Brendan Ryan (Labour)

The alternative to a liberal and open regime on alcohol or gambling is one of protecting people when they cannot handle them. I am not being patronising but society must prevent commercial forces from stealing people's childhood ahead of time. This is distinct from protecting young people from alcohol, drugs, sex or gambling. There is a commercially driven tendency to reduce the term of childhood, whether through the sales of cosmetics, clothes or teenage magazines.

For some people, gambling can become a wholly destructive addiction. South Kildare, as good gambling territory, has well-grounded anecdotes about the deeds of farms being thrown into poker schools at six o'clock in the morning. I do not know if such events happened. However, there is ample evidence of many families driven close to destitution by the addictive gambling of a family member. It is a pity the Minister, in opposition to the nanny state, has nailed his colours to the mast, given his previous incumbency as the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform. Such a remarkable reversal of roles must be welcomed.

Other than inconvenience, there is no other convincing argument for not restricting access to this form of serious gambling. Penny slot machines are one matter, but this is serious gambling to people old enough to take responsibility for themselves. The argument that funds might be lost is dangerous and flawed. If the amounts of money gambled by people under 18 years are large enough to reduce the funding available through the tote, then it is a big problem. Young people should not be in a position to gamble that much. If they are, then they are well on the way to serious problems.

Those opposing the Bill argue that the sums of money involved are trivial. If that is the case, then for once we are closing the stable door before the horse has bolted. Laws concerning access to alcohol were created when most people under 18 years had no disposable income and could not afford to drink. This regime persists yet young people now have large disposable incomes. The same will happen in the case of the tote. What objections has the Minister to accepting this Bill in principle? I accept an ongoing study is being conducted, but why can it not run in parallel with this Bill? Slot machine gambling is allowed, through the technology the Minister described, at a race meeting in Leopardstown. However, it is ironic that one is prohibited by the local by-laws in doing the same outside the course. Unless the public is screaming, Governments always put aside and delay Private Members' Bills. Senator Cummins will just be patted on the head and thanked for raising a matter of some concern. I would be disappointed if Senator Cummins started to raise matters which were not of some concern to him. That is not much of a compliment. Is there really a Government consensus that it might be acceptable for people under 18 years of age to have unregulated access to serious gambling? Is there really a Government consensus, discussed and agreed at Cabinet, that it might be okay because for most of us, it would not be?

Since we have an obligation to give people time to grow up and to protect people until they are old enough to make rational choices, to have money of their own and to act independently of their parents, the principle of this legislation, whatever about the detail, should be accepted. I, and the Labour Party, will support it.