Martin Heydon (Kildare South, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I apologise for missing the beginning of the meeting. I thank the Minister for his attendance.

Mindful of Deputy Burton's reference to comparisons between now and ten years ago, it is fair to acknowledge that our tax base is now considerably wider than when the boom was getting boomier, as it were, and the crash happened. We are now in better shape in that regard. I acknowledge the work being done by the Minister in bringing us towards balanced budgets, growing our economy and reducing the national debt, all of which must be done. Maintaining careful management of the public finances is essential in terms of the importance of sustaining our recent progress. I support the prudent approach being taken, including the establishment of the rainy day fund, which is of assistance in sustaining progress and an example of how we have learned from the mistakes of the past. Although this may initially sound contradictory, I also support the 25% increase in spending on our overall infrastructure outlined by the Minister and provided for in Project Ireland 2040. Although there may be some small risks in terms of overheating the economy, to which reference has been made, the bigger risk is that we fail to compensate for the lost decade in terms of building schools and hospitals and increasing hospital capacity and so on.

On climate change, in a year in which we have had three very substantial weather events so far, it is very important that the budget continues to make strides in terms of reducing our overall emissions because climate change cannot be denied. As a member of the Joint Committee on Climate Action, a meeting of which is under way and which I will have to attend shortly, I recognise the importance of a co-ordinated whole-of-Government approach to the issue. That committee has only been meeting for a month but the point that has been conveyed by almost every witness who has appeared before it is that no single Department can fix this issue. It cannot be the responsibility of a single Minister. Rather, a whole-of-Government approach must be taken. It is as important an issue for the Minister's Department as for any other.

It is important that we consider vulnerable groups which would be particularly adversely affected by any possible changes. I will not repeat the earlier points that were made. I had several questions that have been addressed.

I have raised the issue of the betting tax, which is as relevant now as ever before. I do not expect the Minister to comment on this because I appreciate he will not speculate on possible budget measures. I point out, however, that from a high of 20% in 1984, the betting tax was reduced to 10% in the 1990s, 5% in 1999 and 2% in 2002. I never saw any justification for the decision to lower the betting tax from 2% to 1% in 2006. It was a mistake. Betting activity has changed significantly in recent years. In 2001, €68 million in betting tax was collected at a time when the betting industry had a turnover of approximately €1 billion. That turnover has increased fivefold. Approximately €5.5 billion worth of betting activity takes place in this country, but less tax is being collected than when the turnover was €1 billion. That is not right and should not continue. The net income from betting tax in 2017 was €52.2 million. There is a very strong case for increasing the tax, in particular in light of the issue of problem gambling, the challenges which young men in particular in this country face, and the prevalence of online betting. It is an area where steps must be taken. We did an amazing job in putting in place a tax on remote operators which many people thought we would be unable to implement. The Minister's predecessor as Minister for Finance, Deputy Noonan, told me that we needed to let that system bed in. There has been a considerable increase in the amount that tax is bringing in. In 2016, €31 million was collected, increasing to €50 million in 2016 and €52 million in 2017. That €20 million or €21 million extra coming in online is due to that system having bedded in. There is a very strong case for increasing the betting tax. That is the one point I will make rather than contribute on issues which have been addressed.