Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 2 Jul 1986

Vol. 368 No. 9

National Lottery Bill, 1986: Committee Stage.

Sections 1 and 2 agreed to.
SECTION 3.

I move amendment No. a1:

In page 4, subsection (1), lines 16 to 18, to delete paragraph (a) and substitute the following:

"(a) The Minister may grant a licence to An Post or subsidiary thereof authorising the holding on behalf of the Minister of the National Lottery.".

The purpose of this amendment is to give effect to what has been stated by the Minister, his predecessor and by the Government outside the House, namely, that the authorised legal person will be An Post. The Bill as it stands reads:

(a) The Minister may grant a licence to a person authorising the holding on behalf of the Minister of the National Lottery.

(b) Not more than one licence under this subsection shall be in force at any time.

If ever there was a Bill in which the general statement of intent, outside the House and during the Second Stage debate, is not reflected in the terms of the Bill, this is it. If the intention is to give authorisation to An Post to conduct this lottery, then there is no reason, certainly not in drafting or in law, for not mentioning An Post specifically in the Bill.

The last day the Minister said to do this would be unduly restrictive. I do not see how he can suggest that to do what he said he proposed to do, and is determined to do, is unduly restrictive. If someone says his firm and exclusive intention is to appoint An Post, then I do not see how he can argue that it would be unduly restrictive if that were written into the legislation. In this instance we are taking the Minister up on the statements which he made and which emerged from the Government, since this lottery was announced. We simply want this translated into legal effect. May I suggest that we take my amendment No. bl with this amendment?

If the House agrees, we will take amendments Nos. al and b1 together.

Amendment b1 proposes that we delete "10" and substitute "5". Subsection (3) reads as follows:

When a licence is granted to a person for the first time, the duration of the licence shall be such period not exceeding 10 years as the Minister may determine;

On the last occasion the Minister said that if we inserted An Post specifically it would make the legislation restrictive because, if at any time the Government wanted to change the licensee, they would be confined by legislation. My case is that legislation can be changed by a very simple amendment. I do not believe it would meet with opposition in this House if the Minister of the day came here and said there were good and cogent reasons why we should delete the provision for An Post and substitute somebody else.

The reason I proposed that a period of ten years be deleted and substituted by five years is that the specific and exclusive designation of An Post would come up for review within five years. That does not mean that An Post will not have their licence renewed; it means that the Minister of the day would be empowered to renew the licence. I am not arguing about why An Post were selected because that discussion is over.

We are not prepared — and if the Coalition were in Opposition they would not be prepared either — to empower the Government to nominate any person to run the lottery. I can think of a number of persons with substantial funds who might be contributing to the Government parties at present, or who might contribute to our party in Government, or who might even contribute to both, who would like to get their hands on this lottery which has as near to a guaranteed income as one is ever likely to get under State control and regulation. No one in this House could stand over a provision which said that, although they know what the Government would like, the Bill entitles the Government to give the authorisation to any person. We do not accept that.

Any person?

That is what it says in section 3 (1) (a). The basis for our amendment is simple and I hope I have not over-extended the argument and I press the Minister to accept this amendment.

I support this amendment which deals with the nomination of An Post as the company with the franchise for the National Lottery. Government statements made outside this House have no legal standing. The public are not prepared to accept a pig in a poke, and during the recent referendum they were not prepared to accept statements made by Ministers outside the House. Last Thursday they decided to vote on what was in the Act. In this case the same is true. We are very sceptical of the Minister's statement as regards the allocation of this franchise to An Post.

As Fianna Fáil spokesman for Posts and Telegraphs and Communications I know a number of pressures were mounted for the Government to appoint one of the national handlers, Frank Flannery and Company, to front a very large organisation to take on this position. At the Cabinet table An Post won out at the end of the day due, to some extent, to the involvement of the Labour Ministers who had to support a legitimate semi-State organisation.

I appeal to the Minister to accept Deputy O'Kennedy's amendment and to nominate An Post as the company which will be allocated the franchise for the national lottery. Deputy O'Kennedy's amendment to reduce the number of years from ten to five makes it even more attractive for the Government to accept both amendments. The Minister will not lose face if he makes a decision here and now to accept those very reasonable, well thought out amendments which will improve the standing of the national lottery in the public mind. An Post have already geared up to receive the franchise and are in a position to mount this lottery on behalf of the Government and they will be doing an excellent job for the Government and the Department of Finance in operating this franchise. An Post have a very efficient management team and over 2,000 outlets throughout the country.

I appeal to the Labour Party Members who are not present to support that very important semi-State company. The union representing the workers of that company is a strong supporter of the Labour Party. Therefore, the party should support the union and the workers in An Post by guaranteeing that An Post will be the company awarded the franchise. Statements by Ministers outside or inside this House are not regarded with great credibility, and let us be honest about that. Quite a number of statements were made here about a proposal to set up a commission to organise the streets of Dublin. That proposal has been turned down and will not become legislation.

Very elaborate press conferences were mounted to announce that proposal. The same applies to many other proposals which the Government have announced outside this House. By supporting Deputy O'Kennedy's amendments we will improve the Bill and make An Post the company who will be allocated the franchise, and guarantee that in legislation. If that does not prove satisfactory or work out well the Government will be in a position in five years to review the position under the provisions of the Bill. I believe that An Post will be in permanent possession of the lottery if it is allocated to them.

If this legislation is passed without our amendment the Government again will come under mounting pressure from some of their national handlers to have this franchise allocated to strong Fine Gael supporters and that will destroy this lottery once and for all. Over 51 per cent of the people would not support a Fine Gael-fronted lottery.

Now I can see very clearly what the Opposition problem is, but I think they are unduly concerned. Deputy Leyden's contribution is contradictory of what Deputy O'Kennedy said. Deputy Leyden talked about the Labour Party being very closely associated with An Post and the workers of An Post and about that being a reason for them to support this but Deputy O'Kennedy made it very clear that he did not want to see that kind of association by implication with any Government party selecting either supporters or people who would be sympathetic to their policies. That seems to be a contradiction.

Let us leave that aside and talk about what is in front of us. Deputy Leyden said that we should accept these reasonable amendments because they are well thought out and carefully considered. I submit that they have not been well thought out and carefully considered. Let us look at the body of legislation before us and see what the Bill attempts to do.

On the section, Deputy.

I have a habit of saying that. Let us see what the section attempts to do. The precautions in other parts of the Bill that affect this section are absolutely essential. "Scrutiny" is a key word in the Bill and not only by one set of auditors but by two sets of auditors because we are dealing with the public's money and we must be very careful. The Minister must also be very careful because every aspect of the operation and performance of the lottery as set up under the Bill and the dealings with public money must be accounted for. I have no doubt that neither Deputy O'Kennedy nor Deputy Leyden who in future could be Ministers wants to put a Minister into a position where he has to answer for irregularities or inflexible measures in the Bill which would cause public concern about the use of this money, because the buck will stop with the Minister. Without saying much about it, let me refer to the only experience we have had in relation to a sweepstake lottery. There was a great deal of public concern about that, to which I referred on Second Stage. Nobody here wants to be put under a microscope at this time. What was acceptable or what one could have turned a blind eye to 20 or 30 years ago would not be acceptable now. In fairness, this is a very well compiled Bill——

On the section, Deputy.

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——

I tried to guide you.

Swimming against the tide.

The sections are there to protect the Government and the taxpayers' money in the event of mismanagement and failure and, most importantly, to protect the Minister of the day from any accusation of mismanagement or misappropriation of public funds, which is of paramount importance. I hope the operation will be successful and, later on, I will have the opportunity to talk about the job creation possibilities in the Bill.

Goodwill is the hallmark of my political approach. Deputy O'Kennedy will accept that I have very carefully monitored the Second Stage debate and have taken on board a number of the points made by speakers on both sides of the House. That approach is in accordance with my conception of parliamentary democracy.

On this issue I cannot agree with the Opposition. Deputy Skelly has covered the ground quite fully and has cleared the air on this point very well. Essentially what we are putting through the House is legislation to enable the Minister to appoint a licensee to operate the national lottery on his behalf. If we are talking about enabling legislation it is neither necessary nor appropriate that the group nominated to run the lottery should be identified in the Bill. It must also be borne in mind that there are a number of conditions precedent to the award of the licence that have to be discussed between the Minister and the propective licensee and therefore, in the immediate sense or looking further down the line, it would be quite anomalous to specify who the licensee would be. The practicality of the situation is that the Government have decided to enter into an arrangement with An Post to run the lottery through a subsidiary to be specially established for that purpose. There have been many discussions between my officals and An Post on this issue. These discussions are proceeding very satisfactorily and I have no doubt that they will be brought to a satisfactory conclusion very quickly after the enactment of the Bill.

Therefore at this stage I would suggest that on this issue Deputy O'Kennedy is like Don Quixote charging at windmills and his collegue Deputy Leyden is like Sancho assisting in the charge, scattering a few innuendos en route that stretch fiction to its limit. These innuendos are so ridiculous that I would not even bother to deal with them. Reason and logic support the approach adopted by me on this suggestion. I have listened very carefully to the points made by the Opposition. Accommodating as I have been on this Bill, I see no grounds for altering the view I have that this section should stand as an enabling section. On the passing of the Bill the Minister can complete the arrangements with An Post.

The Bill specifies that a licensee is appointed for a period not exceeding ten years. When the Government made their decision in relation to An Post they decided that the first licence granted to An Post would be for ten years. The duration of any subsequent licence will be determined by the Minister of the day. There are considerations to be borne in mind in relation to the initial licence. There is the question of starting up costs, capital expenditure, the possibility of online computer facilities and so on, and it does not make sense to proceed with an arrangement which would involve a fair amount of State expenditure without a reasonable guarantee of the continuance of the initial appointee.

I do not anticipate any problem about the way An Post will handle this operation and there are other provisions in the Bill which protect the Minister. I speak about these in general terms and not specifically in relation to An Post. There is an entitlement under section 30 to issue a directive, to revoke the licence in certain circumstances, or to put in a manager or administrator on behalf of the Minister. So the Minister's position is fully and adequately protected. In all these circumstances, having talked out the situation and bearing in mind the way I have reacted to the points raised on other sections——

That is what is called in law res inter alios acta. What happens in other issues does not affect this issue.

It is relevant by way of corroboration of the fact that I have seriously looked at all the points raised and have modified my approach on a number of sections, taking on board points raised by people on both sides of the House. But on this issue I suggest that Deputy O'Kennedy should agree with me that this section should stand. Reason and logic dictate that it should stand. On that basis I suggest that he might consider withdrawing the amendment.

The issue here is not the Minister's bona fides; it is not whether the Minister has responded to points made on Second Stage; it is not the intentions of the Minister or the kind of political representative he is or the manner in which he discusses things in the House. If it were I could sit down now and say "Thank you very much". The issue is that the Oireachtas is charged with giving effect in law to what we propose and want to do. Then the law as passed is the only guarantee that it will be done. It is time that we, whether as Ministers or as officials advising Ministers, became much more precise in presenting legislation. Good intentions mean nothing. The courts say every day of the week that what is stated even in this House is of no consequence when it comes to an issue to be determined in law. The Bill as passed into law is what is important. That is the reality. Generalisations do not come into it, and I hope the Minister will not think I am being unreasonable or unduly critical when I say he has generalised, that he says it is neither necessary nor appropriate to be specific. That is not good enough. If the Minister gave me authority, legal, parliamentary or otherwise, to support that statement I would say that perhaps I could listen and be influenced. However, a general statement of intent and the statement that it is neither necessary or appropriate to be specific is not good enough, more particularly because — and I do not want to turn the Minister's own words against him — he went as near as makes no difference to actually contradicting what he was arguing for. I will remember to take up this very important and enlightening point when we resume this debate.

Progress reported: Committee to sit again.
Sitting suspended at 1.30 p.m. and resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Top
Share