Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 16 Jun 1976

Vol. 291 No. 8

Public Hospitals (Amendment) Bill, 1976: Second Stage.

Minister for Justice (Mr. Cooney)

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

The main purpose of the Bill is to increase the expenses allowable to the promoters of sweepstakes held under the Public Hospitals Acts, 1933 to 1940 from 30 per cent to 40 per cent of the net receipts. The audited accounts of the sweepstakes held in the last two years indicate that the expenses of the promoters have exceeded 30 per cent of the net receipts and they have said that it is impossible for them to continue to run the sweepstakes within the limits of the expenses allowed by the Acts.

May I remind the House that the Acts authorise the holding of sweeps in aid of the Hospitals Trust Fund by sweepstake committees appointed by the governing bodies of hospitals and provide that the scheme for each sweep must be sanctioned by the Minister for Justice. The Acts provide that the amount of the net receipts of any sweep which may be applied to the payment of expenses must not exceed 30 per cent or such lower percentage as the Minister for Justice when sanctioning the scheme for any sweepstake may determine. They provide also that the balance of the net receipts after payment of expenses, prizes and stamp duty must be paid into the Hositals Trust Fund.

The Hospitals Trust Fund is managed by the Hospitals Trust Board, a body appointed by the Minister for Health, and payments out of the fund are made to hospitals and nursing organisations on the directions of the Minister for Health. Section 6 of the Public Hospitals Act, 1933, provides that whenever the participating hospitals propose to hold a sweepstake, a sweestake committee must prepare and submit to the Minister for Justice a scheme specifying, among other things, particulars of the prizes intended to be distributed, the date, place and manner of the draw, the price of tickets, the maximum amount which may be expended by way of commission, prizes or other remuneration in relation to the sale of tickets, the proportion of free tickets to be allotted as reward to sellers, the date on which the sale of tickets is to commence, and the name of the chartered accountant who is to audit the accounts relating to the sweepstake.

Up to 1973 the amount spent on promoters' expenses for each sweepstakes was approximately 25 per cent of the net receipts. Gradually throughout 1973 that percentage crept up almost to the statutory limit of 30 per cent. In the first sweep in 1974 the expenses amounted to 29.32 per cent and the promoters, Hospitals Trust (1940) Ltd., indicated that the figure could not continue to be contained within the limit of 30 per cent because of increasing cost of salaries, wages, stationery, printing, postage and so on. In 1974 the promoters sought an increase in the price of sweep tickets from £1 to £2 and an increase in the super prize from £200,000 to £400,000. These changes came into effect in relation to the Cambridgeshire, 1975, which was run in October, 1975, and in the meantime the actual expenses incurred in running sweepstakes in 1974 and in the first half of 1975 were in excess of 30 per cent of the net receipts.

Figures taken from the audited accounts show that the expenses in relation to the Cambridgeshire, 1974, were 32.46 per cent, the Sweeps Hurdle, 1974, 32.19 per cent, the Lincoln, 1975, 34.44 per cent and the Irish Sweeps Derby, 1975, 35.68 per cent. The expenses in excess of 30 per cent of the net receipts of these Sweepstakes had to be borne by the promoters and this excess amounted to over £440,000 for the four sweeps. The promoters normally receive a fee for managing and organising a sweepstake, but in the cases I have instanced where the expenses were in excess of 30 per cent, this fee was not paid. The Cambridgeshire, 1975, which was the first sweep where £2 was charged for a ticket and a super prize of £400,000 given showed an improvement and the expenses of that sweepstakes were 30.05 per cent of the net receipts. The audited accounts for the Irish Sweeps Hurdle 1975, which is the latest sweep for which accounts are available, show that the expenses for that sweepstake came to 34.25 per cent of the net receipts.

In the light of these figures the Government accept that the statutory 30 per cent limitation is no longer realistic. The alternative to allowing the increase now sought is to see the sweeps go out of business with the consequent loss of direct employment to nearly a thousand people and a loss of a steady source of income to hospitals, as well as a loss of revenue in stamp duty. The salaries, wages and State insurance of employees now runs in excess of £2 million a year while expenses on such things as stationery, printing, postage, advertising and so on all help to generate employment and keep people in their jobs. In the circumstances it seems reasonable to raise the statutory limitations on the amount that may be paid on expenses from 30 per cent to 40 per cent of the net receipts and section 1, subsection (2) (a) of the Bill provides accordingly.

Section 1, subsection 2 (c), of the Bill proposes that the amount of the net receipts of a sweepstake that must go to the Hospitals Trust Board together with stamp duty shall not be less than 30 per cent. This is to replace the present requirement that not less than 20 per cent of the net receipts must be so paid. When approving the increase in the price of tickets from £1 to £2 and the increase in the super prize from £200,000 to £400,000, the Government made it a condition that this amount should be increased to a minimum of 30 per cent of the net receipts and, accordingly, the proposal in the Bill, when enacted, will do no more than give statutory force to an existing arrangement which has been provided for by me in the scheme for each sweepstake since the price of a ticket was increased to £2. In this regard Deputies might wish to know that the total amount paid to the Hospitals Trust Fund from sweepstakes up to and including the Irish Sweeps Hurdle 1975, was over £81½ million.

I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. G. Collins

Up to 1973 it is obvious that the promoters of the sweepstakes were able to operate under the Public Hospitals Acts, 1933 to 1940. Under the Acts, as they were, the promoters had to come to the Minister for Justice each time a sweep was organised to get a licence for the particular sweep. The full details of the sweep concerning expenses, prizes and also of free tickets I gather had to be submitted for examination to the Minister for Justice at the time the licence for the particular sweep was sought.

We are now told that the situation changed somewhat in 1973 in that the percentage ceiling, which is laid down in the Acts, of up to 30 per cent was not sufficient to meet the expenses of the sweep. I understand that until 1973 the expenses were in the region of 25 per cent. We are told that from 1973 onwards the expenses increased considerably. We have been told by the Minister today that the Cambridgeshire of 1974 was 2.46 per cent over the limit and that the Sweeps Hurdle of 1974 was 2.19 per cent over the limit. The Lincoln of 1975 was 34.44 per cent, again 4.4 per cent over the top and the Sweeps Derby of 1975 was the highest in that it was 35.68 per cent or 5.68 per cent over the top.

I further understand that the trend which it is evident has been in existence from the Cambridgeshire, 1974 to the Sweeps Derby of 1975, did not continue because in the Cambridgeshire, 1975, there was almost a break even situation. The percentage expenses were 30.05. The Sweeps Hurdle, 1975, unfortunately, had a dramatic increase from 30.05 per cent to 34.25 per cent. In terms of money these increases mean a considerable amount. The Cambridgeshire, 1974, which ran at 32.46 per cent increase meant that there was a shortfall, according to the auditors, Craig Gardner, of approximately £80,000. There was a shortfall in the Sweeps Hurdle, 1974, when it ran to 32.9 per cent, of £67,298.

The Lincoln, 1975, increased by well over 2 per cent from the previous sweep. It went up to 34.44 per cent, which meant that in money terms there was a shortfall of £129,287. As I said earlier, the steepest increase of all was for the Irish Sweeps Derby, 1975. The increase then was to 35.68 per cent which meant in money terms that the shortfall was £166,834. It was heartening then to see after such huge shortfalls that for the Cambridgeshire, 1975, we almost had a break even situation for the maximum percentage expenses allowed under the Act of 30.05 per cent, which in money terms is £1,475. That was a small increase which was not maintained, because in the immediate sweep after that we had a big jump again to 34.25 per cent.

I am at a loss to understand why we have such large fluctuations. Perhaps the Minister might be able to explain to us why the expenses varied so much. I understand as well that there was a shortfall over those five or six sweeps of somewhere in the region of £500,000. I can readily understand why the promoters of the sweeps have now come to the Minister for Justice looking for an increase in the percentage which they are allowed so that they might be in a break even situation.

One of our national daily newspapers, in relation to the legislation we are now discussing, was at pains to point out that the expenses, as they thought, being allowed to the promoters in the Bill were to be a blanket 40 per cent. That is not true. That is the maximum percentage which can be given by the Minister and only, I am sure, after a proper and thorough examination of the application for the licence for the particular sweep. It is certainly a big increase raising the limit from 30 per cent to 40 per cent. Another newspaper contributor referred to the increase being only 10 per cent; but for the sake of being accurate at all times it should be pointed out that the increase is much higher than 10 per cent, that it is 33? per cent.

No doubt the Minister and the Department will as in the past, ensure that only the percentage which should be allowed will be allowed for each sweep. It is obvious that for the past five or six draws, the promoters of the sweepstakes found themselves in a shortfall situation so that a contribution had to be made to cover expenses. This shortfall was in the region of £500,000. It appears that unless this increase is granted the sweepstakes promoters will not be in a position to continue. Many of us would be sorry to see this happen. These sweepstakes are the world's largest. They have contributed many millions of pounds towards hospitals and for hospital purposes. The small numbers of millions given in the thirties and forties might appear little by today's terms but we should endeavour to measure the value of money then compared with its present day value if we are to assess the contribution made by the promoters of these sweeps to the hospitals' programme.

Another aspect of this that must be taken into consideration is that between 700 and 800 people are in direct employment in the promotion of these sweeps. I am sure that many Members of this House as well as people outside have had representations at various stages in connection with employment in the organisation. With all due respect to the organisers and to those who work in Irish Hospitals Trust, many people found jobs in the organisation when they would have had much difficulty in finding jobs elsewhere. If this new ceiling for expenses were to be refused, it is likely that those 700 or 800 people would be faced with redundancy. I am informed that something must be done if that situation is to be avoided and that the proposal here is the only way of dealing with the problem. Having regard to the very high unemployment figure today there is hardly anybody here or elsewhere who would wish to see that figure increased. Many of the people employed in the organisation might be unemployable in other walks of life. Apart from those who are employed directly in Irish Hospitals Trust I understand that there are, perhaps, another 100 or 200 people involved in indirect employment, people such as suppliers of printing and other materials. These, too, would be placed in a serious position in regard to their job security if the sweepstakes were to be discontinued.

Perhaps the Minister will be able to explain to us why it was that up to 1973 the amount spent on promoters' expenses for each sweepstake was approximately 25 per cent of the net proceeds but that, gradually, through 1973 up to the present, this figure increased to 35 per cent and more. Has the increase in prize money been a factor in this situation? These sweepstakes had a monopoly on the international scene for a number of years but because of financial difficulties many big cities such as New York, and some countries have found it necessary to operate big sweeps. Has this situation been an element in the decreased income to our sweepstakes in recent times?

On the other hand, the changing value of money may have been a factor in this situation. Certainly, inflation must be responsible to some extent when one realises the increases that have been granted in wages and so on. However, if we want the sweepstakes to continue with the present employment situation, if we want them to function under licence from the Minister for each draw, with all details being supplied for examination, we must help them in the way proposed.

Mr. O'Malley

I wish to make a few observations in relation to the Bill and in relation to some aspects of the Irish Hospitals Sweepstakes. The first point I would make is that the nub of the difficulty which one encounters in relation to the sweepstakes lies in section 2 of the Public Hospitals Act, 1933. This is a short section which sets out how the amount of money described in the accounts as proceeds of the sale of tickets is to be arrived at. The section reads:

When calculating for the purposes of this Act the amount of moneys received from the sale of tickets in a sweepstake, the value of tickets issued free of charge by way of reward to a seller of tickets shall be excluded from the calculation, and there shall be deducted from the nominal selling price of all other tickets all commissions, prizes, and other remuneration given in relation to the selling of such tickets.

The effect of that section, which dominates the whole question of the accounts of the sweepstakes, is to enable an undisclosed sum to be deducted, quite legally and lawfully, before the figure as shown in the accounts as proceeds from the sales of tickets is arrived at. What gives rise to some concern is that, while it is lawful to deduct these figures in this way or to deduct the various expenses which apparently can be incurred abroad, there is no way whereby the auditors or the Minister for Justice can know the amount of such expenses.

The expenses we are talking about in this Bill are a completely different set of expenses from the expenses that are incurrable and deductible in accordance with the terms of section 2 of the 1933 Act. What we are talking about here today are the expenses of the promoters which are audited by an eminent firm of chartered accountants with whose audits I am totally satisfied. Let us be clear at the outset that we are talking only about the second and audited set of expenses and not about what it is lawful to deduct by way of commission, expenses, prizes and what the Act refers to as other remuneration paid in relation to the selling of tickets.

During my time as Minister for Justice one of the aspects of the sweepstakes which caused me concern from time to time was the fact that under section 2 of the 1933 Act I was not aware of the extent of these expenses and neither had I any way of becoming so aware. I was perfectly satisfied in relation to the expenses shown in the accounts. Section 2 of the 1933 Act— I understand that this is a re-enactment of a similar provision in the Public Charitable Hospitals Act, 1930, when the sweepstakes were established— allows something that is pretty open-ended. I am not suggesting that section 2 of the 1933 Act was abused because I cannot prove that there was abuse, but it is known that substantial payments were made quite lawfully in countries outside Ireland in relation to this. Nevertheless, one would get a truer overall picture of the financial situation of the Irish Hospitals Sweepstakes if what the promoters are allowed to exclude by virtue of section 2 of the 1933 Act were made public.

When I say "made public" I do not mean that it should be shown to the public at large. However, I think that the Minister for Justice should know what is intended when he is being asked to sanction payments for the sweepstake, and he should also be given some account of the payments excluded by virtue of section 2 in previous sweepstakes. My experience as Minister for Justice was that that information was not forthcoming. There was no statutory obligation that it should be forthcoming as the law stood and as it now stands. Therefore neither the Minister nor the public can form a true picture of the overall situation in the absence of this information. This is the nub of the whole question when one is discussing the financial affairs of the Irish Hospitals Sweepstakes. If one is not in possession of the full facts one cannot have an informed opinion in regard to them.

In relation to the functions of the Minister for Justice in sanctioning these sweepstakes, Deputy Collins and the Minister mentioned that the Minister's sanction had to be obtained in advance. The Act sets out the date on which the sale of tickets can commence. My experience as Minister for Justice was that the sweepstake in question was already well under way by the time I was asked to sanction the holding of it. When I pointed out that sanction should be given and that the scheme should be signed before any tickets were sold, I was told that it was necessary to sell tickets in the USA and Canada a long time before the running of the race on which the sweepstake was being held and that it would not be feasible to give the scheme to the Minister for sanction at an earlier date. I had some misgivings about that, but I was faced with a situation in relation to that, as I was in relation to other aspects of the Hospitals' Trust: I did not want to interfere because several hundred people were employed in the organisation. As Deputy Collins said, they were people who would have difficulty, even in those days of comparatively full employment, in finding alternative employment. Of course, today the position is even worse. If many of the people who are employed in the sweepstakes did not labour under certain disadvantages they would still find it difficult to get employment today. That is the factor which must permeate our thinking in relation to this Bill and to the Irish Hospitals Sweepstakes in general. If the sweepstakes were discontinued, several hundred people would no longer be in employment and a net figure of about £4 million per year would be lost to us in terms of foreign earnings.

It is proposed to increase the post-section 2 expenses, the audited expenses, from 30 per cent to 40 per cent. It is also proposed to regularise the existing position to give 30 per cent to the hospitals' fund. This decreases the prize fund from 40 per cent to 30 per cent and, accordingly, there has to be a fairly substantial drop in prizes as a result of this. I am sure the Minister and the promoters appreciate that this is likely to affect the future commercial success of the sweepstakes. Section 12 (2) (b) of the 1933 Act contained a provision that the expenses of holding the sweepstake should not exceed 7 per cent of the moneys received from the sale of tickets as defined by section 2. For some reason that I do not understand that was taken out in the 1940 Act, but my recollection in relation to the promoter's fee is that for some time it has been 6 per cent. I cannot understand why it was decided in 1940, and again now, not to include in this section which is now being inserted instead of section 12 of the 1933 Act, the same limitation that was in the 1933 Act.

Over the last four or five sweepstakes no organisation and management fee has in fact been earned because the amount of the expenses equalled or exceeded the 30 per cent. This is a phenomenon that has only arisen from late 1973 or early 1974 onwards. It may have been true of one or two sweeps during the war also, when due to war-time conditions the proceeds were abnormally low, but generally speaking the amount earned by the promoters in organisation and management fee, up to approximately the end of 1973 was a figure slightly in excess of £10 million—this is apart from any other income that might derive to the promoters from any other aspect of the hospital sweepstake.

I can recall that a proposal was made either shortly before or after I became Minister for Justice, as to the intention of the promoters to run four sweepstakes a year instead of three. At that time the income from organisation and management fee to the promoters was very substantial indeed, and would have run at well over £¼ million a year. The suggestion was made either by my predecessor or by myself, that if a fourth sweepstake was being run, in view of the three that were being run, it would only be equitable that the management fee or percentage take would be increased because we had a situation at that time that for a very long number of years there had been substantial fees drawn by the promoters, and it would appear that the running of a fourth sweepstake in the year would simply have the effect of increasing further the total amount which they would take.

At that time discussions were held between my Department and the representatives of the promoters and the representatives of the promoters agreed that it was likely that the holding of a fourth sweepstake would certainly increase their income, but they regarded this as fair, because of the provision in the 1933 Act, as amended by the 1940 Act, that if the expenses were going to exceed 30 per cent they, the promoters, would have to bear whatever losses were entailed as a result of such an excess over 30 per cent in the audited expenses, the post-section 2 expenses.

After a good deal of discussion it was finally agreed that we would not seek to reduce the percentage to which the promoters would be entitled for organisation and management fee, on the clear understanding that if the sweep ever did run into this kind of difficulty, the promoters would carry the loss. At that time, in the early seventies that seemed a very remote contingency indeed, but this has happened and the expenses ratio of the audited part of the expenses now exceeds 30 per cent. In considering the proposition that is put to us now to increase the overall ratio of expenses by 33? per cent, up to 40 per cent, one has to take account of the fact that very substantial sums indeed were drawn up to late 1973 or early 1974 by the promoters over a very lengthy period from organisation and management fee alone. I do not want it to be alleged that I am in any sense begrudging the promoters of the sweepstake the fact that they were in a position to draw that amount by way of organisation and management fee for the work they did. Whatever wealth they acquired from their promotion and operation of the sweepstake it can certainly be said that it was a boon to Irish industry generally. There was very heavy investment by the families concerned in industrial and commercial undertakings in this country in earlier years when it was less obviously profitable to make such investment as it became in later years, and some of the undertakings when this investment was made were probably very shaky undertakings even though they subsequently became prosperous undertakings. Nevertheless we are faced with this situation, and we should bear in mind that the amount drawn by way of organisation and management fee over the years by the promoters was very large.

One of the reasons it was allowed to remain at a comparatively high percentage figure was as an insurance for the promoters against the day that might possibly arise when they would be forced into a situation where they would have to carry part of the expenses. This has now happened. However, it is reasonable to ask that if the audited expenses have increased fairly dramatically over the last two or three years, as they appear to have, have the other expenses which are not audited and which are allowed by section 2 of the 1933 Act to be deducted before arriving at this figure of proceeds of sale of tickets, also increased in approximately the same proportion? If they have, is the Minister aware by virtue of the fact that he is introducing this legislation, what the approximate amount of such expenses are?

There was a very extensive and deeply researched article on the whole question of the Irish Hospitals Sweepstakes in the Sunday Independent on 21st January, 1973 by Mr. Joe MacAnthony, which caused some controversy at that time, and in the course of that article Mr. MacAnthony estimated that the actual total gross proceeds from the sale of tickets in the Irish Hospitals Sweepstakes is approximately one-third higher than the figure which is lawfully returned to the auditors by virtue of section 2 of the Public Hospitals Act, 1933. If that is still the case, it would suggest that the gross proceeds of the average sweep nowadays is close to £4½ million. The latest accounts which I have been able to obtain are those for the Cambridgeshire of 1975 which were circulated on 18th December, 1975. The Library has no later accounts although I think the Minister referred to the Irish Sweeps Hurdles of 1975, but that is not yet available in the Library. In that we have the situation where the proceeds from the sale of tickets in accordance with section 2 of the Public Hospitals Act, 1933, before providing sellers' prizes, was £3,382,000 and after deducting sellers' prizes it came to £3,297,230.

It is worth comparing the figure from the accounts quoted in Mr. MacAnthony's article of 21st January, 1973, for the sweepstake on the Cambridgeshire in 1972. At that time the tickets cost £1 each, which is half what they cost for the Cambridgeshire in 1975. The gross proceeds after deduction of sellers' prizes were shown as £3,916,000. That is a decrease of over £600,000 in the meantime. This would appear to indicate that the number of tickets actually sold and returned for the draw in the Cambridgeshire sweepstake of 1975 was significantly less than half the number sold and returned for the draw in the Cambridgeshire sweepstake of 1972. The money is over £600,000 less and the tickets cost twice as much. Therefore, the number of tickets actually sold and put into the draw was less than half the number in 1972.

It may be because sales of tickets have dropped dramatically over the past few years the ratio of expenses has increased. Unfortunately we may find ourselves in a kind of vicious circle because the number of tickets sold may decrease further due to the fact that the prize fund will be further depressed as it is being cut by 10 per cent.

In relation to the prizes there is an observation I should like to make about what is described by the Irish Hospitals Sweepstakes as their super prize. The super prize was originally brought in some years ago at £200,000. It was increased last year, I think, to £400,000 when the price of the tickets was doubled. For some reason which has never been explained to my satisfaction the winner of a super prize never gets £400,000. I think he gets £75,000 in cash and an annuity is bought for him which will give him a certain annual income for the remainder of his life.

From the point of view of the promoters or those providing the prize, the cost of the annuity clearly will vary enormously depending on the age of the winner of the super prize. You can buy quite a substantial annuity for an 80 year old man or woman comparatively cheaply whereas, if you want to purchase the same annuity for a 20 or 25 year old man or woman, the cost will be very much higher. It seems, therefore, there is a great element of luck, so far as the promoters of the sweepstakes are concerned, in who wins. The cost of providing the annuity will vary enormously depending on the age and the health condition of whatever person is lucky enough to win.

It seems to me that the original intention, and the intention which was carried out when the super prize was £200,000, was that the prize would be paid to the person and he could do what he liked with it. If he wanted to buy an annuity himself, or to invest it, he was free to do so. I do not know why that should not now be the case, and why there is a payment of £75,000 and a life annuity is substituted for what is advertised as a prize of £400,000.

It is worth noting the contrast between the Cambridgeshire of 1975 and the Cambridgeshire of 1972. Even before the severe contraction of 25 per cent in the prize fund proposed in this Bill, there was already a fairly substantial falling off in the amount paid in prizes. In the Cambridgeshire of 1972, £1,894,000 was paid in prizes, whereas in the Cambridgeshire of 1975, £1,331,000 was paid in prizes. The figure must now inevitably drop by 25 per cent, assuming the sale of the same number of tickets, which would be a drop of about £300,000 in prizes.

It should also be noted—I do think the Minister adverted to it in his opening remarks—that, while the hospitals' fund is now being increased to 30 per cent, the hospitals do not get 30 per cent of the proceeds as defined by section 2. The hospitals get 75 per cent of the 30 per cent of the proceeds as defined by section 2 and the State gets 25 per cent by way of stamp duty. One by-product, if you like, of this proposal in the Bill to ratify the increase to 30 per cent for the hospitals' fund is an increase in the State's take from the proceeds of each sweepstake.

In the Cambridgeshire of 1975 the amount the hospitals actually got was £741,000. Those are the latest accounts available in the Library. Assuming the Cambridgeshire of 1975 is fairly representative of four sweepstakes in any one year that would mean that the hospitals' take for a full year would be in the region of £3 million. I am not quite sure what the up-to-date figure is for health expenditure. It goes up so much from day to day almost, that one finds it difficult to keep up with it. Between capital and current expenditure, so far as I have been able to ascertain, the figure for the current financial year, 1976, for total health expenditure is in the region of £260 million. Therefore the contribution made by the Irish Hospitals Sweepstake towards our total health expenditure is a little over 1 per cent of the total expenditure.

Approximately £3 million is not a figure to be sneezed at. At the same time, one should look at the contribution of the hospitals sweepstake in relation to the entire expenditure. It appears to amount to a little over 1 per cent only. It is fair to say that in the thirties and the forties, when public expenditure generally was only a tiny fraction of what it is now, the Irish Hospitals Sweepstake made a significant contribution to the health of this country, to the cost of hospital buildings and to the meeting of deficits in voluntary hospitals, and so on.

The hospital building programme initiated after the war certainly could not have been undertaken without what was at that time a pretty substantial fund which had been accumulated during the war by the hospitals commissioners from the Hospitals Trust and which became available for spending in 1947-48 and onwards. A very useful and very valuable programme was carried out for which a high proportion of the credit must go to the Hospitals Trust. Their contribution now is very much less significant. There are voluntary hospitals running huge deficits every year, perhaps in the case of some of the bigger ones, approaching £1 million a year. When one sees the size of the deficits now being incurred by voluntary hospitals one realises that the contribution of the Irish Hospitals Trust, while welcome, is only a fraction of the significance it had for the country as a whole in times past.

Mr. MacAnthony's very lengthy but interesting article in the Sunday Independent is available to anyone who is interested and wants to read it, but I think it is only right that one of the things he provoked, as it were, should be referred to in this debate. That was a statement issued by a subcommittee of the associated hospitals sweepstakes committee. It was issued a couple of months after Mr. MacAnthony's article of 21st January, 1973, and it set out the system of running the sweep as provided for in the various Acts and assured the public by and large that the provisions of the Acts were being complied with as were the provisions of the schemes sanctioned by the Minister for Justice. Nobody denies that and Mr. MacAnthony never suggested the provisions of the Acts, except perhaps in minor ways, such as the timing of the submission of the scheme, were not complied with.

The matters that have given rise to concern both to Mr. MacAnthony and others who have written about the hospitals sweepstakes are matters outside the provisions of the Acts and outside the control of the auditors. The committee which dispenses the money when they get it from the promoters after the final audit are all people of the very highest integrity. Their function is simply to spend the money given to them by the promoters. They have no control whatever over the actual running of the sweepstake. Their function is simply to approve of what is given to them and make arrangements to distribute it in accordance with the directions. I think, of the Minister for Health. I believe for the most part the money is given to the various voluntary hospitals to help them to meet deficits. All these people perform their functions precisely as they should. They know very little, if anything, more than the ordinary public about the actual running of the sweepstake, about the expenses incurred, and so on, because it has nothing to do with them. It is not part of their function to know anything about that or to approve of anything. I am quite certain that these people, being persons of such eminence, would not approve anything they believe to be improper and it would be wrong for these people to react to any possible criticism of the Irish Hospitals Sweepstakes as being in any way a criticism of themselves.

There are two supervening difficulties in this whole question of the Irish Hospitals Sweepstakes. One is that section 2 of the 1933 Act is open-ended and enables one entire set of expenses to be incurred without any supervision by the Minister for Justice, the Oireachtas or a firm of auditors. There is no accountability, public or private, in relation to that set of expenses. The second supervening problem is the fact that there are several hundred people employed and it is very much in their interest, in the interest of their families and in the interest of the economy that their employment should continue. The Irish Hospitals Sweep brings into the country a figure of foreign currency which unfortunately is not growing but is a figure of several million pounds a year. These are earnings which would not otherwise be earned because 90 per cent of the sales are foreign sales. The bulk of the sales are in North America, Canada, Britain and Northern Ireland. These are all export earnings. These are the problems within which we have to discuss the question of the Irish Hospitals Sweepstakes and, because these difficulties exist, one is inhibited from being either as frank or as exact as one might be if these difficulties did not exist.

Mr. Molloy

This Bill seeks to increase the percentage of expenses incurred in the running of the sweeps from 30 per cent to 40 per cent. One point I should like the Minister to clarify—I am sure he will give us a satisfactory explanation—is why the figure of 40 per cent has been chosen when, according to the Minister, the expenses on the audited figures run roughly to 35 per cent. They have not reached 36 per cent. In 1974 the figures were 32.46 per cent and 32.19 per cent. In 1975 they were 34.44 per cent and 35.68 per cent. That would lead one to the conclusion that an increase to 35 per cent would have been adequate. I expect the Minister has evidence, remembering the message of gloom, that inflation is here to stay so long as this Government remain in office and we can look forward to a greater increase in costs and expenses. That is why he has chosen the higher level of 40 per cent.

I support Deputy O'Malley's argument with regard to section 2 of the 1933 Act which provides this extraordinary facility whereby expenses of the kind mentioned by Deputy O'Malley, the distribution of free tickets, the payment of commission and certain prizes do not have to be shown in the audited figures.

In view of what Deputy O'Malley has said and in view of the concern expressed in the country regarding this aspect of the finances of the hospital sweeps, I should like to ask the Minister whether he can allay public fears on this point. The vast majority of Irish people have very great pride in the hospital sweepstakes and see them as a great national lottery raising huge sums for a very worthy charitable cause but very few people have stopped to consider how the sweeps operate. Those who have sought to examine the operations of the sweepstakes are greatly inhibited through the inadequacy of the published figures. Certain documents which, under our law, are the audited accounts for the sweep are circulated to Deputies following each sweep but there remains the feeling that because of section 2 of the 1933 Act these audited accounts, although correct under the law, do not present a true and accurate picture of the manner in which money gathered from the sale of tickets is fully disposed of. If the figure mentioned by certain newspaper reporters is correct, one-third of the gross receipts are dissipated in the manner allowed under section 2 of the Act, concern must be expressed about that. When we have the opportunity to air the matter in the House now I should like the Minister who has the full responsibility under the law not only to see that existing legislation is properly carried out but that justice is seen to be done in this land, to say what the position is. I feel that any citizen who pays £2 for a ticket is entitled to know what percentage of that finds its way into the worthy, charitable cause after which the sweep is named.

From the limited figures available in the audited accounts and from the large unknown area provided for under section 2 it would seem that a very small percentage of the £2 paid for a ticket finds its way to the worthy cause for which the ticket was purchased, to help in the provision of adequate hospital facilities. I support fully the manner in which Deputy O'Malley has put this matter before the House. I should like to have the Minister's assurance that section 2 is being operated to his satisfaction. If the position is as Deputy O'Malley says, that the Minister for Justice is not given the full facts in relation to money spent under section 2 it is time that additional legislation was enacted to ensure that this information will be forthcoming.

The Minister referred to the years when the percentage of the expenses as estimated in the audited accounts exceeded 30 per cent and he said that expenses in excess of 30 per cent of the net receipts on these sweepstakes had to be borne by the promoters and that this excess amounted to over £440,000 for the four sweeps he mentioned, in 1974-75. Could the Minister clarify whether future audited accounts will show a repayment to the promoters of these moneys? We would like a full explanation on that point because it is being put across here that the promoters have agreed to carry this loss themselves. The fact that they have so readily carried this loss raises questions as to where the money has been going and the size of the moneys that have been distributed under this national lottery—of course, it is not national; it is operated to a great extent by a small group of individuals who are privileged to have been given that right under Irish legislation in the thirties. Whether it is right for us to continue extending that privilege under legislation is a question I would like to pose and I should like to hear the Minister's views on the points I have raised.

Major de Valera

This Bill should be seen in complete perspective. Basically, it is a question in the long term as to whether the activities of the hospital sweeps should continue or not. Having considered the matter, my party have decided not to oppose this Bill but there are certain aspects of the matter that should be adverted to. I want to advert to them to highlight the fact that we have made a positive decision to support this measure and to avoid implications of damning it by faint praise or otherwise. That is the basic issue in the long run as far as those of us with information available to us could make out. Approaching it in this way one would find the reason why Fianna Fáil are supporting the Minister on this measure.

The hospital sweep is a rather extraordinary activity judged from normal points of view. It is long-established in the State now and one can well understand the doubt about the whole approach to the matter but for more than 40 years now it has been a tried institution which has brought substantial benefit to the country. It has brought considerable foreign earnings here over the years and although the yield is very much less now than it was at its peak, it is still bringing in earnings and our present situation is not such that we can despise this. The second point is that, over the years, Irish hospitals have benefited very substantially from the activities of the sweepstakes. I think it is generally admitted that but for the moneys made available in this way progress in the development of our hospital services at certain critical times would not have been possible or would at least have placed a much heavier burden on the taxpayer than was necessary as a result of the inflow of these funds. I think the Minister mentioned a figure which is by no means negligible even in these days of very high inflation. Those two considerations give reason for pause when the question of the continuation of this activity is raised.

However, apart from that one can legitimately ask, apart from the hospitals, where has the other money gone? There have been suggestions outside this House about the money other than that given to the hospitals, but let us see what the effect has been. First of all, as pointed out, over the years the Hospitals Trust has supplied very valuable employment in many cases to people who were unemployed. It did a national service at one period of our history in being impartial to people who had been antagonistic at an earlier phase and it did a lot to heal the wounds of the civil war. But certainly the money earned and brought in by this organisation was in that respect pro tanto well applied.

It has also been admitted in this debate that there has been considerable investment in Irish industry resulting from this activity. One can safely say that moneys brought into this country by the Hospitals Trust organisation have been well invested in the country, apart from what has been directly given to the hospitals. One could point to specific industries, specific factories, and in one field— it is very difficult to measure the exact value of it but it is not inconsiderable —the direct and indirect beneficial effects on the Irish bloodstock industry and on Irish racing.

The very bringing in and earning of money abroad was equivalent to a substantial export over the years. Assistance was given to hospitals; employment resulted from activity both direct and indirect and there was investment in industry. Remember factories were financed with moneys that ultimately came from the profits of this organisation who employ and were employing significant numbers of Irish workers. Here is a case where money brought into the country was invested in the country and surely in these days when we are fighting hard to stimulate investment there is a case for recognising the efforts made in this direction. Lastly, then there are the direct and indirect repercussions—beneficial effects on the Irish bloodstock industry and on racing. These in summary are positive reasons why we accept this Bill. I found it necessary to say so in case the analyses that are being given should be interpreted otherwise.

With regard to the expenses, one of the problems here, it should be realised, and a number of people do realise, is that in the very nature of this activity abroad, particularly in states where this type of activity is not recognised and also where there is, as everybody knows now, considerable growth of competition, there must be a certain uncertainty, a fluctuation and need for reticence about these what one might call excluded expenses. Everybody can understand Deputy O'Malley's point here. He talks with reference to his experience as a Minister for Justice himself. But I do not think we can go, without a more careful examination, as far as to say that one would have to have a complete public analysis of this aspect in the nature of the thing. A very simple analogy may be made with ordinary competitive business. It is necessary in competitive business to keep certain matters confidential not because there is anything wrong but because of the exigencies and requirements of competition. Similar considerations hold in this case but it might be no harm to suggest that the Minister, who after all is an authorising officer so to speak, under the statute, should have available to him more specific information. But then, not having held the office and not having any details of it, I cannot say any more than that. I could also visualise that the Minister for Justice might be just as pleased not to have all the information in detail.

However, that is a substantial point in the debate all right, but, as I have said, the reason for my intervention was not to lose ourselves in that detail, which undoubtedly the Minister has taken notes of, but to look at the overall issue in this, which is whether this activity is to continue or not. In considering this, it is relevant to consider what their record has been and what they have done in the past. It may be that many people think that the promoters and people of that nature have apparently profited well from this activity. The question then is if it was worth it to the community. That is the test. To resort to any other would be to succumb to an all too prevalent disease in the modern world, the philosophy of envy. It is a question of objective fact here.

I, therefore, commend to the Minister the objective analysis of the points that have been made here in connection with some of these things, but to people at large, when all is said and done, unless there is something wrong proved—and there does not seem to be—innuendoes are unworthy things. All I would be concerned with would be that the Minister for Justice of the day would have the information to enable him to exercise his own proper control. With that I should be, and am, satisfied with regard to this Bill, with the organisation and with the purposes for which it is being offered to the House.

Dr. O'Connell

I have to confess to having grave reservations about this Bill. I feel that to say otherwise would be dishonest. I am aware of the fact that we are in a dilemma because I recognise that if this is not agreed in this House we may find over 700 people unemployed. It seems to me, and I must be frank, that it is putting the revolver to my head, that unless I agree to this we will have over 700 people unemployed. Believe you me, Sir, I have been intimidated by people in the last few months in regard to the Hospitals Sweepstake telling me that unless I voted for this there would be serious repercussions. I am not happy with the whole operation of the sweepstake. There is a smell about it. It has damaged our good name abroad and I do not think——

Mr. Cooney

Would the Deputy repeat what he said in regard to intimidation?

Dr. O'Connell

Yes, I have been intimidated by people—not in the House—that there would be serious repercussions if I did not vote for this Bill; I would be smeared in my constituency—this was conveyed to me just two weeks ago, last Sunday week —that I would be smeared in my constituency and everything done to get me out.

As I said, I am not happy about the Hospitals Sweepstake. It has a smell about it. It has damaged our good name abroad. I do not think we can be proud of the fact that the sweepstake operates properly. I have not had time to go over the Minister's speech but I have grave reservations about the whole of the Hospitals Sweepstake. People abroad are under the impression that the Hospitals Sweeps finance our hospital services. That is the great myth. Let me quote from the last part of the Minister's speech where he said:

In this regard Deputies might wish to know that the total amount paid to the Hospitals Trust Fund from sweepstakes up to and including the Irish Sweeps Hurdle, 1975 was over £81½ million.

I would have felt happier had the Minister continued that statement and given us the total amount collected by the sweepstake in the same period. I have not got the exact figure here but £81½ million is a very small percentage of what was collected. I felt that there should be more State control over the sweepstake. I feel there should be. Firstly, the accounts are not available to the public. The newspapers cannot get the accounts. They are available only to Deputies of this House and I think that is very wrong. There is not sufficient public accountability. I would like to see the Comptroller and Auditor General peruse and, perhaps, examine them in great detail. I would like to see details of the total number of tickets sold. We are not told that fact. I would like to see promoters debarred from participation in the sweepstakes. I would like to see the management fee examined by the National Prices Commission. I should like also, seeing that it is a monopoly, that contributions to political parties be made public. Finally, I should like to see a five year period only in respect of this Bill so that we might examine the situation again.

Under those circumstances I would be very happy to support it and feel we would be doing a good job in this House were we to ask the Minister to consider my proposals in regard to the sweepstake. I do not want to see people out of work. I do not think the sweepstake is any great example of employment conditions in this country but I am still conscious of the fact that we have a high unemployment rate and that we do not want to make the situation worse. I should like to see a time in the not too distant future when we may run a national lottery. I hope this Bill will be but a temporary one, that we will have more control over the sweepstakes and not leave a matter such as this, of such importance, in the hands of the private few where there is no public accountability.

Mr. Callanan

Our party have decided not to oppose this Bill. I am one of those, along with others, who have a certain amount of reservation about the whole of the running of the Hospitals Sweepstakes. I am not at all happy about the accounts. We have heard Deputy O'Malley, Deputy O'Connell and others speak on it, who are in a position to know, and I am not at all happy that the accounts are given to the Minister. There may be, as Deputy de Valera said, business reasons why the State cannot get them. Certainly the Minister of State should receive a full account of the way the money is being spent. That is something on which he should insist because we here are the people who should be setting the standards for the public. If there is anything fishy about the sweepstake—which has State sponsorship behind it—certainly people are likely to talk and they are talking. I can assure the House that they are talking down the country about this and about the amount of profit being made by directors and so on in that organisation.

I could not let this opportunity pass without expressing my opinion—and it is the opinion of the ordinary people down the country—which is that in regard to this increase now being sought there must have been an awful lot of money made down the years. I understand it is not making money at present but in view of the amount of money made they could afford to lose money for a while. From what I can gather the kitty must be fairly big at present.

I hope, as Deputy O'Connell said, this will be a temporary measure, that more control will be exercised. Indeed, Deputy O'Malley, a former Minister for Justice, pointed out that he was not happy at all with the accounts as presented to him. We must set standards in this House. We must insist on standards. There is no point in lowering the standards of this State, particularly of this House. I would ask the Minister to ensure that he receives a full account of the way the money is spent from now on.

Minister for Justice (Mr. Cooney)

I want to refer in the first instance to something that Deputy O'Connell said when he alleged that he had been intimidated in regard to this measure by people not in the House and he specifically said that he would be smeared in his constituency. This is possibly the most serious statement I have heard in this House, and there have been many serious statements made in the course of my comparatively short time here. I think if a Member of Parliament is subjected to that pressure it is intolerable but it is incumbent, more than incumbent, it is absolutely vital that that Member would make his complaint to the authorities of the State so that criminal proceedings could be taken against those responsible for this intimidation. That is essential and that must be done. I take it that the Deputy will do it for the protection of himself, for the protection of this House and for the protection of Members in it. I am glad to note, however, that no other Member—and there are many Members here whose views on this subject are known, views that might be deemed to be antagonistic to this particular operation—has been subjected to this pressure. Certainly, I have not been subjected to it.

Mr. O'Malley

On a point of order, would the Minister not consider that it would be more appropriate that the threat referred to by Deputy O'Connell should be investigated by the Committee on Procedure and Privileges, as it would appear prima facie to be a breach of the Privilege of the House?

Mr. Cooney

That would be one aspect of it but I am primarily concerned that it would appear to disclose something even more than that. When I say the proper authority, it could be those or it could be the Garda authorities as well. It is a matter for Deputy O'Connell to come forward to both authorities, if necessary so that this be fully investigated.

Mr. O'Malley

Could I request the Ceann Comhairle to refer the matter to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Members have recourse to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges and they could raise the matter——

Mr. O'Malley

The reason I ask was that in the past the Ceann Comhairle in the Chair appeared to direct that certain alleged prima facie breaches of privilege would be investigated by the committee. It appears on the face of it that this is an alleged prima facie breach.

Dr. O'Connell

A breach of what may I ask?

Mr. O'Malley

Of the Deputy's privilege as a Member of the House.

Dr. O'Connell

I may, perhaps, elaborate on this. I have been subjected to abuse over this and I have been intimidated and told by people in employment that attempts could be made to smear me in my constituency. I said: "I will support the Bill if I think that the extra percentage goes to the workers". Deputy Halligan was with me on the particular occasion.

Mr. Cooney

All I can say is that this is an extremely serious allegation and I certainly would welcome its fullest investigation and appropriate action taken against those guilty should their guilt be proved. I am glad to know that nobody else was subjected to this intimidation, notwithstanding that other views hostile to this particular operation are known to be held by people. I certainly—I want to say this here quite unequivocally—have not been subjected to any pressure nor am I aware of anybody else who has been subjected to any pressure, legal or illegal, of any kind whatsoever. Because of the uniqueness of Deputy O'Connell's position—I emphasise its uniqueness—it demands investigation.

Deputy Collins, who opened for the Opposition, asked for an explanation of the difference between the figures for the Sweeps Hurdle, 1975 and the Cambridgeshire, 1975, that the ratio of expenses showed a marked difference between the two immediately succeeding sweeps. The answer is that the proceeds dropped in the Sweeps Hurdle, 1975 and when the expenses are expressed as a percentage, if the sum of which they are a percentage drops, then they must bear a higher ratio to that sum. That is the explanation for that.

There has been a pattern of a fall in income over the years. This became marked in 1973. In the Cambridgeshire Sweep, 1973 the proceeds fell for the first time substantially below £4 million and they have not recovered in any sweep since then to cross the £4 million. In fact, in the latest sweep, we had the experience where the figure dropped below £3 million. This shows a trend that is disturbing. It must raise a question mark as to the viability of the operation in the future if that pattern of falling receipts continues to occur. If receipts continue to fall, then even the increase in expenses proposed in this Bill will not be adequate and quite clearly the operation will no longer be viable.

Deputy Molloy wanted to know why 40 per cent was picked. The position is that the trend of expenses has shown that the actual expenses have crossed 35 per cent, excluding the organisation and management fee. If that were to be added in, they would be well across 36 per cent, coming up to 37 per cent. The trend is that the expenses are on the increase. Wages are on the increase and all the other expenses attending the running of the sweep are on the increase. Consequently, the expenses can be expected to increase and with falling receipts it would be unrealistic to provide for a ceiling of less than 40 per cent. That ceiling would be reached probably in a very short time indeed. On the other hand, to provide for a ceiling greater than 40 per cent, to allow the expenses to go to, say, 50 per cent, would mean that we would then have reached the stage where the matter was not viable and another look would have to be taken at the entire operation. It is quite clear to me that 40 per cent is a reasonable figure having regard to the trend of expenses over the last year or 18 months. Any more than that would then raise a question mark over the entire viability of the operation.

I was rather amazed by the tone of Deputy O'Malley's speech. It was full of hostility to the entire operation and, I regret to say it, full of suspicion. At one stage he used the expression: "I cannot prove that there was abuse". If he could not prove that there was an abuse in a matter so serious as this, he should not then have proceeded by innuendo—Deputy de Valera referred to the use of innuendo in this area—to smear the entire operation.

I cannot help recalling that he was Minister for Justice for a number of years. As he said, as Minister for Justice, part of his duty in regard to the sweeps was to sanction the scheme for each particular sweep. In other words, no sweep can be held until the Minister for Justice signs his name to a document containing the scheme for that particular sweep.

He was in that position. If he felt there was anything wrong in the operation of the sweeps, if he felt he was being denied any information by the promoters, if he felt he was being hoodwinked, if he felt, as he clearly indicated to the House, that there was something happening, that there was money not being accounted for, that the statutory provision for providing for accountability of the proceeds in the way they are defined in the Act was wrong, then he had the remedy in his own hand. He refused to sign a scheme for the sweep until he got the information he wanted.

That was his remedy when he had the power as Minister for Justice. Not merely was it his remedy, it was his duty. If he was not satisfied with the way things were being conducted, he had a duty to use the power available to him as Minister to ensure that they were conducted to his satisfaction. If he found he was not being allowed use that power or did not want to use that power or his colleagues in Government would not let him use that power and if he felt there was a serious principle involved here, he also had his remedy. He did not operate either remedy but he now comes into the House three years after leaving that job and engages in a smear speech.

Mr. O'Malley

Is the Minister suggesting I should put 700 to 800 people out of work?

Mr. Cooney

If the Deputy wants to accept the principle that the end justifies the means, no, but if he goes for the principle that the end justifies the means, that is apparently what he was doing. I wanted information, I requested it and I got it, information of the type the Deputy said was refused to him.

Mr. O'Malley

I am glad to hear the Minister got it.

Mr. Cooney

I insisted on getting it and I got it. As Deputy O'Malley recognised, and as Deputy de Valera recognised, there is certain information, which for one reason or another, reasons of competition, reasons of public policy, should remain private but they both conceded it should be available to the Minister for Justice. I have indicated that I wanted certain information. I have got some information. I also indicated I require more information and I am confident that I will get it. If I do not get it, I will do what Deputy O'Malley had not the guts to do. I will not sign a scheme for the sweep. I will not let the immoral principle of the end justifying the means decide what I do.

Deputy O'Malley makes play of a newspaper article published three years ago and uses these articles to suggest that in some way vast sums of money are being hidden and not accounted for. The article in question suggested that the actual sales were one-third greater than the figure declared. This is an appalling statement from somebody who was Minister for Justice and who was in a position to find out exactly what were the actual sales. The Deputy confessed that in this critical situation he, as Minister for Justice, was not able to acquire this information although a journalist who has now departed from the Irish journalistic scene was able to acquire the information. This raises either of two questions—the figure in the newspaper was an invention or Deputy O'Malley was totally impotent in the operation of his serious office.

The Deputy said, too, that a fee for organisation and management in respect of a fourth sweep was permitted during the course of his term of office on the understanding that should there be losses, they would be met out of these fees. In other words, the implication is that the promoters should be expected, for so long as there is a continuing loss on these operations, to foot the bill. This is totally unrealistic. To date the loss in terms of money put up by the promoters to meet the difference between the actual expenses and the permitted ceiling has been £440,000. This does not take account of organisation and management fees which have had to be foregone and which amount to approximately the same figure so that there has been a loss to the promoters of approximately £1 million on the operation of the sweeps during the past 18 months. Could anyone with even a shred of common sense expect a commercial operation to continue to operate on that basis?

Deputy O'Malley raised the question of the amount of the organisation and management fee. It is 6 per cent on the first £100,000, 5 per cent on the second £100,000 and 1¾ per cent on the balance. This works out at about 2 per cent on the entire proceeds. To suggest that a firm should continue running an unprofitable enterprise merely because they made profits in the past is daft commercially and is a very odd proposition from a spokesman on Industry and Commerce. The Deputy stated that this concern had received fees of £10 million by way of organisation and management fees since the inception of the sweeps some 40 years ago and he contended that because of that they should continue to bear the losses. For how long should they continue to bear the losses that are being incurred? Should they continue in this way until the entire £10 million is exhausted or should they be expected to add to this amount and continue to bear the losses for another 40 years? The proposition is so daft that it merits no consideration whatever.

Deputy O'Malley said also that the sanctioning of the scheme was only a formality and that, in effect, the Minister for Justice had no option. Again, this is a dreadful confession of impotence in a most responsible job. Of course, the Minister is entitled to refuse to sanction the scheme and if he does not get it in time, he must demand that it comes in time or he may decide to sign this scheme on the condition that the next one will be presented on time. To confess that a Minister was so helpless in the face of something about which he was very concerned is a shocking confession and it is made three years after the Deputy left office. It is an attempt to smear the organisation. I regret to have to say that. The Deputy, as Minister, had the remedy in his hands. I have the power and I have the remedy, too.

Deputy O'Malley suggested, too, that the prize fund will be reduced by virtue of the percentage available being lessened by reason of the percentage for the expenses being increased. This is true. However, whether there will be a reduction in cash terms must depend on the continued gross income of the sweepstakes. The promoters have expectations that the slump which has been with them for some time may have bottomed out and there may be an improvement in receipts due to the easing of competition in some of their markets. Should the income increase, the amount available in cash terms, while less in percentage terms, will be greater and, consequently, the prize level will be maintained at a commercially attractive level. But should the stage be reached where that situation cannot be achieved there would hang a question mark over the viability of the entire operation. This is something that would become apparent very quickly. Should it be found that the operation were no longer viable, it would be wound up.

In talking of the moneys which go to the hospitals from the fund, Deputy O'Malley suggested that we were overlooking the fact that a proportion of the 30 per cent available for the hospital fund contains a large element of stamp duty. This factor was not overlooked. I adverted to it specifically in my speech when I indicated that the amount available under that heading included both stamp duty and money available for the hospitals. I agree with the Deputy that the amount being paid to the hospitals is comparatively small but that is not to say it is not valuable. Its continued payment should be secured so far as possible and that is the objective of this Bill.

Deputy Molloy posed the question as to whether the amount payable to the hospitals is too small. He asked whether it is right to give a continued monopoly to a small group to continue this operation. It is my view that it is right to allow this continued monopoly. If I thought otherwise, I would not be here to promote this Bill nor would I have signed the schemes from time to time to permit the various sweeps. It is not a question of giving a small group a monopoly. It is using a small group who have the unique knowledge to run a sweep. One does not organise sweepstakes in the same way as, for instance, one would commence the operation of a shirt factory. There is only one commercial operation in this country capable of running the sweepstakes as constituted presently. If there is to be a question of a national lottery in substitution for the sweepstakes should they be no longer viable in years to come, that other lottery would have to be organised in a different way. Its organisation would be a matter for consideration. The present organisation have the monopoly by reason of their unique knowledge as to how this operation must be run. That unique knowledge is a valuable commercial property. We must face that harsh commercial fact.

It is right to allow the sweeps to continue to be run for the benefit of the hospitals, of the nation and of the people working in the organisation. I am satisfied that the innuendos and the suggestions that there is a fiddle going on, that there is something wrong somewhere, are unjustified. I am satisfied, too, that any information I want will be made available because I am a Minister in the Government and it is the Government who run the country and all operations that take place within it.

Deputy de Valera put his finger on the motivation behind much of the opposition to the operations of the Irish sweeps. This has been a singularly successful operation, uniquely successful in that sphere of operation in that since its inception more than 40 years ago, it has been a commercial success. So far as I am aware, it is the only operation of that kind that has been an undoubted commercial success during all of that time. One reason for this is that it has been run efficiently. No commercial operation can profit and grow for that length of time unless it is run efficiently and properly.

Much of the opposition is based not on hard facts but on rumour, gossip and innuendo. Deputy de Valera referred to this envy as being part of that envy which is rampant in the modern world. Envy is dominant in Irish life today. So many people are full of envy because the promoters of this operation have become wealthy as a result of running it successfully. It was properly pointed out that that wealth has been reinvested to create employment for our people. That is a development to be commended. When the super prize was increased from £200,000 to £400,000, provision was made for a down payment of £75,000 with the balance by way of an annuity. This was done for tax reasons. In many countries the recipients of such a large sum of money would have to pay the bulk of it in income tax. Therefore, it was a tax avoidance measure to ease the position of the prize winners. It is guaranteed that the full amount of the prize will be paid to the winner or his personal representative should he not live long enough to receive the entire amount. If a winner wants the full amount of the prize in cash I have no doubt that he could be accommodated.

I thank the Opposition speakers who welcome this Bill and who recognised that the Bill is necessary for the continuance of the sweepstakes. The promoters are not going to run it at a loss. The arguments in favour of continuing the sweepstakes are strong and must be acceded to. I felt justified in bringing this Bill before the House to raise the statutory level of the expenses in order to avoid losses in the future and to ensure a break-even operation for the promoters. If I thought there was anything wrong in the operations of the Hospitals Sweepstakes I would not ask the House to accept this Bill. I very much regret that Deputies have made allegations and innuendoes without any proof whatsoever. Deputy O'Malley used the words: "I cannot prove that there was abuse ...", yet he continued to suggest that there have been abuses. He had the remedy in his own hands when he was Minister for Justice. If satisfactory information was not forthcoming, Deputy O'Malley could have refused to sanction any particular scheme for a sweepstake.

Mr. O'Malley

And fire 800 or 900 people?

Mr. Cooney

This again is the immorality of his stance. He could have resigned and left the people in work and then his conscience would have been clear. Had he done so he would not now be smearing an operation which has benefited the country. Until people can prove that there is abuse, I am satisfied that the smears and inuendoes which have been circulating since the publication of certain newspaper articles six years ago are unfounded.

I refer again to the serious allegation made by Deputy O'Connell, that he and he alone was subjected to this abuse. If he was, he has a duty——

Dr. O'Connell

The Minister did not refer to my six proposals, which are: that the auditor general examine them; that the number of tickets sold be published; that the promoters should be debarred from participating in the sweep; that there should be a life span of five years on this Bill; that the National Prices Commission look at the management fee, and that, as it is a monopoly, any or all contributions to political parties be published. The Minister should at least comment on these six proposals.

Mr. Cooney

I have commented on them. With regard to the question of public accountability I made the point that the sweepstakes are run by a private company, the only company that can run it because of their special knowledge. To suggest that there can be public accountability over a private company is not realistic. With regard to the number of tickets sold, this brings us back to Deputy O'Malley's suggestion that hidden funds are being extracted. I have already got sufficient information to satisfy me that nothing illegal is being practised. If Deputy O'Connell is aware that the sweepstakes are making payments to political parties, he should——

Dr. O'Connell

Any contributions or all contributions.

Mr. Cooney

By this company or by all companies?

Dr. O'Connell

By the sweepstakes.

Mr. Cooney

With regard to the operations of this company, it would be unfair to expect one private company to publish their accounts until all private companies are required to do so, and their contributions, if any, to a political party or any other organisation. The expenses incurred in running the sweepstakes are audited by a firm of public accountants and are available for inspection. A time limit cannot be put on a commercial operation. The market may determine the life of the operation but it is unrealistic to suggest a time limit for a commercial operation.

Dr. O'Connell

And the National Prices Commission——

Mr. Cooney

That question could possibly be raised with the Minister for Industry and Commerce who could bring the matter to the attention of the National Prices Commission. They might well find that it is too low.

Dr. O'Connell

The promoters should be debarred from participating in the sweepstakes.

Mr. Cooney

That is already the position.

Question put and agreed to.

Agreed to take the remaining Stages today.