I want to conclude my contribution by making some references to the Bill before the House. Under the terms and conditions for the licensee company the Minister can set the licences. There are a few points to which I would like to draw the Minister's attention especially in relation to the legislation he is setting up. A company such as An Post can decide to license a number of outlets which seems to be the proposal. The instant game will have scratch off tickets similar to the promotional games run by petrol companies. These will be an sale through a national network of sales agents which will not be limited to post offices but will include newsagents, tobacconists, food stores, grocery stores and supermarkets. The agents will work on a sales commission.
This means they will also be available through post offices. If, in this case, An Post operated as a monopoly, the small outlet should get the same advantages. The commission payable to these outlets may be based on the amount of sales. If any company set up in this situation — we are probably talking about An Post — are to award a commission on the basis of sales, it must apply on an equal footing to the outlets. Therefore, An Post could get around the compensation system by restricting the amount of sales to individual outlets. For example, they would only be allowed a certain amount to sell. There could be a volume rebate or a sliding commission scale. For example, they could decide if they sold x thousand tickets they would get a premium, rebate or discount of 12 per cent. If they sold less than that, they might only get 10 per cent. An Post could lump all their outlets together and get a bigger commission. In that way it would be a disadvantage. It is important that we have equity throughout the system. As the Minister holds the controls, he should be able to ensure that he does that.
Under section 6, it is important that there be an ongoing outside audit for the draw procedure to allay any public fears. There is mention in the Minister's speech of employees being unable to purchase tickets. Section 6 has to do with the independent scrutiny of the national lottery. It is vital that the sales and various other outlets be properly monitored. There is provision in the Bill to ensure that employees cannot purchase tickets. That seems to me to be somewhat silly. If it is properly run, with no possibility of any leakage of information, then employees or anybody else should not have to worry. ‘Perhaps it is somewhat superfluous, being associated with the old idea of insuring the public in the case of lotteries, but this will be a more sophisticated type.
It will be important that the Minister retain sufficient power so that he can incorporate in the terms and conditions of the licence contingencies that may arise in the future which might warrant a tightening of its operations. Because of the large amounts of money with which we will be dealing it will be important that the board take decisions and that all expenses above a certain level, likewise, be approved by the board of directors. That is a precaution which warrants no explanation. The same would apply in the awarding of contracts. Because of the promotional aspects of the lottery, its wide-ranging activities — different types of promotions and businesses, suppliers and the goods to be supplied — it is important that the maximum amount of jobs be created.
I read somewhere that perhaps one is talking about 80 jobs. This is certainly an area in which jobs could be created for people otherwise difficult to employ. For example, a large number of widows were employed by the sweepstakes. If we utilise technology of too high a standard in the operations of this lottery we could do away with much employment. On the other hand, much employment could be created by a more manual operation. I think the operations of the sweepstakes are almost totally manual. It is my understanding that the pools in Liverpool are similar, and they employ huge numbers of people. From my research it appears that that board in Britain give consideration annually to computerisation. Yet they do not do so, I think, because the Government in Britain do not run a lottery in opposition to those pools so long as they continue to maintain the same numbers in employment. Probably that is the reason they do not have a national lottery in Britain.
I do not know the extent to which employment could be created in the operations of this national lottery. For example, if we were to have a semi-automatic or manual checking system — if at the end of the day it is Government policy to subsidise sporting and recreational activities, the building of community centres, arts and culture — this would have a high labour content especially amongst groups of people not easily employable. That factor should be borne in mind before finalising the details of the operation.
As against what Deputy O'Kennedy had to say, there is another reason certain controls and regulations should reside with the Minister and the board, so that they can report to the Minister and he can effect improvements. When dealing with such huge amounts of money, in the area of contracts, it is important that the management of the company should reflect Government policy of the day in job creation. I am thinking of something along the lines of the IDA, somebody that would advise on the best method of creating jobs, advise the board on the selection of contractors or suppliers so that the maximum potential would be exploited.
While accepting that An Post have undertaken a huge amount of research, as did the other companies who advanced proposals we should remember that they have had no previous experience of running a lottery. Likewise, we should remember that the Minister is responsible to this House, that ultimately the buck stops with him. In the drafting of the provisions of the Bill the Minister has been given the requisite tools to ensure that it is run properly.
The opportunities to be created out of the revenue yield will fall to be implemented by the Government or the company concerned. Therefore, it is essential that the Minister or the Government maintain this control, even if at arms length. In this case — because a semi-State company have been awarded the first contract — one is inclined to assume that the Government will benefit when that need not necessarily be the case. Certain things are ruled out because of the way in which the Bill has been drafted. I might make some suggestions to the Minister before Committee Stage. All contracts associated with this lottery should have a substantial Irish content, so that if the legislation does not so specify An Post will, at their own discretion, take major decisions about suppliers without necessarily considering such things as job creation.
The Government's interest and those of An Post are not identical. That is not said by way of criticism of An Post. Without fail new lottery legislation has a rippling effect on other Acts already in existence. I am talking about such activities as horseracing, football, pools, slot machines, sweepstakes, contests and so on, all of which inevitably are affected by a lottery law. The result can be unfortunate consequences for the lottery itself and sometimes for the Government when troublesome and time consuming amendments must be drafted and passed. It has already been inferred that the impact on charitable lotteries and bingos can be substantial and immediate.
In addition to definition problems already mentioned there are other problems that must be addressed in relation to this type of legislation, such as the payment of winnings. For example, are winnings to be paid out as an annuity or a lump sum? There are other questions regarding the tax status of winnings, trust accounts for prize funds, the timing and methodology of profit transfers to the Government, the spending of profits, the closed prize fund system, meaning that once money has been allocated to a prize account it must be paid out in prizes; the period in which a prize is claimed, the methodology determining winners, interest on prize money and the revenue that accrues either to An Post or the Government; the period in which claims can be made and prizes that are not won. The last point reminds me that it is very difficult to get information from insurance companies on claims which are not made when people die because their relatives do not know that they had insurance policies.
There is nothing in the Bill about potential for joint ventures. If we were not generating enough revenue and running into a loss making position, we might want to consider a joint venture with a foreign pool like Littlewoods. Such a joint venture might salvage the project. A whole host of issues must be considered.
Section 30 allows the Minister to give directions to the company. That is an essential requirement to guarantee its success. I could suggest a lot of added detail. Section 7 refers to the sale of national lottery tickets. It deals with the employees and it seems to be just plain silly. It certainly does not give a vote of confidence to the company selected to run the lottery. It is certainly an honourable clause but it is totally impractical. We are really saying that people who work in the organisation could tamper with the system. I cannot see any other reason for the clause, but if that were a problem we would have to reconsider the position. Perhaps the Minister could tell me whether the proceeds payable from the lottery are tax exempt. I should also like to know whether under the terms of this legislation it would be possible for video games to be legalised if we had already banned them nationally. I hope that point will be considered.
The Minister approves the members of the board and has the right to appoint a scrutineer to make direct recommendations to him. I suggest that this appointment should be made from the very beginning and that the scrutineer should report back to the Minister even at this early stage. The Minister would be in a stronger position from the start. He would have another source of information in relation to this project. I referred earlier to the running of a different lottery which gave rise to a lot of dissatisfaction. If this lottery were set up properly at the beginning there would be less criticism of it.
I do not want to delay the House any further but I reiterate the reservations I have about lotteries. If this project comes about, as seems likely, even though the main Opposition party are against it, it should be set up properly and given the best possible chance to operate. I should like the Minister to consider the points I made at the beginning of my speech. I am sorry that I had to speak so long but I wanted to stress the moral implications of setting up such a lottery in this State. It would not be going too far to say that the Government are now participating in a massive financial con job on the population, without meaning to do so. That is what the net effect will be and it would be wrong of me not to make that point in blunt language. We are carrying out something against our own people. If a colonial power did it, there would be an outcry. The bookies are in the same position as a lottery owner and the Government are now stepping into a similar type of position. If they decide to go ahead regardless, as usually happens here, I hope they will take all possible precautions and provide jobs, since that is our biggest need. If it is too much of a burden on the poorer sections I hope the lottery operators will desist and get away from that area.
I do not doubt the intentions of the Government and I can rattle off the social legislation that has been introduced in the past couple of years and the attempts we have made to aid the disadvantaged and the less well off. There were different types of Bills, ranging from that dealing with the Combat Poverty Agency to the three Children Bills as well as the Bill legalising the sale of contraceptives and the proposed amendment on divorce. All these measures were taken with the intention of improving the lot of the people. I would ask the Minister to make a simply statement to the effect that if the things I am forecasting come to pass then the Government will without hesitation pull out of it. It is too late now but if I had been around at the time I would have called for an investigation by the DPP into the operation of the sweep. I hope that the points that concern those who do not approve of or suspect this form of taking easy money will be dealt with and that the loophole will be closed off.
I regret that the Government are about to train young people to gamble. It is ridiculous to say that tickets will not be sold to those under 18 years when they may get them as presents. When those children get accustomed to the lottery they will follow on to the bookies offices and the gaming machines. We will have to deal with a big problem brought about by the Government, and we will get precious little out of the lottery. We may get a spanking new hall or a national sports centre fairly quickly but such centres will come anyhow. We should bear in mind that taking money in this way is like taking candy from children. The Government should consider the problems that result from the expenditure of £1,200 million on alcohol. Tax from that source represents 12 per cent of the national income. The lethal mix of drinking and gambling that will come about makes it difficult for anybody to speculate on the damage that will be done to society as a result of drinking and gambling to excess.
Parents will discuss the lottery at the kitchen table and children will ask them if they have bought tickets in the lottery. That will encourage them to buy tickets. It is bad enough for the Government to be promoting Bord na gCon and greyhound racing, which amounts to pure gambling, without getting involved in this area. The Government refused my request to introduce a law to undo the damage that will result from the emergency legislation introduced in November to increase the stakes and the prize money in gaming machines. They refused to ban those machines and now are encouraging gambling.
I regret having to contribute on this Bill but I have been waiting for two years to try to get the Government to change their minds. The Government are lending gambling a cloak of respectability and millions of people who were never interested in gambling will be encouraged to get involved. The lottery will not survive without aggressive promotion and that will come with the blessing of the Government. It will create untold problems. The Bill, as drafted, appears to be a good piece of legislation and I will be making a number of suggestions in regard to its provisions on Committee Stage. Anything I have said in regard to lotteries, and gambling is not meant to cast any reflection on those responsible for preparing the legislation. Their intentions were the best.
