Pearse Doherty (Donegal, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

The purpose of amendment No. 75 is to deal with individuals who are raffling their principal private residence and the sum of money they are accruing in relation to that, to make sure that the portion above what they would be entitled to get relief on from their capital gains tax, CGT, would be captured by CGT if they received a sum through the raffle in excess of that.

I understand the principle in relation to that, but I want to deal with some of the issues around it. This is a new trend that is happening in the State. It is happening on a professional level through the use of an online platform that is based in the UK, which charges a 10% commission fee. I believe there are serious reasons the Minister should legislate for this. I understand and agree with the principle, but it is illegal to promote gaming or lottery in the State without a licence. That is very clearly stated in section 3 of the Gaming and Lotteries (Amendment) Act 2019. It is open to any private individual or company to get a gaming or lottery permit, but the value of the prize cannot be in excess of €5,000. Only a charity or philanthropic body can allow people to win prizes up to €360,000. I have concerns because people are selling their homes using this method. The company they are engaging with says it does not need a licence and that it is a prize competition. British law is obviously very different to Irish law in this regard. There are loopholes in British law that ensure that it would not fall under the definition of a lottery if one asks a skill-based question. For example, how it gets around it not being a lottery to have a raffle competition for a house in Ireland is by asking which of these countries is home to the kangaroo. A multiple choice of four answers is provided. That question exempts them from having a lottery licence or coming under regulation from the lottery legislation in Britain.

The problem is that people who sell their houses through this means put a lot of their own resources behind it. They have to advertise heavily online, and they could be out by tens of thousands of euro. If the option is closed to them, they will be out of pocket. I have concerns in that regard. Before Report Stage we should look at how this interacts with the Gaming and Lotteries (Amendment) Act 2019 and check the situation with the Department of Justice. I am mindful as well that we have new heads of a Bill coming forward on online gaming in particular, as much of our legislation is catching up with where things are at. I would encourage the Minister to consider that. However, this section does capture the scenario whereby, hypothetically speaking, somebody in Ireland could use that platform and not promote the raffle in Ireland. If it was only promoted in England it would be completely in compliance with the law. Therefore, the intention is to ensure that those games would be captured. I understand that. I will move on to that kind of scenario, but I do not think it is what is happening in practice.

In the definitions on amendment No. 75, it states: "This subsection applies where an individual disposes of or of an interest in an asset (being an asset within subsection (2) or (11)) by way of a lottery or game with prizes and the proceeds of the lottery or game exceed the market value of the asset." The key words I use are "lottery" and "games". In this State, we have the Gaming and Lotteries (Amendment) Act 2019, so if one wants to organise a game, one must have a gaming permit or licence, depending on the value of the tickets and the prize fund. However, in Britain, they have different definitions. Raffall, which is the main company that is raffling properties in Ireland, makes clear that this is neither a lottery nor a game, that it is a prize competition and it falls under that definition by asking questions. Will this amendment capture that definition in relation to those prizes? I am conscious that the Minister may not have the answers.

In the last part of the amendment, the incidental costs that can be offset include the fees that would be charged by the online platform. The most dominant company in the market currently charges 10%, but there are other fees such as paid advertisements. It is not about paid advertisements to sell the house for €300,000, but to say that there are 20,000 tickets available at €20 a ticket. The paid advertisements are sometimes in the print media or on radio but predominantly on online platforms such as Facebook, YouTube or whatever.

They could impose a sizeable cost on the individual.

I have a number of issues in this regard. I know that this deals with one part of it but there is probably a wider conversation required as to how this is happening, how our laws are interacting with England, how online activity muddies all of that and how one polices that. I am concerned. No individual in this State is legally entitled to raffle off their house. This is not accommodated under Irish law. It is illegal, it is an offence and it cannot be done. The only way that a house can be raffled, as we see being done by the GAA, the credit unions and so on, is because they are allowed to apply to the court for a licence to raffle a one-off prize to the upper value of €360,000, but no individual or company is allowed to do that. These are things that are developing quite quickly but this section should be examined by the Department of Justice as to how it interacts with the Gaming and Lotteries Act, in particular, and the new Bill, the heads of which are before us. I support the concept of this. I thank the Chairman.