Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 1 Jul 1986

Vol. 368 No. 8

Private Members' Business. - National Lottery Bill, 1986: Second Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time".

Mr. Kitt

I was referring to section 4 and the proportion of the proceeds, 40 per cent, to be distributed in prizes. We regard that as far too low and we ask the Minister of State why it could not be increased to at least 50 per cent. On administration costs, I asked earlier if there would be elaborate headquarters. I do not believe the An Post subsidiary who will be running the lottery should have elaborate offices and be based in Dublin like most semi-State bodies. I hope the office will be a rather simple one and that it will be located outside Dublin.

Section 14 provides that there shall be seven directors, four to be appointed by the company with the Minister authorising the appointment of the chairman and nominating the three remaining directorships. Why not let the company deal with the entire question? The present formula seems to be very political.

The lottery will be very important. I pointed out earlier the difficulties that organised voluntary bodies have in raising funds. Many of them go from house to house to raise funds. To be successful, any lottery must have the loyalty of subscribers and it has to be promoted through the media, especially RTE, and I suggest that a suitable time for RTE promotion would be Sunday evening.

I repeat that I am disappointed at the way the Bill has been introduced. In his opening remarks the Minister told us of the beneficiaries he had in mind, but he was very vague. He used the word "flexibility", which I do not accept. We want to know exactly how the lottery will operate so that it will be of benefit to sporting organisations. I understood that was why the lottery was being introduced. I regret that the Bill is so vague and I hope the Minister will give us the information requested.

Mr. Carey

I welcome the Bill and I am sorry Deputies opposite have made this into a sour grapes issue. The purpose of the Bill is to improve the lot of those participating in sport and other recreational facilities, the Irish language, the arts and health. This new source of money being tapped by the Government will be of benefit to all the community. I know very well there are people in the Opposition benches who had major associations with sport. Indeed, it has been a contributory factor in their political lives. The former Taoiseach, Jack Lynch, made a major contribution to the political life of the country and to sport.

Through this Bill the Government are trying to provide funds for sport. Why, therefore, should the Opposition take the stance they have been exhibiting here? Why should they change their spots now? When they were in Government they never tied themselves down to specific arguments like those they are now making. I thought they would welcome this with open arms. The Leader of the Opposition has displayed a keen interest in sport. He has been associated with national clubs like St. Vincent's in Dublin. He has seen fit to sponsor in my constituency the Charlie Haughey Soccer Club and he has owned racehorses. Why then have his party chosen to oppose the Bill? Apparently Fianna Fáil have adopted a national strategy to depress the Irish people and if they cannot continue to depress them there is something wrong. They had a little victory the other day: they did their little sums behind closed doors and had a "No" vote whispering campaign. It was successful, but they did not come in here beating their chests.

Nevertheless, they are going around now saying the Government cannot last very long. Deputy Haughey has been talking about a general election next October. Why does he want to deny the sporting fraternity a little money in 1986 or 1987? Why does he want to depress employment in An Post? Why does he not do the decent thing and support the Bill? The Bill will contribute funds to organisations which need them. I heard Deputies opposite complaining about lack of funding for sport. Deputy Keating, now in the Progressive Democrats, is a former Minister with responsibility for sport and at that time he provided a grant-in-aid of £25,000 for a recreation facility in my home village. It is admired nationally.

The Government should invest most of the profits from the national lottery in sport as it has major problems. I appreciate that the other beneficiaries such as the Irish language and the arts are important. I support the Deputies who spoke about them but sport, recreational facilities and health are all tied together. Despite what Deputy Kitt said, the Government have put substantial funds into sport. When Deputy Creed was Minister with responsibility for sport he put plenty of money into the promotion of this facet of Irish life.

Over the past 18 months in County Clare the youth employment scheme has given £200,000 to the GAA for sports fields. That is not too small a sum. It is a significant gesture to the people of County Clare. We will not win the All-Ireland, but at least we are improving. We have won two matches this year in the Munster Championships and we are going to Killarney with a reasonable hope that we might win a niche for ourselves in the hurling annals of Munster. The contribution made by the Government and the confidence they placed in the GAA in County Clare was a very big gesture. I refute the claims made by Deputy Kitt that the Government have not put money into sport.

Deputy Creed in his period as Minister with responsibility for sport travelled to every constituency and county in Ireland. He can vouch for the amount of money which was put into sport. In this Bill, we have an opportunity to expand it further. It is irresponsible of Fianna Fáil to come into this House and oppose this Bill. It is playing a meddling political role. As I said earlier, the object of the exercise is to keep the people ignorant, say the Government are not capable of doing anything and keep the depression going. Be like the bad weather, have a bad depression and you are bound to succeed. The people will not be fooled by that. Certainly, the sporting people of my constituency will not be fooled by the spurious objections which the Opposition have to this Bill.

Perhaps, reasonable points are being made by the Opposition regarding how the money should be divided and whether there should be specific references and percentages inserted into the Bill. Deputy Yates wanted sport, voluntary charities, the arts and youth on a pro rata 25 per cent. I am not certain I would agree with that. I know this much: when the Government get the opportunity to distribute the funds they will have a very difficult task. As Deputy Creed pointed out, the lottery will help sport. There are 64 national sporting bodies catering for 1.4 million individual units.

Therefore, are the Opposition saying the Minister should insert specific categories into this Bill to deny individual units access to it, give them grants which will be so small as to be insignificant? They should have been objective when they decided to oppose this Bill. If they had put down an amendment or two they might have been acting positively. I resent totally their attitude especially that of their Leader, Deputy Haughey, who is a sporting man. It would be wrong to criticise Government actions on the provision of sporting and recreational facilities on a rural versus urban bias. We have to be generous and say that the urban areas should be given a priority in the provision of sporting facilities. After all, housing policies have not been generous in providing open spaces. There is a need to give young adults an opportunity to engage in sports. In my constituency, we have a serious problem. In the new town of Shannon there are no recreational facilities, especially an indoor facility. At present, a group of individuals are trying to raise substantial funds to complete a project which will cost at least £250,000. That type of facility and the imagination behind the proposal will benefit the youth of Shannon. When the proceeds of the national lottery are allocated we will have to emphasise sport, recreational facilities and health.

I commend the Minister on the expeditious way in which he brought this Bill into the House. I would like to see the matter concluded very quickly. There are more urgent things to be discussed. The city of Dublin has to do without certain firm proposals the Minister for the Environment wanted to make for the improvement of Dublin because of Fianna Fáil expediency. I commend the Minister on introducing this Bill.

Mr. Keating

I should like to thank my colleagues for agreeing to be succinct and to share the remaining time between those of us who are available to speak. I want to state briefly two or three points——

An Ceann Comhairle

I am calling on the Minister at 9.10 p.m.

Mr. Keating

I intend to take little of the time and I am grateful for the chance of getting in. There is no basis for opposing the principle of the national lottery. I welcome its introduction as affording people a choice. I want to make three basic observations. As somebody who was involved at the very beginning of the proposal for the development of this concept in the Department of Education where I had the pleasure of serving for a short time, I think we have an ideal opportunity to learn from the experiences of other countries. I argue very strongly that it is important to educate people on the wise use of the potential of the lottery. Many of us have some reservations about open ended gambling but, on balance, people should have the right to choose. I hope in due course responsible use of the lottery will help people to be entertained and yield revenue which will be useful for worthy causes.

Secondly, I want to make the point that a principle which I hold dear is that we should not set up a new institution unless we have shown there is no existing corporation or institution which can cope with the principle we are introducing. I made a few inquiries about the prize bonds scheme, a scheme which is almost a Cinderella in the sense that it is totally unsung, quite unglamorous, never marketed and, as far as I can judge, never gets the slightest bit of attention from anybody. I discovered that the prize bonds scheme offers potential for the principle of a lottery to be developed within it. I wonder whether the Minister has given any consideration to whether or not the revamping of the prize bonds scheme or the introduction of a comprehensive new, fresh and dynamic launch to the prize bonds scheme might offset the need to establish a new organisation. I was made aware that the prize bonds scheme has extraordinary potential, is very popular, is seen to be part of the State apparatus, even though it is not, and is approved of by the general populace.

At the same time I was disappointed to learn that there is no marketing of the prize bonds scheme. It does not have an advertising budget and the staff do not have the power to sell its advantages. Time does not permit me to go into this matter in any great detail, except to say that this House, instead of just noting the regular publication of the winning tickets, should see this as an area which might offer some potential. The prize bond service might be relaunched with a whole new marketing approach. The scheme, first introduced in 1957, is widely accepted and popular. It does the State a service. If it became clear that the prize bond scheme could provide an option for people to invest a few shillings — it could be as little as that under a revamped scheme where people could buy a smaller share of a ticket — we might find that we do not need to launch a new apparatus. I tried to communicate this view some months ago to those who make the decisions in these matters but it fell on deaf ears. I mention it now to the Minister.

I have looked up the legislation setting up the prize bond scheme and the debates which took place. There was a definite concept of development but that has not happened. Not only has the prize bond scheme remained static but it has actually been forgotten about by Government Departments and public representatives. I should like to bring it out from the shade, dust it off and relaunch it. It might not merely supplement this Bill but could even supplant it.

Many people have expressed concern recently about gambling excesses. I take the view that the best answer to this problem is an enlightened, intelligent, educated populace who are selective and discriminating. If I have any reservations it is that our school curriculum and educational process do not necessarily enlighten people. Often many of these options for gambling a few shillings are a form of exploitation. I should like to see an enlightened educational approach to that issue, but not one that would stop people having the right to invest. Many people in this House like the occasional gamble but that does not mean they are gamblers or that they suffer from an addiction. There are, however, people in the latter category who do need our consideration. The Minister, in the marketing of his scheme, should bear in mind those who are vulnerable and might find themselves, unconsciously or otherwise, robbed of their housekeeping money. Nobody wants that, but the problem can be avoided if the scheme is properly marketed. We should guard against excesses and take action in that respect, but that is not a reason for not affording people the right to exercise this option.

I have heard much about competition by various people to control the running of this lottery but I do not wish to comment. I wish the scheme luck and success and I hope it gets off the ground. The Minister might do me the honour of considering what I have said about the prize bond scheme which, properly handled, might obviate the need for a national lottery.

Mr. Prendergast

I thank Deputy Nolan for allowing me five minutes of his time to make a few brief comments. I welcome the Bill. In so far as it is designed to support sport, it will be welcomed by the whole nation and by the local authorities.

There is much discussion about the location of a national sporting centre and I believe that the Thomond region has an unanswerable case. The Thomond College of Education has unrivalled facilities in physical terms, as well as the most competent and highly trained professional staff. This would require the least investment by the State. I hope that objective criteria will be applied in the selection of location of this centre. I have no doubt that on its merits the case for Thomond College will be outstanding.

I would ask the Minister to withdraw that section of the Bill where it is intended to interfere with the normal industrial relations process for the negotiation of wages, salaries and conditions. This is a foolish, short-sighted and unwarranted intervention by the Government of the day in the normal industrial relations procedures. Semi-State bodies were established for two principal reasons. In some areas of national importance private commercial concerns were unable or unwilling to promote undertakings and activities which were seen to be vital to the industrial and social fabric of the nation. Semi-State bodies were also established at a remove from the Civil Service in order that they could have the necessary freedom to develop with commercial and industrial businesses at home and abroad.

These bodies could not successfully operate as part of the Civil Service. They would be put off completely by the red tape and the moribund methods that we normally associate with the Civil Service, not just in this country but in every nation. I would ask the Minister to act as he has already agreed to do in the case of CIE and in the Harbours Bill and remove that intention to lay down guidelines for movements of pay and working conditions. The trade unions are not unpatriotic subversive organisations. In spite of the impression often wrongly given by the media, they do take account of the national situation at any given time. This is effectively proved by the fact that in the last four national wage agreements union members lost out vis-á-vis the consumer price index.

I understand that the funds from this lottery are to be devoted to the Irish language. As someone who has devoted all his life to the promotion, expansion and development of the Irish language, I am aghast at that proposal. It is an insult that the funding of our first and major national language, which, with Welsh, is the oldest in the entire Continent of Europe, should be more or less dependent on a game of chance. Will the Minister explain the thinking behind this? There should be a more definite provision for the development of the Irish language. What proportion of the money will be devoted to the development of the Irish language and how will it be applied? I am aghast at this whole idea. It seems to trivialise the Government's approach, although I accept that that is not the position. This is the first Government to establish a Comhchoiste for the Irish language in this House since the foundation of the State and that is to be welcomed.

People are concerned that An Post have not been designated as the appropriate company to run the national lottery. The Minister was queried about this on a radio programme on Saturday morning and he was evasive. Normally, he is not an evasive person and I am not attributing any ulterior motive to him because there may be good reasons for the reluctance by the Government to nominate a particular company. I suggest that the Minister should nominate An Post, a very professional, competent and thorough organisation that is as good as any similar company in Europe or anywhere in the world. The company is competent to deal with the demands of a national lottery. Unless the Minister has some serious and practical objection he should name An Post as the body to run the national lottery. I understand from their spokesman, unless I am gravely mistaken, that they are prepared to undertake this duty as part of their normal day's work. That should mean a huge saving to the whole fund because if another company was to undertake the work and draw salaries and administration expenses the amount for distribution to sport, and inter alia the Irish language, would be considerably reduced. I am grateful to Deputy Nolan for his kindness.

Mr. Nolan

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate. Initially we welcomed the proposal to run a national lottery but many essential provisions have not been included in the Bill. It is obvious that the text of the Bill has been changed a good deal over the years. Fianna Fáil first mooted a national lottery but we did not have time to introduce it in our term of office. Deputy Creed, as Minister of State, supported the idea of such a lottery. I was heartened to hear his comments about the Bill and pleased to hear his proposals for a lottery. It is unfortunate that Deputy Carey is not present to hear Fianna Fáil speakers outline their concern about aspects of the legislation.

We are not convinced that the proceeds of the fund will go to sporting and cultural bodies. Heretofore it was intended that the lottery would establish a line of funding for our sporting organisations and we are not happy that the funding of certain voluntary organisations will not be affected by the lottery.

The whole question of leisure time activity has been highlighted in recent times mainly because 50 per cent of our population are under the age of 25. Our level of unemployment is the highest in the history of the State and most of those affected are under 25. It is because of the level of unemployment that people have suggested that we should consider leisure time activities. In the referendum last week the Government's proposal was heavily defeated and I understand that leisure time activity was mentioned in the course of that debate. Young married men and women who may not have worked since they left school at 18 years of age reached the stage where they are upset at the thought of not having a prospect of a job. Those young people must have some outlet and leisure time activity is one. When the Government decided to run a national lottery I was pleased because I felt the funds from it could be used to provide facilities for sporting organisations. However, last week the Minister of State, Deputy Nealon, outlined in no uncertain terms that the proceeds of the lottery should be devoted to the area of arts and culture. I disagree with his suggestions. The proceeds should be orientated more towards the area of sport.

In a debate of this kind it is only fair to pay tribute to the GAA for the great work they have done for our youth down the years but I am concerned that the work of that organisation will be affected by the lottery. It is not possible to calculate the amount of work being done by that organisation in the areas of sport and culture. I understand that state lotteries are run in more than 80 countries. One reason why I would like to see a national lottery here is that it may halt the flow of money on British football pools. We have been told that the purpose of the lottery is to generate surplus funds that will benefit the community in a number of ways, but the Government have failed to specify how the money will be spent. I regret that the Government have not announced that all the surplus funds from the lottery will be given to sporting and cultural organisations. The proceeds from national lotteries in other countries have been spent in many different ways and I was under the impression that the surplus funds from our lottery could go to sporting bodies. I regret that that will not be the case. We have been told that 40 per cent of the gross receipts will be returned in prize money and I should like to know if it is expected that administration will account for the remaining 60 per cent or if any profit earned will go to central funds. We do not have any guarantee that the surplus funds will be spent in the areas of culture and sport and that is regrettable. If we had been given such a guarantee Fianna Fáil would have adopted a different attitude.

Mr. Prendergast

I note that the Deputy has not mentioned the Irish language.

Mr. Nolan

I should like to compliment the Deputy on his remarks in regard to the Irish language. I admit that it is an area that needs a lot of attention by the Government and I support the Deputy in his call for more funds for the promotion of the language. The Government have told us that an independent scrutineer will be appointed to ensure that there is not any fraud on the part of the agency given the task of running the lottery. Why is there a need for an independent scrutineer? Do we not have enough confidence in the auditors in the different Departments? We reject the Government's proposal because we are not happy that the surplus funding of the national lottery will go towards the purposes we would like, namely, for cultural and sporting purposes.

Minister of State at the Department of the Public Service (Mr. J. O'Keeffe)

I have followed this debate with considerable interest and I want to thank Deputies on all sides of the House for their contributions. The number and length of these contributions is an indication of the lively interest in this measure. A number of points were made which I want to address specifically.

First, there was the question of a reference to An Post in the text of the Bill. I would point out that this will be enabling legislation. It will enable the Minister for Finance to appoint a licensee who will operate the national lottery on his behalf. It is neither necessary nor appropriate that the Bill should identify the first or any licensee. Indeed, since the Bill contains a number of conditions precedent to the award of a licence, such as that which requires the conclusion of satisfactory terms between the Minister and the prospective licensee, it would be anomalous if the Bill were to specify who the licensee were to be. I am happy to say that arrangements with An Post to run the lottery through a subsidiary specially to be established for the purpose are proceeding satisfactorily and I have no doubt that these arrangements will be brought to a successful conclusion after enactment. They cannot be brought to a conclusion until after enactment.

A number of Deputies on both sides of the House have expressed concern that the purposes for which the national lottery's surpluses are to be applied are not specified in the Bill. I can reassure Deputies that there is no intention to use lottery funds for general Government purposes. All the proceeds, after expenses and prizes are met, will be devoted to beneficial uses as already announced by the Government. However, in the light of the views expressed from all sides of the House, I am proposing to introduce an amendment to section 5, the relevant section of the Bill, which will be more specific as to the purposes for which lottery funds will be used. These purposes as already announced by the Government are sport and recreation, national culture including the Irish language, the arts and health. There will, of course, also be provision to extend the list of purposes, should the Government so decide.

Mr. Prendergast

Will the Minister explain what it is proposed to do in respect to the Irish language?

Mr. J. O'Keeffe

I am coming to the point made by the Deputy. Knowing his strong interest in the Irish language, I was a little surprised at the point he made. Any funding will be additional to existing State funding in support of the Irish language.

Mr. Prendergast

That is the point I wanted to make clear.

Mr. J. O'Keeffe

If that satisfies the Deputy I shall leave it at that. Clearly, it is a question of additionality.

Mrs. O'Rourke

Let us remember what happened with regard to the youth employment levy.

Mr. J. O'Keeffe

I share the interest of Deputy Prendergast in the Irish language. It would be rather remiss if we included arts and culture and ignored the Irish language. However, there need be no fears among Deputies that this will allow the lottery funds to be subsumed or absorbed into general public expenditure purposes. Any addition to the list of purposes to be contained in the Bill will have to be published in Iris Oifigiúil. Moreover, through the process of allocation of funds proposed, this House will have the opportunity to consider all the purposes for which the funds are used and the entire proceeds of the lottery will be accounted for in a completely visible manner. The legislation needs to allow for extension of the purposes in order to cater, for example, for arrangements which may become necessary in relation to existing charitable and voluntary lotteries when the national lottery becomes operational and also to allow the Government flexibility to meet other beneficial community purposes which may arise in future without having to amend the Act.

As to specific percentages being spelled out, this would introduce an unwarranted degree of rigidity into the Bill and would not be appropriate. Although a possible surplus, after payment of expenses and prize money, of £10 million has been estimated, we cannot as yet be certain how much the lottery will earn and what the pattern of that income will be. To specify such percentages in the Bill would, therefore, to a degree, be working in the dark and worse, it could raise false hopes on the part of prospective beneficiaries.

I would like to refer now to those voluntary and charitable bodies who run lotteries and who may be fearful of the effects of the national lottery on their fund raising. As I said in my opening speech, there have been extensive discussions between a number of such bodies and officials of the Departments of Finance and Justice with a view to ensuring the viability of existing charitable and voluntary lotteries after the national lottery commences.

Specific measures are being provided in the Bill to give these bodies a greater chance to compete. Section 34 will enable the Minister for Justice to improve the prize limits at present specified in the Gaming and Lotteries Act, 1956, for lotteries operated under Garda permit or licence from the District Court and also will exempt such lotteries from the restrictions on advertising and publicity set out in section 22 of that Act. I am in a position to state that the Minister for Justice has in contemplation new prize limits of the order of £3,000 for lotteries under permit and £10,000 for lotteries under licence. I believe strongly that these measures will provide adequate opportunity to those bodies concerned to compete successfully with the national lottery.

It must also be borne in mind that most subscribers of lotteries run by charities or voluntary bodies do so to support the charity involved and not for the prizes offered. I believe that the start of the national lottery will not seriously diminish this loyalty, which is rooted in a deep appreciation of the excellent work which charitable and voluntary bodies undertake in our community.

Only time will tell how, if at all, the national lottery will affect the situation of these bodies who hold existing periodical lotteries. However, I have already given an assurance on this point. I am stating clearly that where such bodies can demonstrate satisfactorily that the lottery has adversely affected their receipts the Government are prepared to take steps to make funding available to them from the lottery's surplus.

Mr. Prendergast

Will the Minister please expand on that?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister must be allowed to make his speech without interruption.

Mr. J. O'Keeffe

In the circumstances, I had better continue. I hope we will deal with Committee Stage tomorrow and there will be an opportunity for further discussion on that point. To conclude on this aspect of the Bill, I regret to say that there appears to be some misunderstanding about the participation of charities or voluntary bodies in selling tickets for the national lottery. Such participation would not be consistent with the intention to support, not to supplant, existing charitable fund raising. Moreover, the best technical advice indicates that sales outlets should be fixed retail business locations which will have to satisfy a number of criteria from a business and security point of view.

On a minor point, I was surprised to hear Deputy O'Kennedy express astonishment at the, to him, novel aspect of section 35, which provides for the alteration of provisions of the Bill by regulation for a period of two years after enactment. This, as I am sure he realises, is purely a technical measure and could not be used to alter substantively the provisions of the Bill. It is merely a prudent measure in legislation dealing with an innovation of some technical complexity such as the national lottery represents. I have to point out that there are precedents going back over many years, the latest being section 25 of the Farm Tax Act of 1985. On another point, raised by Deputy O'Rourke, concerning the use of electronic equipment in the national lottery, I have had this looked into but it would seem since the present Bill exempts the national lottery from the Gaming and Lotteries Acts, a problem does not arise.

In addition to my proposals on section 5, I might mention at this stage that a number of minor drafting and presentational aspects of the Bill have come to my notice and with the permission of the Ceann Comhairle I shall be introducing a number of amendments to cover these during the Committee Stage. With the exception of section 15, which I am proposing to delete from the Bill, these minor amendments in no way change the sense or intent of the Bill. I propose to put down an amendment to delete section 15.

(Interruptions.)

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister without interruption, please.

Mr. Lyons

The trade unions are backing our position.

Mr. Prendergast

The Parliamentary Labour Party will look after the unions.

(Interruptions.)

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Order, please, Deputies.

Mr. J. O'Keeffe

I will explain my thinking on this point on Committee Stage. This point has been raised by Deputies on both sides of the House. The deletion of section 15 has been decided in consultation with the Minister for the Public Service. There have been calls, again on both sides of the House, for all or a large proportion of the lottery funds to be devoted to sport alone. I understand the enthusiasm of the proponents of this point of view. Deputy Creed, who deservedly received tributes from all sides of the House for his dedicated commitment to the establishment of the lottery, made an eloquent plea on behalf of sporting bodies. I can reassure him that the proportion of lottery finds to be devoted to sport will be significant. The needs of sport were very much to the fore in the Government thinking when drawing up plans for the lottery. I am convinced that we will see in due course substantial support from the lottery funds for the projects Deputy Creed had intended in the sporting area. A strong case has also been made for funding for the arts and national culture. There have also been calls to support various other causes including those charitable and voluntary organisations which operate in the health area. The areas identified by the Government to benefit from the national lottery represent a balance of deserving causes to be given assistance from the lottery.

Deputy Liam Skelly made a substantial intervention in this debate. I would like to comment in relation to two matters which I know to be of considerable interest to him. First, he referred to the possible ill effects of lotteries, through encouraging young people to gamble, absorbing an excessive amount of people's money and so on. It is important to recognise a distinction between lotteries and gambling. We have of course had gambling in a number of forms in this country for many years. In fact in 1983 we spent more than £200 million as a nation in on and off course betting. Experience elsewhere in the world has shown that State lotteries are regarded as a harmless form of legalised gambling.

A recent UK Home Office study on gambling concluded that there was evidence to show that lotteries and pools which provide a natural limit on participation "are unlikely to be a significant potential danger to the participant". Apart from this, I think all Deputies recognise and a number have welcomed this, that the Minister for Finance who will ultimately be responsible for the national lottery is given in this Bill extensive controls to regulate the lottery and if necessary to intervene to prevent any undesirable ill effects such as might for example arise through excessive promotion of lottery ticket sales. This covers one of the main points raised also by Deputy Keating.

Deputy Keating had some interesting suggestions in regard to the development of the prize bond scheme. Unfortunately time did not allow him to develop fully the point and in the circumstances my reaction has to be similarly brief. The fundamental rationale of the prize bond scheme is to promote savings. I am not sure that this scheme would be the best vehicle through which the objectives we have in mind for the lottery could be achieved. On the other hand, I take on board as a separate item the point made about the revitalisation of the prize bond scheme and I will arrange to have the views expressed by Deputy Keating looked into.

Secondly, Deputy Skelly and others were interested in ensuring that the maximum benefit for Irish Industry accrues from the establishment of the national lottery. I can assure them that the Government are fully conscious of the need for maximum benefit to the country in terms of jobs and purchases. The board of the Lottery Company will I know be aware of and take fully into account the need to ensure that Irish firms reap the maximum benefit from this new venture.

Unlike some sorts of fund raising that exist at present, in which the proportion of total proceeds going to benefit the named purpose of the fund raising can be very small, there will be full transparency in relation to the operation of the national lottery. The public will know precisely how much is collected and where it is spent. In deciding on the areas to benefit, the Government were conscious of all these deserving purposes which will now be spelled out in the Bill. The amounts they will receive will be decided in due course and all the interests will have an opportunity to be heard during the allocation process.

First, however, we must get the lottery established. It will take up to six months after the passage of this Bill to complete all the complex arrangements that have to be made before the first tickets can go on sale and the lottery begins to generate revenue. I know that the majority of Members of this House, and indeed the public generally, are anxious to see this happen as soon as possible and I conclude by urging Deputies to help to speed the passage of the Bill so that all the beneficial community purposes that have been mentioned can begin to enjoy its fruits as soon as possible.

Question put.

The Dáil divided: Tá, 60; Níl, 50.

Tá

• Allen, Bernard.
• Barnes, Monica.
• Barry, Myra.
• Begley, Michael.
• Bermingham, Joe.
• Bruton, John.
• Bruton, Richard.
• Carey, Donal.
• Cluskey, Frank.
• Collins, Edward.
• Conlon, John F.
• Connaughton, Paul.
• Coogan, Fintan.
• Cosgrave, Liam T.
• Cosgrave, Michael Joe.
• Coveney, Hugh.
• Creed, Donal.
• D'Arcy, Michael.
• Desmond, Barry.
• Donnellan, John.
• Dowling, Dick.
• Doyle, Avril.
• Doyle, Joe,
• Dukes, Alan.
• Durkan, Bernard J.
• Enright, Thomas W.
• Farrelly, John V.
• Fennell, Nuala.
• Flaherty, Mary.
• Glenn, Alice.
• Hart, Patrick D.
• Hegarty, Paddy.
• Kavanagh, Liam.
• Kenny, Enda.
• L'Estrange, Gerry.
• McGahon, Brendan.
• McGinley, Dinny.
• McLoughlin, Frank.
• Manning, Maurice.
• Mitchell, Gay.
• Molony, David.
• Moynihan, Michael.
• Naughten, Liam.
• Noonan, Michael. (Limerick East)
• O'Brien, Fergus.
• O'Brien, Willie.
• O'Keeffe, Jim.
• O'Leary, Michael.
• O'Sullivan, Toddy.
• Owen, Nora.
• Pattison, Séamus.
• Prendergast, Frank.
• Ryan, John.
• Shatter, Alan.
• Sheehan, Patrick Joseph.
• Skelly, Liam.
• Taylor, Mervyn.
• Taylor-Quinn, Madeline.
• Timmins, Godfrey.
• Yates, Ivan.

Níl

• Ahern, Bertie.
• Ahern, Michael.
• Aylward, Liam.
• Barrett, Michael.
• Brady, Gerard.
• Brady, Vincent.
• Brennan, Mattie.
• Brennan, Paudge.
• Briscoe, Ben.
• Browne, John.
• Burke, Raphael P.
• Byrne, Seán.
• Calleary, Seán.
• Conaghan, Hugh.
• Cowen, Brian.
• Daly, Brendan.
• Doherty, Seán.
• Fahey, Jackie.
• Faulkner, Pádraig.
• Fitzgerald, Liam Joseph.
• Flynn, Pádraig.
• Foley, Denis.
• Gallagher, Denis.
• Gallagher, Pat Cope.
• Hilliard, Colm.
• Hyland, Liam.
• Kirk, Séamus.
• Kitt, Michael.
• Leonard, Jimmy.
• Leonard, Tom.
• Leyden, Terry.
• Lyons, Denis.
• McCarthy, Seán.
• McEllistrim, Tom.
• Moynihan, Donal.
• Nolan, M. J.
• Noonan, Michael J. (Limerick West)
• O'Connell, John.
• O'Dea, William.
• O'Hanlon, Rory.
• O'Keeffe, Edmond.
• O'Leary, John.
• O'Rourke, Mary.
• Reynolds, Albert.
• Reynolds, Albert.
• Treacy, Noel.
• Wallace, Dan.
• Walsh, Joe.
• Walsh, Seán.
• Wilson, John P.
• Woods, Michael.

Tellers: Tá Deputies F. O'Brien and Taylor; Níl, Deputies V. Brady and Browne.

Question declared carried.

An Ceann Comhairle

When is it proposed to take Committee Stage?

Minister of State at the Department of the Public Service (Mr. J. O'Keeffe)

It is proposed to take Committee Stage tomorrow, by agreement.