Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 15:

In page 81, between lines 33 and 34, to insert the following: “(c) whether the employment generated in the development of the digital game ensures quality employment and training for those employed in its development and in particular to ensure that the digital games development company is not engaged in bogus self employment or employment practices which limit the ability of employees to avail of employment rights legislation,”.

The Minister is proposing to introduce as part of the Finance Bill a relief for the digital gaming sector similar to the section 481 film relief. It will be an additional subsection of section 481. I welcome the idea that we would encourage employment and investment in this sector. There is no doubt it has job potential. While that is very much to be welcomed, as a general point I question whether tax reliefs are the best way rather than direct expenditure to give support and strategically develop employment in a particular industry. In discussions we had at the Committee on Budgetary Scrutiny over the years, a lot of expert economic advice suggested that direct expenditure is often more beneficial in terms of creating industries and employment than tax reliefs. There is always a necessity for some sort of cost-benefit analysis or examination of the best way to support an industry. Any support must be regularly reviewed to ensure we get quality employment.

Given the discussions we had on the earlier amendment on film relief for the audiovisual sector, we have concerns, and we do not want to do anything to facilitate poor quality employment or bogus self-employment. In my view, that is an issue in the film industry. There is a general lack of security in these kinds of industries for employees. We are seeking a review to ensure this is the best way of supporting employment in a sector that we consider to be strategically important.

As an aside, given the previous discussion, because the two are part of the same Finance Bill, it is telling that those who have given the Minister a particular viewpoint on section 481 – I accept I have given another viewpoint – did not want to go into a room with people who disagreed with them when the Minister asked them to agree in principle to set up a stakeholder forum where all views could be heard. The groups to which the Minister referred vetoed that, and they got away with it because they did not want to go into a room with people who had different viewpoints. In order to have a proper assessment of an issue, we need to get everybody in the room.

See this speech in context