Barry Ward (Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

In response to what the Minister of State said, I join him in acknowledging the considerable funding that has been made available this year in the form of sports capital grants. Every one of us sees the impact that this kind of funding can have on local organisations, clubs and associations in our areas. It is very plain to see. I am thinking of places in my area such as Kilbogget Park, where an enormous amount of work could be done on foot of the funding to provide floodlighting, drainage, etc. That is just one aspect of what comes out of good-causes funding. The Minister of State has highlighted the importance of the benefits of the national lottery. The impetus behind this Bill from the word go was the desire to be able to channel and sustain as much money as possible for the good-causes fund so the likes of sports capital grants can continue.

On Second Stage, the Minister raised several issues. I realise we are talking about section 1 and that the primary issue the Minister raised relates to section 3. I am more than happy to engage on that issue. A legitimate issue has been raised regarding the wording and the difference between the terms. We will be quite happy to engage. I look forward to engaging with the Minister of State's office on that.

There are a couple of general points I would like to make on the Bill, including section 1. On gambling legislation, this is a separate issue. The national lottery is regulated and comes under a different Department. As the Minister of State knows, it is under the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform whereas the gambling issues fall under the Department of Justice. Gambling is a different beast in many ways. We do not have to go into all the details, but important factors are the strictures on the national lottery, the fact that it is run under licence and already regulated and the fact, perhaps primarily, that it gives back a social dividend, a contribution of almost 30% of its funding, in the form of good-causes funding. That is tremendously important and not to be sneezed at.

I note what the Minister of State said about the approach of the Minister, Deputy Michael McGrath, and his desire to put in place a measure that will protect the national lottery. As laudable as it might be to strengthen the link in people's minds between the national lottery and the good-causes fund - I support any campaign to do that - it is not enough. It will not make people invest in the national lottery over other gambling products, many of which would be cheaper.

Although we have mentioned good causes, the social dividend and all the rest of it, we should note the national lottery provides good to the society and economy of Ireland at all levels because shops we all know, including retail and grocery shops run by locals, including families, are also fed by the lottery. They operate as agents for the national lottery and get a payment if they sell a winning ticket. I am sure they all wish for that to happen, as do the potential winners.More than that, it drives footfall into small local businesses. We know we have a problem with online trading and with large multiples coming in to areas and sucking the life out of villages and towns. The national lottery is one of the vehicles we can use to ensure that people continue to frequent and spend money in local business and small shops. That is not to be ignored either.

There are myriad ways in which this is of benefit. I just do not think that a public information or marketing campaign to explain to people the good that comes from comes from spending money on a national lottery ticket is enough. We already know there is a specific element that is being diverted away from the national lottery and by extension from all the good causes and other benefits like driving footfall into local shops. We know that is being driven away. The only way to tackle that is with a legislative solution that is going to address this directly. That is what lies at the heart of the Bill.

I am aware of the issues the Minister of State raised in the context of proportionality. I do not agree with him. I am always slow to disagree with the Attorney General, who is a far greater lawyer than I ever will be, but I feel that it is a capitulation in many ways to suggest that somehow the bookmaking industry has a legitimate expectation - I know the Minister of State did not use that term - or has some kind of right to stop this from happening. I do not accept that.

The Minister of State said that any legislation that is going to end in protracted litigation is not a good thing. Sometimes that is exactly what is required. I would hope it would not happen and I would not desire it. It would be bad for everyone in this case. There are times when we need to take a stand, however. In the context of all the good that we can derive as a society, an economy and a country from the national lottery it seems that this is a proportionate measure.

I take on board the point the Minister of State makes about the capacity of bookmakers to switch and change. This is a party-political point but like some parties, they can change their colours to do what needs to be done at the time. I accept that is the case but we must do what we can without our sphere of influence. If commercial bookmakers decide to run a product with foreign lotteries, there is a limited extent to which we can influence that. The national lottery is our lottery and it provides funds for our good causes and sports clubs. It drives footfall into our shops and communities. We can control the effect on that. The Bill is proportionate and is an effective way to do that. However, I recognise that the Minister of State has identified drafting flaws in it. I am happy to engage on that matter.