.

I have raised this matter in the past and with the betting exchanges in private meetings. It is amazing that betting exchanges were not subject to VAT or to excise duties. It is very clear that betting exchanges are providing a service and therefore, should be subject to VAT. I have used parliamentary questions to the Minister to ask which legislation provides them with this exemption but I am still no clearer. For example, a betting exchange is a service which facilitates me placing a bet and Deputy Michael McGrath placing a bet and then puts the two of us together. Any other service would be subject to VAT.

I have raised this issue previously with the Minister. A local supermarket is a very good employer in the community and contributes to the community through support and donations to community groups and school organisations. The supermarket was approached by a local charity to sell mass cards and it allowed some counter space to be provided for the sale of mass cards with all profits going to the local friary. The Revenue Commissioners took the view that even though the supermarket was not making any profit from the sale of the mass cards, it was subject to VAT since this practice commenced about ten years ago. The Revenue's view was that the shop offered a service which could increase business in the shop because it had facilitated the sale of mass cards by allowing the charity to benefit from the use of the counter space. The Revenue applied the letter of the law in that case but there can be no doubt that large betting exchanges which are heavily bank-rolled by multimillionaires in this State are offering a service. The betting exchange will put together two people who want to place a bet and the service-provider - Betdaq or whatever - takes a profit in the form of a commission, but VAT does not apply. The State has lost millions of euro because of this exemption. It is a question as to why the Revenue has never applied VAT to this service.

The Department of Justice and Equality is preparing the gambling control Bill. It is unfortunate that the two Bills are not being taken together because these issues are inter-related. The Rutland Centre has noted an increase in the number of problem gamblers availing of its service because of the availability of online gambling. Thanks to mobile telephones, gamblers now have a bookie in their pockets. I enjoy a punt now and again on big occasions. For all we know there could be a Deputy using an iPhone under the table in the Chamber to put a bet on a race.

It must be recognised that gambling is a choice and it causes societal harm. Many Members have a close affinity with the horse racing tradition. It is quite a while since I was in the Members' bar and I am not sure if the trophies are still in the corner which had been won by horses belonging to syndicates of Members. We all know about the Galway races and the infamous tent.

People, in particular Irish people, have a very close affinity to horseracing, but it is a choice and something which is addictive. That addiction can lead to financial and social disaster for some. Not too long ago, betting duty was 10%. Today, many gamblers are paying no tax by gambling online.

Over recent months, we have discussed basic services - rights, in my view - such as the roof over one's head or water. The Government believes one should be taxed because one has a roof over one's head or because one has running water. However, in regard to these betting exchanges, until now the choice one had to participate was not taxed in an appropriate manner, outside of corporation tax. Accordingly, it must be taxed to reflect these facts.

Online bookies and betting exchanges operating outside the formal tax net must come to an end and the State is fully entitled to tax their earnings, as it is with the local bookies or any other business operating in the State. The question must be asked as to how much revenue the State has lost as a result of not bringing forward the Betting (Amendment) Bill to implement the Finance Act 2011.

We fully appreciate the importance of the bookmaking industry. The local bookie is an important part of the economic structure of many of our towns and villages and it is one we want to see continue. As I said, in our fully costed budget alternative for 2014, Sinn Féin proposed the rapid introduction of the main measures in this Bill and levying the betting tax at 3%. As I said, I know the Government is open to the idea of increasing this once the legislation is in place and I encourage it to do that as the resources are much-needed. That is a fair level at which gambling should be taxed because gambling is discretionary spending and should be treated as such. Sinn Féin is not opposing this Bill because it is a sensible move and I look forward to dealing with the detail of it when it comes to Committee Stage.

The previous speaker raised the issue of the definition of "bookmaker" and said the term "layer of bets" should not be included. It has been raised with me, as I am sure it has been with Deputy Michael McGrath, who raised the same issue, that the current wording may exclude some layers who operate in non-traditional ways. Clearly, it is imperative that the definition of "bookmaker" is correct in order that as many people as possible are brought into the tax net and that the scope for a shady black market economy is limited.

As somebody who has facilitated different groups in holding so-called night at the races events, when I read the definition of "bookmaker", I wondered whether people who hold such events for charity groups would be subject to the definition of "bookmaker". The key word here is "business". It must be in the course of one's business that one would set odds, take bets and make a promise to pay out. I have never charged for holding night at the races events, but for anybody who charges €300 or €400 to do so, it is part of their business in that he or she sets odds, takes bets and pays out on those bets. Perhaps it is the intention that they are bookmakers, but in my view they are not but are businesses separate from what we know as traditional bookmakers.

The issue of VAT needs to be examined retrospectively or, at least we need clarification as to how that has happened. We will examine the detail on Committee Stage, including the licensing conditions and how important they are. Obviously, we want to encourage new entries into this market. Somebody from my county entered the market recently. We see one of the McEniff family, Seanie Mac, advertise on television quite regularly and we wish any local Irish entrepreneur every success in the future, but it is important the licensing regime is speedy and that we ensure the necessary requirements in this Bill are implemented effectively and without delay to allow new investors - entrepreneurs - to set up without delay.

Another issue raised with me is the record of some companies which have been found to be in violation of laws in other jurisdictions in which they are operating. What safeguards will be put in place to ensure international operators have a clean record? We know there is a requirement from the Minister for Justice and Equality but how far will his reach go in regard to this matter?

Currently, every last cent of tax from gambling in this State is going to fund the horse and greyhound racing industry. On top of that, the State tops up this fund from general taxation. There is a question as to how the Minister sees the Bill affecting the funding model in the future. Does he believe that with the introduction of this Bill there will be no need for an increase from general taxation to that fund? Does he believe the proceeds from this legislation should go into the fund regardless of how much they are or will some be diverted into other expenditure?

Until 2002, the revenue raised by betting duty matched the contribution from the Exchequer to the horse and greyhound industry, but since then the State has had to top it up to a considerable extent. In 2012, betting duty amounted to only 48% of the funding. I fully appreciate the economic benefits these industries bring to the economy. The Indecon report from 2012 stated that more than 20,000 people are employed by the horseracing industry alone.

There is, however, a genuine question about ring-fencing some of the revenue for the treatment of gambling addiction and awareness programmes. It would be a very sensible measure for this Minister to announce. Of late, there have been many high profile cases of prominent sports people who have struggled with a gambling addition, and there is a question as to what hope this Bill will bring to them when we know that the gambling control Bill has been put on the long finger.

The core of this Bill is worthy of support. There are areas which I hope we can tease out on Committee Stage and we will do that in an open, honest and frank way. I thank the Minister for bringing this Bill forward.

See this speech in context