Marie Louise O'Donnell (Independent) | Oireachtas source

To address Senators Eamonn Coghlan and Hayden, just because a person says something once, does not mean that he or she cannot say it twice or thrice. I am entitled to table the same Private Member's motion as many times as I like. The patronising of me has been extraordinary. It is as if I needed to be talked to. The patronising is obfuscation.

The Minister is a worthy opponent. When I stated "opponent" previously, I meant it in the most gracious sense, in that my opinion and belief in this matter differ from his. I take him at his word, but selling the lottery licence is wrong and I am opposed to it. Senators must stop hiding the sale behind renewal. They are different issues, but they are being married together as if one is necessary because the other is being done.

I accept the Minister's statement that he has not met any bidders, but his Department has been speaking with someone. He has no discretion in whether to hold a competition for the next lottery licence. As he stated, if the Government does not hold one, its members will go to jail. However, it was a Government decision to sell. I suggested a figure of ¤500 million because it was quoted in our most learned newspapers. I read numerous articles. We could sell the licence for an upfront payment of ¤500 million, to the highest bidder or for an amount of between ¤300 million and ¤500 million. Even though I am against the sale, I would like to believe that, if it was done and the Apaches got me in the end, it would be sold for the highest price. We are discussing the pennies of the poor.

Whether the Government ring-fences the 30.5% for good causes is not the issue. Rather, the sale is the issue. If the Government is going to open up online gambling, why can we not attempt it? Why must it be meted out to someone else, be it Lottomatica or GTECT? Why can we not get the profits? Why must we always copy elsewhere? Why is New South Wales the guru for what we should be doing? I have stated all of this earlier. Why would someone give the State ¤200 million, ¤300 million or ¤600 million unless he or she was going to get something in return? I do not care whether a company gets that something next week or the week after, but it will get a major return over 20 years. That money should come to us.

An Post cannot bid. From where will it get ¤500 million or ¤400 million? It will not be able to bid. It may be a partner, but only a small partner in such a bid. We should get the money upfront. Regardless of whether we restrict, tax or legislate for the upfront money, the consortia bidding - the GTECTs and big gaming boys - will take in a great deal of money. Consider the ESRI report. That money belongs to the disadvantaged, the less well-off, the poor, the dreamers and the me. It is our money, which has been held brilliantly. An Post is unmatched in how it has run the system. Let An Post do it. Let An Post open up online gambling. Let An Post be our new Lottomatica.

There is an hypothecated lottery in England. It is big word that means a parallel draw, which is done one day per week and was used for the Olympics. I would like to see the evidence of how it undermined good causes. The claim that good causes would be undermined if the Irish lottery's Wednesday draw was opened up to include the national children's hospital is disingenuous, given the fact that Ireland is the most generous country in the world.

The time has come and gone, given the figure for Government bonds is at 3%.

To address Senator Noone, how does an upfront payment ensure a boost to the taxpayer? She mentioned that gambling was frightening and it was a pity that we needed to sell. Gambling is not frightening for the gaming boys who will buy the licence. We cannot ask the poor to bail out gambling casinos. I will try not to allow it to happen. Good causes will be cordoned off, but I do not want the profits on my lottery ticket going to a pension fund somewhere in Ontario.