Section 1 is the Bill. I was disappointed that the provision for increasing the expenses from 30 per cent to 40 per cent was allowed. I was surprised at the attitude and tone of the Minister in dealing with the contributions to the debate on Second Stage. We made it quite clear that we were accepting the necessity for this Bill, and Deputy O'Malley did express worry in relation to it. It is rather remarkable that the Minister pointed out that the promoters had found it impossible to stay within this 30 per cent limit for expenses, and in fact were in breach of the existing legislation over the past 12 months. The situation at present is that according to the Minister's speech the expenses are higher than 30 per cent since early 1975.
Public Hospitals (Amendment) Bill, 1976: Committee and Final Stages.
Question proposed: "That section 1 stand part of the Bill."
That is correct.
The existing legislation conveys that the Minister's sanction for the running of sweeps is on the basis that expenses cannot be charged over 30 per cent. Who carries the excess?
The promoters, and they have paid it back.
I am rather surprised at the Minister deciding to attack the former Minister for his difficulty in this regard and at the same time saying that one of his reasons for bringing in this necessary Bill was that the alternative to allowing this increase now sought was that the sweeps would go out of business with the consequential loss of direct employment to nearly 1,000 people and a loss to the hospitals. I fully subscribe to the idea that this is necessary legislation for the same reason that the Minister attributes to it. When Deputy O'Malley said that that was his reason for sanctioning former sweeps the Minister said: "Oh yes, if the end justified the means, that satisfied Deputy O'Malley".
The point I made was that Deputy O'Malley sanctioned it being dissatisfied with it. I sanctioned it being quite satisfied with it.
One of the things we are talking about here is the accountability of the promoters for expenses. I deliberately came into this House to give as my solid view that this is a business concern that cannot possibly put its accounts before a Comptroller and Auditor General and cannot basically satisfy the normal requirements in this regard. I had two American visitors in this House today and traditionally they always bought sweep tickets but they were finding very great difficulty in getting them now. In this Parliament we have the problem that we are working to promote something which has been going on for a number of years, which has succeeded in raising money to a diminishing extent over the past few years. The hospitals sweepstakes are running into difficulties in marketing. Those difficulties have to be overcome by increasing hand-outs to try to increase the back-flow of money from the North American continent in particular. The disappointing thing about the non-disclosure and the non-practicability of disclosure as far as the Hospitals Sweepstakes is concerned is that we never quite know what volume of money is taken in from the Irish subscriber as apart from the North American, the English and others and what our chances of success are from the point of view of bringing off the big money.
That is the gamble.
The situation is that with the exception of some Irish character from Kildare who won the top prize some years ago, the top prize seems to have gone mainly to Canada. It appears that the bulk of the tickets are now being sold in Canada, because apparently the Canadian authorities have not got the outlets as choked up as the west have succeeded in doing. From time to time we read headlines in the papers about captures by the US Revenue, and it is difficult to discuss a measure in parliament where even the Minister mentioned that the reason for the change in format in the top prize was a tax avoidance measure. We have a situation here whereby the Government and the Minister for Justice have the embarrassment of trying to explain in this House that with their concurrence a scheme has been worked out with Irish Hospitals Sweepstakes whereby the tax authorities in the US and in Canada are being fiddled. That puts it in black and white. If we discuss this at length here, we could find ourselves in the position of subscribing to something that is illegal everywhere else but which we are making laws to determine and to control. Where you have that type of situation, where it is necessary to have a certain degree of looseness, there is bound to be complaint.
I do not think that the Minister helped the case today by attacking the contributions that were made on this measure as being a collection of rumour, gossip and innuendo, because where you have that type of situation whereby full public disclosure of accounts cannot be made there will be difficulties. Deputy O'Connell read out a list of six requirements that he felt should be met. I sympathise with Deputy O'Connell seeking to get this type of information and I quite appreciate that it could be unwise publicly to disclose that information—to say that we sold three million sweep tickets in the US for the Cambridgeshire sweep or that we sold ten million in Canada. It might be "chicken feed" as far as Americans are concerned but we all know that every Irish American, second, third, fourth and fifth generation, feels that he is supposed to have a ticket in the Irish Hospitals Sweepstakes and that there is great difficulty in getting them.
Section 1 is the increase from 30 to 40 per cent. I appreciate the necessity for this increase but, on the other hand, I think it was very wrong of the Minister to introduce a Bill which is an amendment of the original Act raising it from 30 to 40 per cent. The Minister says that things have got rough since 1973. This is rather significant. Internally expenses have gone up. In this section we are amending a 1940 Act. Whatever about the former Minister for Justice who was not too happy with the situation, it appears from the Minister's statement that the promoters were able to keep within the limits until 1973, and this is the significant time as explained by the Minister. Expenses began to rise steadily.
Actual receipts began to drop.
It would appear then that most of the money comes from this country because the money has been going out since 1973.
I am sorry to interrupt Deputy Lalor but I want to dissuade him from making what is tantamount to a Second Reading speech on this section. The Deputy should relate his remarks to the section. He is going very wide of the section. We are having a Second Reading speech from the Deputy.
Is it possible for me to talk about section 1 without referring to the increase in expenses from 30 per cent to 40 per cent, because that is what it is all about?
That is contained in the section.
The power we are proposing to change here operated from 1940 to limit the expenses in the running of sweepstakes to 30 per cent. Obviously the last licence was issued in the knowledge that the provisions of the 1940 Act were not complied with in the past few sweepstakes.
They were complied with.
According to the Minister's own statement they were not. The Minister said:
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 2.46 per cent was not taken out of the proceeds. It was met separately by the promoters.
Subsection (2) provides:
The following limitations shall apply in respect of the application of the moneys received from the sale of tickets in a sweepstake held under this Act:
(a) the amount applied out of such moneys for paying the expenses incurred in holding such sweepstake (other than tickets, commission, prizes or other remuneration given in relation to the sale of tickets) shall not exceed 40 per cent of such moneys or such lesser percentage of such moneys as the Minister for Justice may, when sanctioning the scheme for such sweepstake, determine;
Do I take it from the subsection that if in 1980 the promoters run a sweepstake and the expenses are 42 per cent, provided the promoters pay the 2 per cent themselves they are not in breach of the Act?
Yes, of course.
As I read it, according to subsection 2 (a) no more than 40 per cent of the money taken in can be paid out by way of expenses. Despite writing that into the Bill, the Minister says if the expenses are 42 per cent everything is all right provided they pay the 2 per cent themselves.
They could treble the expenses if they wanted to, provided they paid the balance out of their own pockets.
My reading of the section is that they cannot spend more than 40 per cent on expenses. I am in agreement with the Bill. I appreciate the difficulty about the reports. I should like an assurance from the Minister that he, as the responsible Minister, will have the full report disclosed to him and that he will be shown the accounts for the tickets and the cash from North America, Britain, or wherever we can generate a market. If we are being squeezed out of North America we must look for another market. I agree with many of the comments made on Second Stage. If we can get money for our hospitals from outside the country we should try to hold on to that market. The Minister made a big thing out of having the power and using it. Is he telling us he will be able to get a full account of the expenses? Deputy O'Connell mentioned the Comptroller and Auditor General. I fully accept it is not that sort of book-keeping arrangement. I appreciate that the sales cannot be disclosed.
I should like the Minister to indicate that he will endeavour to see economy is practised to the fullest extent. Giving a limit of 40 per cent for expenses does not necessarily mean that limit is to be reached in every sweepstake. The expenses for the Irish Sweeps Derby, 1975, were 35.68 per cent. I accept that costs are increasing in this business. The price of the ticket was jacked up from £1 to £2. With every book of tickets bringing back twice as much money, we might have expected a drop in the percentage of costs as against overall income.
There are some points to which I should like to refer. The Minister may be overlooking the fact that this is a monopoly and so this company is not in the same position as any other private company.
May I interrupt the Deputy? If the House is giving a monopoly to the company the company itself is a monopoly because nobody else can discharge this particular operation.
It is not in the same position as any other private company. It is in an unique position. It is a monopoly and it has tremendous power.
It is not a monopoly in the United States or Canada.
That may be so, but we are giving it tremendous power. It is not in the same position as an ordinary private company. It does not disclose its accounts and I think there should be an obligation on it to disclose its accounts and the Comptroller and Auditor General should be asked to inspect its accounts.
With regard to tickets sold, the number is not disclosed. The national lotteries in Germany and Austria publish in the Paris Tribune the number of tickets sold so there is no question of establishing a precedent here. I do not see any reason why the number of tickets sold should not be disclosed.
Each sweepstake is run as a separate entity and wages and everything else are paid out of each sweepstake. There is no reserve fund. I believe there should be a reserve fund because such a fund would enable it to weather an economic recession or anything else. We do not know when there will be another application for an increased percentage. That would not be necessary if there were a reserve fund.
There is a plan to computerise everything. That will result in a big drop in expenses because fewer salaries will be paid to employees. How many temporary employees are employed? Some have been temporary all their lives. I would like to see their employment safeguarded. We have no guarantee with regard to their employment and my first concern is for the 700 to 1,000 employees. I hope the Minister will comment on this.
I do not think there is anything wrong with the five-year limit. We do not know what the situation will be like in five years. This is a precautionary measure. There is nothing wrong with it and I hope the Minister will not argue that it is unrealistic and cannot be done. Would it upset the Dáil to have to consider the matter again in five year's time? We may be in an economic boom and expenses may be considerably reduced as a result of computerisation and an economic boom. Expenses might not even be 30 per cent. The sweepstakes never approach us in times of boom when everything is going fine. We only hear from them when the money is diminishing. I see no reason why there should not be a limit. I appeal to the Minister to incorporate some provision about accounting. It is not opportune for me to put in an amendment at this stage.
I have already explained to Deputy O'Connell that this is a commercial operation and one cannot put a time limit on a commercial operation and be realistic about it. It must be open-ended so long as it is commercially viable. I do not know why the Deputy wants a time limit so that we can review the percentage at the end of five years. The accounts are published and they are sent to Deputy O'Connell after every sweep and one can see the percentage of expenses in relation to receipts and Deputy O'Connell, if he is worried, can raise the matter in the normal way in which such matters are raised. The Bill gives the Minister power to provide for expenses not exceeding 40 per cent or such lesser percentage as the Minister may from time to time determine. The Minister for Justice can decide, if he thinks fit, that the percentage should go back to 30 per cent.
Does he do that by way of a Bill?
No. He does it in the scheme sanctioning the sweep. Each sweep has a scheme which has to be signed by the Minister. The details are set out and one of the details is the amount payable for expenses. At the moment it is 30 per cent. In the next scheme I will certify the amount at 40 per cent. In three years' time, if I see the receipts have increased enormously or that the maximum of 40 per cent is not being availed of, then I, or whatever Minister for Justice is there, may certify the expenses at 35 per cent. To use a slang expression, it is no skin off the promoters' noses to have the expenses high because anything saved on expenses goes into the prize fund. The expenses consist of advertising, publicity, salaries, wages, lighting, travelling expenses, auditing accounts and so on.
The Minister knows about computerisation.
Of course, and I welcome any advance in efficiency subject to safeguarding employment. I have no doubt the Workers Union of Ireland will see that employment is safeguarded. Increasing the percentage for expenses does not mean anything extra going into the pockets of the promoters. The promoters get their organisation and management fee, which is a percentage of the profits, and they get that as part of the expenses and, if expenses go over 40 per cent, the first thing that abates is their fee so it is in their interest to keep expenses down. Expenses have exceeded 35 per cent in a number of sweeps in the last year or 18 months.
But very little beyond 35 per cent.
They have gone to almost 36 per cent. Receipts are dropping and if that trend continues the percentage of expenses will increase proportionately so it would be unrealistic to say 35 per cent when that figure has already been exceeded. It would be unrealistic to say 38 per cent and so the figure decided on is 40 per cent and, as I argued earlier, if it goes beyond 40, then the whole viability of the operation has to come into question.
The Minister will admit that the increases have only taken place during the economic recession of 1974.
The increases have nothing to do with the expenses. They are pretty well fixed. The reason why the 30 per cent has not been adequate is that it is 30 per cent of the proceeds. The proceeds have been dropping and therefore the 30 per cent available for expenses has been less. It is a question of the viability of the sweep in its foreign markets and the competition it is meeting. There are many factors, including, I suppose, the recession; there is less money available throughout the world to buy sweep tickets.
It is significant that it only occurred since the economic recession began.
There might well be a connection between the two things. I suppose it is significant.
We have no break down.
Let us deal with the Committee Stage in an orderly fashion. The Minister is in possession. Has the Minister concluded?
I have.
We have no details as regards sales in the various countries, so there is no reason to assume that the decrease is not due to the economic recession. We do not know the proportion of the revenue that comes from this country. We are not in a position to dispute the fact. To me it is significant that it should coincide with the onset of economic recession, from the Cambridgeshire in 1974, which coincided with the oil crisis up to 1975, when the figure barely went over 35.68. Therefore I am wondering why we should go to such a high figure as 40 per cent. It would seem to me that if those concerned had the interests of the sweep at heart they would not be inclined to put up the percentage for expenses; they would bring down the prize money to keep it a viable proposition.
I think the Deputy is wrong, in that the slide did not start, like many other slides, with the oil crisis; it started unfortunately in 1973.
I am talking about the effects——
There was no problem at all with regard to the ceiling in existence up to 1973; it was from then on we got on the slippery slope. In regard to subsections (1) and (2) of section 1, I would like to hear the Minister saying he has all the necessary information available to him. This provision reads:
(1) The balance of the moneys received from the sale of tickets in a sweepstake held under this Act remaining after paying or providing for the prizes distributed in such sweepstake, the expenses incurred in holding such sweepstake, and any duty or tax chargeable in respect of such balance shall be paid to the Hospitals Trust Board.
(2) The following limitations shall apply in respect of the application of the moneys received from the sale of tickets in a sweepstake held under this Act;
(a) the amount applied out of such moneys for paying the expenses incurred in holding such sweepstake (other than
And this is the part I want to refer to specifically:
tickets, commission, prizes or other remuneration given in relation to the sale of tickets...
I and, I am sure, other Members here, would like to be assured that all information in regard to the working of the sweep would be available to the Minister. I cannot go along with Deputy O'Connell when he says that all this information should be made public. We do not have to spend any time talking about the type of operation the sweep is, that in many countries the selling of tickets is illegal, that there is competition. Whatever chance the sweep has of keeping going in present circumstances, if they publicise the details of their operation we would not be doing them a favour but we would be doing them a very great disfavour. However, I would be very pleased if the Minister and his Department had not just the information in regard to the details spelled out in the Bill but all information in regard to tickets, commission, prizes or other remuneration given in relation to the sale of tickets. I fully understand that this information cannot be made public——
It can be got elsewhere, in Germany and Austria.
With all due respects, may I say Deputy O'Connell may be misunderstanding the situation. I am not well up as to how the German sweep operates, but I think they have a different type of operation altogether from ours. We have a certain type of operation in which we compete with others in countries where we are not allowed to compete. Tickets are sold second, third and fourth hand. I am sure the Deputy understands the working of the sweep, as well as I do, perhaps better. There are people who hold the view that things are a bit loose in regard to section 2 of the Hospitals Act, 1933, but if the Minister had up to date information in regard to all the items in section 1 (2) (a) to which I have referred I believe everybody would be happy and people would not have anxieties or fears that things might not be as they should be.
We must make up our minds whether we want the hospitals sweepstake to continue. I am perfectly satisfied—and I have not been intimated or bullied or subjected to any influence by anybody—that we are doing the right thing. The only small doubt is that which has been raised by a couple of Deputies in connection with section 2 of the Hospitals Act, 1933. Under that section the operators of the sweep are not obliged to give this information, but that does not mean that they cannot, should not or would not give it. We would all be far happier if that information were in the hands of the Minister.
When the Minister replied to the Second Stage of the debate he devoted about 90 per cent of his speech to what I had said and he became a bit heated about it. I thought it was rather a pity, because the debate had been conducted up to that in a low key, and I thought it was generally advisable from several points of view that it should be conducted in a low key without provoking people into saying even a fraction of the things they could say. For that reason, I regret the Minister took the rather abusively critical line he did. He challenged me to say why, if I had misgivings about certain aspects of the sweep, I did not exercise my power not to sign one or other of the schemes and thereby close down the sweep.
I was well aware that I had that power and was entitled to exercise it if I wanted to. I debated in my own mind at some length which would be the greater damage I could do. Should I throw 800 or 1,000 people, nearly all women, on the side of the street? Frequently, they were women who would not get employment anywhere else. I had to ask myself should I throw them all on the side of the street in order to keep my conscience right, as the Minister put it, or, instead of that, should I, under protest, sign the scheme and endeavour, as I did for a long period, to get the promoters to provide the full information I wanted?
I chose what I regard as the more humane course. I did not put 800 or 900 people on the side of the street; I did not close down the sweep as I could have done and as the Minister is now suggesting I should have done if I was unhappy with aspects of it.
You could have resigned.
I am afraid that the Irish Hospitals Trust was not an issue that I was going to resign on.
What about principle?
I regarded it as not one of the more important things I had to do. It was simply something that came up periodically that I disliked having to deal with and about which I got very little co-operation — I regret to have to say that—from the promoters. I would not have said that only I am being provoked into saying it by the tone of the Minister's reply. When I say I did not get all the information I required from the promoters I am not saying that I did not get any information. I got a good deal of information and I am afraid that some of the information I received made me more apprehensive than I had been before I knew the further facts that then came to my notice. That is one of the aspects of it that one disliked.
It made your position even worse.
I am afraid, Minister, if speaking the truth is, in your words, making the position worse, then the position will have to be worse and that is it.
That is not what I am saying and the Deputy knows that.
That is the situation I was faced with. There were certain aspects of this which I did not like and I did not hide from anyone the fact that I did not like them but the only effective choice I had was to fire 800 or 900 people and that I was not prepared to do. I got a good deal of information but I did not by any means get all of it.
I should like to draw Deputy O'Connell's attention to one of the provisions in subsection (2) (a). Unfortunately, Deputy O'Connell was not here for the full debate. Had he heard the earlier speeches he might have been clear on some of the points. The words in parenthesis to which Deputy Collins drew attention, are very significant because the 40 per cent to which the expenses are limited does not include all the expenses set out in parenthesis. In other words, the tickets commission, prizes or other remuneration given in relation to the sale of tickets.
That is extra?
In fact, the percentage of expenses is 40 per cent plus all other things in parenthesis. What the actual percentage of the gross proceeds is I do not know and I cannot know because I do not know what the gross proceeds are. We have no way in law of finding out what the gross proceeds are. The reason we cannot find out is that section 2 of the 1933 Act allows all these things to be deducted before arriving at the figure that has to be provided to the auditors to begin work on.
As I explained earlier it is important, and the distinction is not frequently drawn by people who discuss the Irish Hospitals Trust expenses, to realise that there are two sets of expenses, the excluded expenses which do not have to be accounted for and the subsequent expenses which are audited and which I am satisfied are in order. However, the point is that there are two sets of expenses and I tried to make this point earlier. Unfortunately, I did not get any worth-while response from the Minister in relation to that. There is an unascertained and an unascertainable amount of expenses incurred which need not be accounted for, quite lawfully and legitimately under section 2.
Publishing the number of tickets sold would solve that.
That would immediately disclose it but, unfortunately, the Deputy should be aware that if the number of tickets sold is published and also the accounts of the amount received as defined by section 2 are published one can calculate the difference between these two figures. That is the sort of ground one does not want to go into. One knows, unfortunately, what happens there in between. One knows at least what part of that money is spent on and I can see the promoter's point of view when they do not want that figure disclosed. If they published the number of tickets sold, and published as they do, their proceeds of the sale in accordance with section 2 of the 1933 Act one knows then that the difference between the two figures are these expenses which are incurred for the most part on the continent and North America, sometimes under circumstances that auditors would not wish to have to inquire into or would not be in a position to certify. With respect to Deputy O'Connell, there is no point in suggesting that the Comptroller and Auditor General be asked to audit all these figures because he could not do it. He could not audit some of the payments made in North America. There is no point either in the suggestion of a national lottery as an alternative to the Irish Hospitals Sweepstakes. There are successful national lotteries in a number of countries but in those countries the population is very big and they can finance lotteries out of their own population but our population is so tiny that the Irish Hospitals Trust, or any other lottery that we would promote on a big scale, would be useless unless we could sell the great bulk of the tickets abroad. In the case of the Hospitals Sweepstake we sell 90 per cent of the tickets abroad, the great bulk in Canada.
Was this information only available to the Deputy when he was Minister?
No.
Is the figure out of the Deputy's head?
It is not. I believe it has appeared in print that 90 per cent of the tickets are sold abroad. That is fairly general knowledge.
I used those figures earlier.
In considering the expenses we have to bear in mind that the words in parenthesis mean, in effect, that it is only the second set of expenses, the audited set, that is being limited to 40 per cent. There is another set, the excluded set of expenses incurred for the most part abroad which do not have to be audited and that is quite lawful because section 2 says that they do not have to be.
That gives tremendous latitude.
It does but it means that the expenses are in excess of 40 per cent. They could be a great deal in excess, how much I do not know.
They could be as high as 60 per cent.
They could be as high as 60 per cent. One has to speculate because we do not have exact figures.
Nobody is going to dispute it with us.
The Minister made the point that the expenses had not been going up in volume or amount, that the proportion of expenses has been going up because the receipts have been dropping very seriously. That is correct. I demonstrated earlier that less than half of the number of tickets were sold for the Cambridgeshire, 1975 than were sold for the Cambridgeshipe, 1972. However, one would think that for the promoters the right approach to that kind of situation would be to try to sell more tickets rather than to have to increase their expenses ratio on a diminishing turnover, on a diminishing return from the sale of tickets. The number of tickets sold has dropped drastically The figures show that in the Cambridgeshire, 1975, less than half the number of tickets were sold than for the Cambridgeshire, 1972. Admittedly, in the meantime, the price of the tickets had doubled but there was still a drop in the proceeds.
How does the Deputy know that the number of tickets have fallen?
I am talking about the figure for the returned tickets as audited by Craig Gardner in accordance with section 2 of the Public Hospitals Act. As I said earlier, those figures are not complete. This section does not specifically refer to the fact that the share of the fund drops from 40 to 30 per cent, but by implication it causes that because it uses up 70 per cent of the fund in expenses, payments to the Revenue Commissioners and the hospitals.
The Minister referred to the fact that it may well be that in a short time to come the whole question of the viability or otherwise of this operation will be called in question and that is certainly so. I say this to the Minister, although it is more a matter for the promoters, that decreasing the prize money drastically, as is suggested here, may well sound the death knell on the already declining Hospitals Sweep. We have seen a huge fall off in support over the last few years and to decrease the prize money further may, unless there is a major improvement in sales over the next few years, actually bring about the demise of the sweepstake. That is a matter which does not have to be considered by the Minister, but if the promoters want it this way and are prepared to take the risk, that is a matter for them. If the sweepstakes collapse, I presume they had their eyes open when they made the request that their expenses ratio be increased. From a practical point of view, it may have this effect. The operation may to some extent be in vain. While we are endeavouring on a short term basis to save the sweepstake, the very action we are taking may cause its demise in the longer term.
There is no safeguard in this or the original Bill whereby promoters are debarred from participating in the sweep. That safeguard should be built into this Bill. I should like to know what can be done about that.
It is written into each scheme that promoters are not allowed to participate.
But it is not in the Bill?
No.
Are they entitled to purchase winning tickets? Is that regarded as taking part in the sweepstake?
I do not think so.
In every competition employees are not allowed to participate. This is the usual procedure.
That is the procedure here.
Is the Minister aware that in earlier years, up to ten years ago, when somebody drew a horse which was fancied, offers were made to them on behalf of people who were involved in the sweepstakes?
I am aware from reading the newspapers that when a person draws a horse he receives offers for a share in his prize. I believe these offers are generally made by book-makers and the bookmakers' names appear in the newspapers as being the bidders. That is all the information I have.
Are the promoters of the sweepstakes or their connections precluded under the scheme as sanctioned from bidding or offering for winning tickets?
Under the wording of the scheme as presently drafted they would not be because the draw would have been completed at that stage and the prohibition is on participating in the draw.
Could the Minister give figures for the total amount collected since the scheme first began? He mentioned £81½ million being given to Irish hospitals, but would he have the figure for the total amount collected? Would he make some comments on the reserve fund to which I referred? That might be relevant to the question of the making of provision for a lean time and not making every sweepstake an operation in itself but part of an on-going business. Would he have any figures of the number of temporary staff and what proportion of the total staff does that represent? How long is the average period of employment for these temporary workers?
The proceeds of sale of tickets from 1930 to date would be £443 million.
What does that represent?
Total accumulated proceeds since 1930.
Is it out of that fund that the unaccountable expenses are paid or is that what is left after the unaccountable expenses?
It is not that they are unaccountable, but that they are unaccounted for. They are not accounted for publicly. I am satisfied that I can get any information I want.
I am trying to find out what is covered by the figure of £443 million.
They are proceeds as defined, taking the point Deputy O'Malley made, after excluding commissions and the sale——
Is the Minister in a position to give the figure including——
No, I have not the figure back to 1930.
Can that be provided?
It would do harm to disclose such a figure publicly.
I can get that figure for my personal information along with any other facts I want, but I do not think it is a figure which should be disclosed.
Of the £443 million how much was paid out in prize money?
In prize money £248 million.
That leaves £197 million.
The hospitals got £81 million.
The hospitals got £82 million, expenses were £80 million——
The hospitals got £81½ million.
The actual figure was £82,095,741.
That would be the most up-to-date figure.
I have in front of me that the total amount paid to the Hospitals Trust Fund up to and including 1975 was over £81½ million.
It was £82,095,741. There is no secret. These are published figures and can be totted.
I must confess to a great reluctance on the part of the sweepstakes to disclose these figures when I tried to get them earlier.
These figures can be extracted in the Library of the House.
Does the Minister remember when I asked a couple of years ago for some of these figures— more for the purpose of refreshing my memory than anything else—and he refused to give them and told me I could go to the Library, get all the sheets and add them up?
Yes.
That is not very feasible.
It is quite a job to do it. Only this debate is on, I do not think I would have done it.
It is up to date on file in the Department. After every sweep they add the figures so it is no bother to get the figure there.
I am giving the figures to the Deputy now.
What about the reserve fund? Every private company has a reserve fund which provides for times of economic problems.
The company who run the sweepstakes are called Hospitals Trust (1940), Limited. These accounts are not subject to public audit. They are a private company and their accounts have provision for reserve, like those of any other company. What is provided for here is merely disbursements and receipts in respect of each sweepstake. The question of reserves would not arise.
If it were to do with employment, a reserve would have to be realistic. The figures for salaries and wages in respect of one sweep in 1975 amounted to £½ million and for the period this year to another £½ million. The amount involved in the sweep on the Derby was £½ million and the Lincoln £½ million. There was an aggregate of £2 million and that is not a figure one could have in reserve for any appreciable time. The whole operation is not a thing that can be guaranteed for any period. The thing is that the promoters have met the deficit out of their own pockets.
I do not accept this. There is no question of the directors paying out of their own pockets.
Not the promoters. "Out of their own pockets" is a colloquialism. They meet it out of their own funds. This is a private company. This private company are the promoting agency and it is normal business practice to have a reserve fund against contingencies. We have heard of companies who have had deficits of £½ million. They do not suddenly close down—they provide for it.
The fact that the reserve is being increased does not necessarily mean they will get it.
The expenses are not going to the promoters. Expenses are expenses.
In the Cambridgeshire the expenses were 34 per cent. The highest was in the Irish Sweeps Derby when it was 35.68 per cent. None of the sweeps exceeded 35 per cent by way of expenses. Why could we not have brought in a temporary Bill providing for 35 per cent and then bring in a Bill later, if necessary? Here we are providing for 40 per cent, and 5 per cent is an enormous amount in this context.
That 5 per cent does not go to the promoters—it is for expenses.
I am not saying it does.
If expenses are not paid, the sweep does not take place and there is loss of employment.
It is appreciated that we are going through a rough time, but have the promoters given reasons to suggest that the revenue will decrease from now on and that their operations will require 40 per cent?
They cannot predict on past trends what future trends will be. They know there has been a drop in gross revenue in recent sweepstakes.
We are rushing into this Bill because we have heard that the revenue from sweeps has dropped in a time of economic recession. I have heard nothing which would lead me to believe that in the past ten years there has been any significant trend and I do not think it is correct for the promoters suddenly to say that things are becoming very bad simply because since October, 1974 there has been a drop in revenue. It is too soon to endeavour to make an average. There is the additional fact that there are proposals for computerisation. In these circumstances it would seem to be unfair for the promotors to ask for this increase. I have reason to believe this Bill has been introduced because of a request——
Of course there was a request. I did not dream it up.
Deputy O'Connell may be under a misunderstanding. This did not happen in the past couple of months. We have had a number of sweepstakes and in each one of them there has been a drop in revenue.
Every company in the country suffered a drop because of price increases.
The Deputy should think of how long a situation can exist, how many more sweeps we can have if there is a continuing drop in revenue and how many people will lose employment in such a situation. Getting back to the section, is the Minister satisfied with the information available to him under the 1933 Act?
It is on a voluntary basis.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
Might I ask the Minister if he said that the National Prices Commission will examine——
We have left that section now.
I was asking if the Minister did say that he was giving consideration to that matter?
When the Deputy raised this on Second Stage I said it was a matter for the Minister for Industry and Commerce. I do not know the details of the law as to who is liable to come before the National Prices Commission but I presume anybody offering a service or charging a fee, generally speaking, is liable to have the level of the fees looked at by the Prices Commission. I will mention this to the Minister for Industry and Commerce and if he thinks it is a proper subject for investigation by the National Prices Commission, I have no doubt he will refer it to them and if not, that is his discretion.
Title agreed to.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."
I wonder if the Minister has any information about the number employed, the number in the Sweeps who are only temporarily employed? Have we any guarantee about their future employment?
The number directly employed is between 700 and 800. There are also a large number of people in advertising agencies, in printing works, perhaps in transport companies whose employment is indirectly affected by the health of this organisation. I do not know the number of those who are in what the Deputy calls temporary employment. I presume he means people who come in for a number of months, go out and come back again. I have no break-down of these numbers but I am sure that information could be obtained for the Deputy. I shall readily make the inquiries for him or he may prefer himself to contact the Workers' Union of Ireland who would have the full break-down of that information.
As regards the guaranteeing of employment, no commercial company can guarantee anybody's employment. It depends on the state of the market for the company to remain healthy and viable and so long as it remains healthy and viable it will continue to employ people. If it reaches a stage where it is no longer commercially viable for it to continue, people will lose their jobs.
For too long women have been employed only on a temporary basis. I think it is deplorable that they should have been let go and recalled each year even though they had contracts. I think this was wrong.
There was a very large corps of permanent employees for whom there was work on an annual or year-long basis but at times, when sweeps were being run, extra work was available for only a short period. To deal with that work temporary people were recruited which I think is something any commercial firm would do in similar circumstances. To blame the firm for letting those people go when they had not work for them is, I think, unfair.
But they did have contracts——
We can only have a question at this stage.
We are not on Report Stage yet.
We are on the Final Stage.
They had contracts with these women for many years and they were not just recruiting them. This was why it was deplorable—they kept them temporarily when they knew they were employed for many years.
I do not accept the implication or suggestion in the Deputy's statement that Hospitals Trust (1940) Ltd. acted unfairly in regard to these temporary employees. I think if the Deputy spoke to these people he would find out—and it is common knowledge—that many of them were grateful for the employment opportunities made available to them. To denigrate the efforts of the company in that regard is unfair to the company and does not, I think, tally with the facts.
Question put and agreed to.