Labhrás Ó Murchú (Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I found today’s debate helpful and informative. We know what way the vote will go but it was interesting in the contributions that we did not divide on political allegiances. That is good in itself because we hear things which provide a consensus on the issue. The House and the country owes a debt of gratitude to Senator Marie-Louise O’Donnell because she approached the issue, not just in the House but in public debate on radio and television, in order to try to provide an informed and pragmatic appraisal of some of the issues involved. That is necessary in a debate. We all acknowledge generally that the Government and the country are in a difficult place. They are really between a rock and a hard place in trying to find solutions to the current economic difficulties. We all know from experience that in time of economic deprivation some decisions are made, not necessarily in a knee-jerk fashion, that we always regret subsequently.

I was impressed by Senator Sheahan. He was speaking for the person in the street and looking at the dangers of what is being suggested, namely, in some way the over-commercialisation of the lottery by allowing it out perhaps to some international gambling company. We will be putting gambling in people’s faces.

One of the difficulties we have is that when the children's hospital is brought into the debate as a quid pro quofor letting the national lottery go from the State for 20 years it makes that debate very difficult. It introduces emotion at too early a stage. It would be much more helpful if we could debate the pros and cons and then discuss whether we can have a national children's hospital if we do not go down this route. That, incidentally, is a bigger debate.

We seem to agree on a number of issues today, the first being that the national lottery is a national asset, in many ways akin to a national resource. As to mining the ore in the ground, we learned messages from that too when we let that asset go from the hands of the State. The immediate argument in favour of so doing was the money upfront but we forget that what we are actually selling off is the family silver. There is no doubt about that.

In this particular case we have arranged that at the end of 20 years the lottery will be handed back to us but I believe it will be very tarnished by that time. The national lottery has been very successful. We cannot doubt that at present it is an integral part of the national economy. There are many good causes that could not continue without the revenue that comes from the national lottery. Therefore, the biggest issue is whether we are again creating problems down the road for the next generation. To some extent I believe that is what is happening. By setting the bar so high in regard to the revenue involved we are going to make it exceptionally difficult for us to provide any control mechanism. We will also make it difficult to have a fair competition for the actual licence. In fairness, it is not even clear in the Bill what percentage of the income will go to good causes. "Good causes" is a general term but it is also a very sweeping term. We are talking about health in the community, sports, recreation, arts and culture - about virtually every aspect of society at present. If the children's hospital and the amount of money we need to generate for it are the main issue, it would be better if we could take on board some of the points made in today's debate. Senator Quinn is right. If some points have been missed they should be revisited and reconsidered by the Government because it will take only a short period to know if we have made a right or wrong decision in this regard.

If we are to go ahead with the Bill, as it seems will happen, it requires much tweaking at this stage. It is very short on specifics. I realise we have not discussed some of the specifics outlined in the Minister's speech but the Bill is short on them. We should build in certain protections to cover the very issues which were raised today. It is still possible to arrive at a compromise. From the language used even by those Members who are promoting the Bill, I could see they had reservations, some very strong, on certain points. We could see that even from the last speaker, who is one of the great contributors in the Seanad. Would it not be well worthwhile if we slowed down the momentum, went back to the drawing board and took on board some of the very strong points that have been made in the Chamber? They should not be ignored. The one message coming across to me is that we appreciate the Government's position and we do not have immediate answers as to where it will find the money required for the children's hospital. However, given the standard of research and debate shown today in the Seanad it is well worthwhile bringing the Bill back to the table and taking another look at it. I do not know whether it is within the remit of the Minister to do that but this is one of the times when we should not divide on political allegiances. We must think first of the country, and not only the country as it is now but how it will be in 20 or 30 years' time. The Minister will have noted there was a great degree of what I would call conciliation today, almost a suggestion of compromise. I would hate to think that would not be accepted in some way and taken into the equation.