I am talking about the section. Under the amendment we are discussing we are considering whether we will put the name "An Post" into the Bill. If I say "Bill" it is because I am talking about other aspects of the Bill which refer to this section. With respect to An Post, if the name of any company is inserted in the Bill then the Minister and the Government of the day are tied into going along with that company no matter how their performance turns out. I wish An Post every success in their joint venture with the Government but there is no guarantee that it will be a success. I would like to draw Deputy O'Kennedy's attention to this. He said that to all intents and purposes we are talking about guaranteed income. I submit that that is the interpretation that most people have. It is almost guaranteed income. It is a question of collecting the money and, provided you are not totally inefficient, there will be a bonanza at the end of the day.
I am sure that, as I asked on Second Stage, limits will be put by the Minister on the earnings and administrative and overhead costs in the running of the lottery, but has Deputy O'Kennedy considered failure? Has he considered losses? These things sometimes fail. For example, a lottery in North America lost $50 million in its first year's operation. What would happen if An Post lost $50 million, $40 million or $10 million in the first year of operation? What would happen if the lottery was so unfortunate or badly run that it continued to make losses and it was written into legislation that An Post were to run this? I know that the Minister may have other strict powers under the Bill to meet those circumstances but I see no good reason for putting anyone's name in. We have had recent failures of semi-State companies. Deputy Leyden has a very close association with An Post because of his spokesmanship in the last couple of years and he has confidence in them. I have confidence in them but we have had failures, very big failures, and the fall back has been on the Government.
The Minister removed a section because of criticism, which is a generous concession. This section is also protected by other sections — for example, the setting up and appointment of a scrutineer to look after the operations on behalf of the Minister at certain times. The definition of a lottery is a game of chance or mixed chance and skill. That also applies to football pools, and it may well be that the company running this lottery will need more help which the Minister may have to consider under the powers reserved to him in the Bill. He may consider putting in a section whereby the company, with his approval, could enter into a lottery with other organisations, perhaps in different countries. There would be benefits to be gained from this and perhaps he might wish to work in tandem with Littlewoods or a lottery in Massachusets which would attract American tourists here as a result of offering trips to Ireland as a prize in the lottery. It would boost the coffers, but there is no guarantee that it would be a success and that is why the Minister should immediately appoint a scrutineer when the company are established so that the company can be helped to get off the ground successfully. In this case An Post are involved, but no matter who are involved they are breaking new ground. We can gain from the experience of lotteries in other countries, some of which have been successful. They have mainly succeeded in collecting money, which was their objective in the first place.
I can see the worries of the Opposition and, as Deputy O'Kennedy reasonably said, if the shoe were on the other foot we would be looking for guarantees that patronage would not be distributed on behalf of the Government to any particular body. This Bill is to protect the citizens and the Minister and it is much better not to include the name of a company because there would be difficulties in the future, in the event of failure, in regard to extracting the company from the legislation. I venture to say, as a means of reassuring Deputies O'Kennedy and Leyden, that it is extremely unlikely that anyone will ever be able to take the running of the lottery away from An Post, no matter what happens because of the pressure by employees and because the Minister has removed a section of the Bill. There would be a public outcry and the Labour Party, if they are associated with An Post, would consider that An Post should retain the running of the lottery.
If the lottery is a money-spinner, I hope it will not be at a cost to the State, or just for the sake of creating jobs, as is the case with the Army, which is costing £272 million per year. I am worried about the efficient operation of the company. I concede that I thought An Post would be written into the legislation and I was surprised at the omission. It was an enlightened and perspicacious decision because it ensures the flexibility which the people demand. The options of the Government and the Minister of the day should be open to monitoring and examining the performance of the company running the lottery on behalf of the State, because there is always public criticism and an outcry when a semi-State body loses money or fails. Even the employees of these organisations have never demanded that they should be allowed to operate if the company are losing money. In the last few years the Government have tried to make semi-State bodies operate on a commercial basis and that has been the policy in regard to An Post. They successfully brought in two captains of industry to An Post and Bord Telecom and there is no doubt that the chief executive of An Post intends to do the same here. They will set up a separate subsidiary which will have to work in order to survive. If legislation is required to keep a business in existence I submit that such a business should not be kept going.
The company running the lottery will, by their performance and profits, stand on their own two feet and, if they do not, it behoves the Minister of the day to withdraw their licence at the time of renewal or before it. If I were on the Opposition side I would point to the other sections of the Bill which I cannot now mention because the Chair has guided me——