Sandra McLellan (Cork East, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

When setting out the 1986 legislation, Ministers of the day spoke of the need for public trust and confidence in the operation of a State lottery and they were absolutely correct in this assertion. The fact that An Post has held the national lottery licence over the past 25 years has in itself instilled trust in the lottery and an affinity with the brand. Understandably, there is concern about the new licence holder and a question as to whether the public interest will be of concern to the new operator and whether the integrity of the lottery will be upheld. The response to this question is not straightforward. Moreover, failure to engage with beneficiaries of national lottery funding before and after the introduction of this legislation has only added to this concern. The Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Howlin, seeks to change significantly the national lottery business model, making it more commercially attractive, as he perceives it, with the objective of generating the much-talked about upfront payment. This naturally makes people jumpy. It no longer will be a method by which citizens can take part in a lottery hoping to win a cash prize for themselves while at the same time contributing financially to their local communities. Under Fine Gael and the Labour Party, the national lottery will become a mechanism by which the Government can generate additional revenue. This completely undermines the ethos of the lottery but is completely in line with the Administration's small government view of the world.

Concerns have lingered over the years that national lottery funding for communities has in fact replaced funding of services that should be paid for directly by the State and such concerns undoubtedly will heighten under the current regime. The bord snip nua report of 2009 by the economist Professor Colm McCarthy only served to heighten these fears when he recommended to the Government that the Exchequer element of national lottery funding should be removed, thereby saving a miserly €1.8 million annually. Concerns remain that while the Government has not publicly signed up to this proposition, it may instead quietly act on Professor McCarthy's recommendation. There also are missed opportunities that may arise. For example, the Bill does not include the provision of moneys that could have been generated and allocated for the decade of centenary celebrations. In 1988, the lottery provided £700,000 towards the celebration of the Dublin city millennium and again in 1992 for Ireland's participation in Seville's Expo. The Government could have worked with An Post to create a really exciting engagement with citizens to encourage their participation in raising funds to celebrate our great history locally and nationally. Time and time again, the Government fails to embrace big ideas and real opportunities.

The Government's capital programme announcement of late 2011 stated boldly that it intended to use the upfront payment from the new national lottery operator to fund the national children's hospital. It appears as though this capital funding commitment has now been watered down to receipt of just one third of the projected proceeds from the upfront payment. Perhaps the Minister can clarify the purpose to which the Government intends to use the balance of the proceeds from the aforementioned upfront payment and how much of it will go towards the construction of the hospital. The failure of Fine Gael and the Labour Party to provide for the national children's hospital in the capital expenditure budget probably tells one all one needs to know about the Government's attitude towards children. It is a fact that since Fine Gael and Labour Party entered government in 2011, low-income households have become worse off. Single-parent families, the majority of whom are headed by women, have been a particular target. The bottom line is that priority projects such as the children's hospital must be budgeted for in real capital expenditure.

The Minister has spoken at length about stimulus and job creation but as always, he has done little about it. Over the past year, Enterprise Ireland and the IDA have created slightly more than 10,000 net jobs. That equates to one job for every 33 people who are unemployed. It is clear the actions of the Government do not reflect the scale of the problem. Despite the potential for capital investment and the unemployment crisis, Fine Gael and the Labour Party have cut the capital expenditure budget. While there have been successive announcements of so-called stimulus and capital projects, little is happening by way of delivery. Even Europe has warned against the withdrawal of capital investment. In May 2012, the European Central Bank President, Mario Draghi, specifically called on national governments to deal with deficits without interfering with capital or investment expenditure.

The Minister cut the 2012 capital expenditure budget by €775 million, which would pay for the St. James's Hospital site proposal nearly twice over, according to the figures from the Minister for Health. If protecting children was a policy priority of the Government, the children's hospital would be front and centre in the capital budget. It is not and we all know why.

Retailers have been central to the success of the national lottery over the past 25 years, advocating the brand and copper-fastening its integrity. Small retailers have become increasingly dependent on the modest margin paid as the crisis has bedded in. The Bill does not provide for specifics about the margin to be paid to retail agents and this offers no comfort to small local businesses who need every little bit of support they can get.

The Retail Grocery, Dairy and Allied Trades Association has stated the organisation was assured by the Minister and his officials that the modest margin of 6% paid to retail agents would be ring-fenced in this legislation, but it is not. Did the Minister make this commitment to the association and, if so, on what basis did he renege on his promise? If the 6% margin is to be protected within the licence agreement, why can it not also be included in the legislation?

As stated earlier, the Minister has offered no solid reason to establish the office of a national lottery regulator. Could this role be fulfilled by his Department instead of creating another office of public administration at arm’s length from Government responsibility? The operator will fund the regulator's office by way of a levy, but the consumer will ultimately carry the cost. I note section 15 allows for a 12-month "cooling off" period after a person has ceased to be the regulator, but why is the period just 12 months? The programme for Government makes a commitment to amend the rules to ensure that no senior public servant, including political appointees, or Minister can work in the private sector in any area involving a potential conflict of interest with a former area of public employment until at least two years have elapsed after leaving the public service.

I do not understand the lack of consistency by this Government in adhering to its own commitments. To date, the Government has not made any effort to action this promise and in some instances it appears to be ignoring it completely. Over the past couple of weeks, a member of the shareholder management unit in the Department of Finance, seconded from the National Treasury Management Agency, has resigned and been appointed as a chief executive in the Bank of Ireland. Before leaving the Department of Finance the former head of the shareholder management unit dealt with the sale of €1 billion of capital contingency notes held by Bank of Ireland. Such a scenario in the private sector is absolutely inconceivable, and middle and senior managers have par for the course cooling off period clauses in their standard contracts in small and medium enterprises and multinationals alike.

Will the Minister confirm that national lottery winnings are to remain tax free? Section 49 of the Bill allows for the sharing of information with both the Revenue Commissioners and the Department of Social Protection. The Minister announced last year that his Department was working with financial advisers, Davy, to structure the new licence to ensure an "alignment of interests between good cause beneficiaries and the new operator". Will the Minister provide a little more detail as to what this involved and perhaps a sample of the good cause beneficiaries Davy dealt with? Will the Minister confirm that potential operators who have expressed an interest to date in the national lottery licence are not also clients of Davy?

Rehab has brought a High Court challenge against the Minister for Justice and Equality’s decision to phase out the charitable lotteries scheme. Charities received €6 million under the scheme in 2011, of which €4.4 million went to Rehab. I do not expect the Minister to comment on the case but it would be helpful to understand if the case will hamper the efforts of the legislation before us today.

I have raised a number queries during the course of my contribution and I hope they will be addressed when the Minister wraps up the debate.

See this speech in context