Antiquated Law Costs Ireland Millions

Ireland’s betting shops have been laboring since 1931 under a law that requires them to close early for six months every year. Reforms are in the works to change that, and it could mean €20 million or more in extra tax revenue.

An 80-year-old restriction on betting shop hours may be costing the government of Ireland more than €20 million a year in revenue, according to the head of a trade group representing retail operators.

The estimate has added momentum to a movement to reform the 1931 law, which forces betting shops to close at 6:30 p.m. for six months every September, a restriction that also costs the equivalent of 500 jobs through reduced hours and lay-offs, said David Fitzsimmons, head of Retail Excellence Ireland.

The revenue loss is estimated based on reduced betting tax and other fees and the implications for welfare payments, the group said.

The ban is due to be swept away in the Gaming (Amendments) Act, but it needs to be passed before the summer recess in July to take effect in time for this year.

“Bookies are an important part of the fabric of our town centers and should be allowed to stay open later all year round,” Fitsimmons said. “It is important to ensure that this legislation goes through before the summer recess.”

The call came as Finance Minister Michael Noonan was asked to consider doubling license fees on gaming machines. The 1,672 devices in the country generate revenue of €765,000 a year, with 12-month licenses costing €505 and three-month licenses €145.

Anthony Lawlor, a representative in the Dail, called on Noonan to bring payments into line with those imposed on operators in Northern Ireland. “There is an opportunity here to raise money, which we should look into. I understand licenses in the North are around €1,000 per machine,” he said.

Noonan, however, was cool to the idea, saying, “It is not possible to compare the licence fees applicable to gaming machines in the State with those applying in Northern Ireland as the licensing and duty arrangements differ between the two jurisdictions.”