Seán Fleming (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the witnesses. This is probably the first time in the 28 years of the lottery that we have had to bring people connected with the national lottery before the committee. This has happened as a result of the decision to privatise the lottery licence and pass it on to a new operator following a competitive tender which secured money for the State.

I have a question for both organisations. On the technology side, a decision was taken to move from DSL broadband and to replace it with 3G. I believe there is a connection with Three and the SIM card in the shops will hunt for another mobile network if there is a partnership agreement. 4G has been excluded, which is a better system than 3G. Most people would consider going from broadband back to a wireless system to be a retrograde step. Premier Lotteries Ireland is the first business of which I have heard that is going backwards in technology rather than forward. I can only presume that is a cost-saving measure.

Could the witnesses talk to me about the role of Camelot Global Services? I understand that Camelot, which is wholly owned by the company that runs the lottery, uses satellite in the United Kingdom and only uses the 3G licence for scratch cards in the UK. Could someone outline what the company’s website in the UK does for it? It was said that what happened with Telefónica-O2 Ireland was a freak occurrence. Could a representative of PLI outline the contingency plans in place?

Is the holding company of the operator’s licence resident in Ireland for corporation tax purposes? We raised the matter when the legislation was going through the Oireachtas. I tabled a specific amendment to the effect that the operator should be resident in the State, but the Minister rejected it. What is the residency status of the company to which the profits accrue? In what jurisdiction is it subject to corporation tax?

What is the situation regarding unclaimed prizes? I recently heard it suggested that there was change in the licence clause to allow the operator to hold on to some of the unclaimed prizes. If that is the case, the operator might have a vested interest in unclaimed prizes, which could amount to hundreds of millions over the 20-year lifespan of the licence.

It was said that the company wants to increase online business from 3% to 18%. What is the minimum price at which people can purchase tickets? I have received correspondence from people who are dissatisfied with the new approach to accounts and the priorities in that regard.

I will ask all of my questions now because I know other speakers will wish to speak. If there is insufficient time for all the information to be put on the record, it can be sent by way of correspondence in a few days time.

Mr. Sloyan is also welcome to the meeting. Could he tell us about his powers and sanctions as they seem very light? I am concerned about what I have heard. It appears that the lottery does its business and if something goes wrong, the regulator will ask for a report. That does not sound very proactive. In the past ten to 15 years the country has been bedevilled by regulators who have been at best asleep at the wheel. I hope Mr. Sloyan is at least in the car. Given what he said, I am concerned because his role seems to be to ask for a report if something goes wrong. What was Mr. Sloyan’s role on the day the major draw was cancelled? Did he sanction the decision? Can the operator cancel a draw without reference to the regulator? Was he notified after the decision was made? Whose call was it to cancel the draw? What was Mr. Sloyan’s involvement? Could he outline the ability of his staff to be in a position to manage and regulate an organisation which has a turnover of €1 billion?

My next question to the regulator relates to section 24 of the legislation, which deals with the levy. The regulator sends a bill to the operator each year and it pays a levy. To me, that means the regulator’s office is a little bit subservient. I do not mean that in a personal way but in the sense that, in simple English, the operator pays the wages of the regulator. I consider the office of the regulator to be in a compromised position. Section 28 states “Subject to subsection (3), the Regulator shall publish details of a licence or a code of practice". Has the regulator published the licence and, if not, how soon will he do it? I understand subsection (3) deals with matters of commercial sensitivity. That is a standard procedure. Given that the organisation has a monopoly for the next 20 years, no competition issues arise in terms of commercial sensitivity. We asked for the regulator’s office to be included under freedom of information legislation but the Minister did not accept the amendment on the basis that the freedom of information legislation he introduced last year captures all new organisations.

Is the regulator subject to the Freedom of Information Act?