Sean Barrett (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Simon Harris, as the Minister, Deputy Michael Noonan, is otherwise engaged. From the point of view of economics, the first danger of a licensing system is that it is colonised by those with licences. We did that with taxis and pubs, and the licence becomes a piece of paper with a value attached to it because of the skill of insiders in keeping out new entrants. That is extremely bad in economic terms. I hope that this type of restrictive licensing is not envisaged in the Bill, but the word "licence" causes certain alarm bells to go off.

When the courts opened up the taxi business on the basis that people had a right to enter a sector for which they had the skills and training and the public had the right to the services of such persons, the regulators in the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport undid that by requiring new entrants to have vehicles which, according to ESRI estimates, cost about 90% more than the incumbents' vehicles and about a quarter more to run. Setting up barriers to new entrants contradicts the whole emphasis on innovation, enterprise and so on and the progress made in recent years, which we all welcome. I hope there is no element of restrictive licensing in this legislation. The last case that the taxis won was where the incumbents used licensing as a barrier to new entrants. Who is against new entrants? They are the new people. In this case, the old bookie's shop has lost market share to smarter people; I welcome that. If this is about tax avoidance, I am on the Minister's side. Of course companies should be taxed and brought into the system. From the point of view of tax collection I support what the Minister of State, Deputy Harris, and the Minister, Deputy Noonan, are doing, but if the Bill is a means of protecting old-fashioned bookies against new forms of betting, I am out so far as that is concerned.

There is an assumption that this money is for horses and greyhounds. That ignores what Senator Denis Landy has been saying for some time: the greyhound industry went bananas and wasted a great deal of money and the horse racing industry has had declining attendances for a long period. Why are they assuming the Minister is doing this for them? If we have a bet on who wins the Rose of Tralee or whether the Seanad should be abolished, that has nothing to do with horses and greyhounds. The money should go to the Exchequer. As Minister of State at the Department of Finance, I am sure Deputy Harris would welcome that. I ask him to convey my regards to the Minister, Deputy Noonan. The assumption that people betting on things that have nothing to do with horses and greyhounds will subsidise the horse and greyhound business at a time when there are so many vital social needs must be questioned. I do not regard subsidising greyhounds and horses at the expense of people as something we would want to do. We have much more deserving causes in every Deputy's and Senator's constituency office. We subsidise greyhounds and horses in the sporting field far more than human sport. I do not know what kind of priority that is. Both are industries. Industry should put money into the Exchequer.

I have had one representation stating that the amount of money put into horses and greyhounds should increase from €46 million to €80 million per year. That is an assumption based on some historical trends, and as a rational-thinking House of Parliament we should question that. If possible I will table an amendment on Committee Stage to ensure that the proceeds, whatever they are, go to the Exchequer and that the Minister of State and the Minister can decide what is done with them. There is an assumption that they will automatically go to two declining minority sports, because they always got money from people betting in betting shops and in bookies' shops and on race courses, and that computer-based betting on topics that have nothing to do with them will be another source of income for them. They might have to be informed that there are plenty of alternatives that we might like to consider.

The extension of the tax base is welcome. I will see how the Bill proceeds and table amendments to deal with the other aspect. This is not an automatic entitlement for two industries which seem to assume they have it. It is not for the incumbents in the industry to prevent innovation and keep out new entrants. The provision to increase the tax take on this untaxed source of possible revenues is the strong part of the Bill. What we do with the revenue might be a discussion for another day.