Feargal Quinn (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Simon Harris, who is getting fond of this House. We are getting fond of him too on that basis. When I looked at the Bill I realised that I know very little about betting and very little about gambling.

I got to Las Vegas once, on the day of the Kentucky Derby. I met someone on the aeroplane to America who told me there was an Irish horse running called Something in Cork. I put $5 on it. I thought I was putting on an each way bet, but that was not the case. As I won $50, I was in danger of becoming hooked after one visit to Las Vegas.

I welcome the legislation which has taken a long time to get here; it is overdue. The essential element is extending the 1% betting duty to online and telephone bets, which I understand. It also updates - this is much needed - the 1931 legislation which states that unless there is horse racing, betting shops must close at 6.30 p.m. from September through to March, a stipulation that rather surprised me. At the same time online betting websites are available 24 hours a day. Obviously, we need to update the legislation to address such issues and I am pleased to see that the Minister has done this.

I am unsure why gambling on lotteries and betting at bookmakers or via the totaliser at horse and dog tracks are not subject to VAT. This matter has been raised by others also and I am unsure as to the reason for it. It has been explained that the provision dates back to the 1970s when an EU directive was introduced aimed at ensuring charity lotteries and such like would not have to pay VAT. I have been pushing the case for defibrillators and asked whether they could be VAT-free or exempt from VAT since they are life-saving devices. I have argued that by reducing the cost, we could have more in operation which would, in turn, save more lives. I hope to discuss this issue in the next week or so following the announcement to be made today on the matter. I have been told that there is no way to remove VAT from defibrillators because it would be against EU rules. However, betting is exempt from VAT and I do not understand why. I see a moral difficulty where an activity like betting which harms so many families in the country is exempt, while a defibrillator which can be used to save someone's life is subject to VAT. I realise the Minister of State probably cannot address that question today, but, as a public representative, I find it difficult to explain to the public.

At 1%, betting duty is remarkably low. We should at least move back to the 2% levy which was in place as recently as 2006. Let us consider an example in one of our EU neighbours. In Estonia betting and remote gambling operators must pay a 5% tax on their net profits.

I am concerned that all of the revenue raised is used to fund the horse racing and greyhound racing industries. This is an issue which has been commented on by others in the House today. I am keen to see the revenue being more evenly spread. In particular, we should be investing in grassroots sports and not only the GAA. This is a small country and our success at major sports events such as the Olympics Games is relatively minor. However, we could do far better with more targeted investment which would really help. People bet on football matches and so on, but none of the money actually goes towards helping young Irish football players. We are well aware of the lack of talent coming up through the ranks. Studies have shown that there has been a massive drop-off in sports participation by young girls in secondary schools. What about imposing an extra 1% in betting duty which could be used directly to fund grassroots sports? If the Minister of State is considering the imposition of extra levies, he could do far worse than taking on board this particular idea, on which I am keen to hear his view.

Will the Minister of State expand on the issue of possible money-laundering? In particular, what moves have been made in this area in the European Union? What is Ireland's position on the matter? Are we waiting for EU legislation or is the Government doing anything in the meantime?

The Bill should be discussed in the context of the upcoming Gambling Control Bill. Countries such as Germany have increased controls on advertising and limited the amounts customers can gamble. Should we have some limits on the amounts people can gamble? We should at least examine following Germany's lead in this regard.

I am keen to see hard figures for betting shops and socioeconomic backgrounds. Let us consider the figures produced by the Campaign for Fairer Gambling in the United Kingdom. They show that bookmakers have targeted the poorest areas with the highest unemployment rates, lowest income levels and highest crime rates. Are similar figures available in this country? Is the Minister of State open to conducting a similar study? We are all aware of the proliferation in the number of betting shops on town streets, let alone in online gambling. We need to find out if companies are explicitly targeting poorer areas. Should we then limit the number of betting shops in poorer areas? Should communities have the right to decide there are too many betting shops in their areas? Given the problems associated with gambling, should the industry be allowed to sponsor and advertise wherever it pleases? We talk about restricting alcohol advertising. Should we restrict gambling advertising? I do not like to interfere and do not believe we should make this a nanny state, but there should be some thought given to the matter. Since we are so careful to ensure we restrict alcohol advertising, perhaps we should restrict other forms of advertising also.

Should we oblige some of the large gambling companies to pay back a certain percentage of their profits to the customer? I do not have a precise figure in mind, but I understand that in Italy certain online games operators must pay back at least 90% of the money waged. There was a rule about slot machines also. I have not seen this issue addressed anywhere and wonder whether the Minister of State has considered anything along these lines.

I find myself talking about the need to ensure we do not make this a nanny state, yet I am introducing various such suggestions. I am not an enthusiast of gambling. I hate to see persons who are less well off spending their money on gambling. Someone has to win, but it is seldom the gambler.