Amendments Nos. a1 and b1 will be taken together.
National Lottery Bill, 1986: Committee Stage (Resumed).
Debate resumed on 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.".
If I may, I will summarise what was said before we adjourned and I hope my summary will not be unfair or inaccurate. The Minister said this was an enabling provision and that it was neither appropriate nor necessary to designate An Post. A generalised statement like that is not adequate to ensure that the purposes for which legislation is passed will be implemented. To say something is neither necessary nor appropriate without backing it up by legal authority, parliamentary precedent or a precise statement, is not good enough. While I do not question the Minister's good intentions, this issue is not about intentions but about the legislation when passed and what it will mean in law.
It is time we were much more precise in the laws we pass as distinct from making vague generalisations, which has been the practice for all sides to engage in from time to time. The Minister indicated in support of his thesis that it was his intention to have An Post run the lottery but he said there were a number of conditions precedent to the appointment of An Post, a number of matters to be resolved in discussion to the satisfaction of the Minister before An Post are nominated. I am not arguing that matters which should be resolved in discussion should not be discussed, but the Minister appears to be saying that what we thought was decided has not been decided, that the conditions under which An Post would operate this lottery have not been determined at this point and that before An Post are appointed, there are conditions and precedents that will have to be satisfied. It is clear that it has not yet been decided in the proper sense of a legal decision that An Post will be the body authorised under this legislation to conduct this lottery. The impression conveyed was that all this had been done but we cannot leave this matter in doubt. There is grave doubt as to the exact state of the decision to nominate An Post to run this lottery.
I have indicated that, because it is not really appropriate for the spokesman on Finance, I am not necessarily entering into the issue as to whether it should be An Post or somebody else, but it seems to have been decided in intention that An Post would have responsibility, and there was consensus on all sides of the House on that. However, I am concerned that nobody else, no commercial company or profit making enterprise in the commercial area, could be nominated or have someone nominated to conduct what will be almost a guaranteed money maker despite what Deputy Skelly says. Deputy Skelly quoted one case in the USA—I do not know to which one he is referring. If, from his considerable experience, he pursued that further he would find that more than half of the states in the USA and almost every country in Europe conduct lotteries, federal or state in the case of the USA and national in the case of the EC countries, and everyone of them shows a very considerable profit, with perhaps the exception Deputy Skelly mentioned and I do not know why that exception, if it exists, is so.
The Minister said An Post should be nominated on the conclusion of the discussions between An Post and the Government. What further discussions are to take place between An Post and the Government? Before bringing legislation in here to give effect to his general statement of intention on the authorisation of An Post, I would have thought all of that would have been determined. Otherwise it could be a considerable time, subject to very lengthy discussions and difficulties, before this idea of a national lottery gets under way.
I would like to make two further points by way of comment on the Minister's reaction to my proposal. The Minister has repeated that this is an enabling section and after all of these discussions have taken place the Minister can act. We want to ensure that the Minister acts now in accordance with the stated intention. The previous Minister with responsibility for sport, a man with bona fides equal to his, said that this is the intention, but why do we say that, after all of these discussions, this Act enables the Minister to give effect to it later? Equally, if the Minister decided that the discussions were not working to his satisfaction — I thought they were concluded — we could not question in the Dáil whether he was going to authorise A or B. It does not matter who it is. It may not be some of the people to whom my colleague, Deputy Leyden, referred to this morning who have known associations with the main Government party and who are involved in other activities.
The Minister would have to apologise to nobody because in so appointing, say, the Rehabilitation Institute, or anybody else, he would be acting strictly in accordance with the law as passed here. That will not be so if he says his intention is to nominate An Post.
In relation to the five or ten years, the Minister seems to think ten years is a little bit too long if the thing does not work and, while it must be given a little time to work, I accept that. However, I would have thought that whoever was organising and managing this lottery would know within five years whether it was going to work. I do not think you would have to wait until ten years had passed. I know that ten years is the maximum under the Bill.
Not more than ten.
It does not have to be ten. Ten is the maximum. I would have thought five more reasonable having regard to the fact that the expectation and the eventual result would be that, in effect, the Minister would simply extend the licence, which he has power to do under the Bill and which we do not question. He could simply extend the licence for another five or ten years. We are not questioning that. We are not trying to take all power from the Minister. I will not pursue this matter further. I hope I have made the case objectively and fairly on the basis of legal principles and not general statements.
Let me make a passing reference here because Deputy Leyden mentioned this matter. We heard a fair number of general statements in recent weeks. That is all over and I do not want to have that issue brought up again, but it is important to recognise that general statements of intention from Ministers here or elsewhere are of no consequence when you are talking about Statute law. It is time we in this House recognised that once and for all because that is our responsibility. We are here as legislators, not just as politicians who made statements of general intent. I am concerned that what we pass into law here is in line with what we say we want to do.
I am a little disadvantaged here amongst the lawyers and I want to get a layman's interpretation of the section from the Minister and to ask him a few questions in relation to it. I was very pleased some months ago when the Government announced that the franchise was being granted to An Post. I felt they were the most competent and capable organisation with a ready made mechanism to do a good job on this lottery.
I want to ask the Minister if I am right in assuming that negotiations are still going on between the Department of Finance and An Post, and why he cannot write into legislation at this stage that An Post are being nominated by the Department to run the lottery. Is it that whilst negotiations are taking place such action would put An Post in a kind of commanding position which would interfere with the negotiations? That is my interpretation as a layman of the Minister's reason for not including it in legislation.
Is it beyond doubt that An Post will have the franchise? I understand that the Minister has announced it. I was well aware of the Government's announcement some time ago and, as I said then, I was very pleased that they got the franchise because at that stage I was making representations on their behalf.
I have been critical of the Bill in some areas and I want further clarification on it. In relation to the second amendment tabled by Deputy O'Kennedy, I feel that ten years is the better of the two options. The launching of a lottery is a very detailed undertaking and, having studied lotteries in other countries, my experience is that it will be a full five years before it reaches its maximum, in other words, before it is fully developed. The first year will be just the launching; it will be just founded. The second and third years will see an improvement and at the end of the five years it will level off. If we write into the legislation that An Post should have the franchise and at the same time accept Deputy O'Kennedy's amendment, what will be the position of An Post at the end of five years vis-à-vis the Minister? We have spent a considerable time discussing a section which is not the most important one but I should like the Minister to clarify the position. Is it because negotiations are still taking place?
Deputy Creed summed up the position well in regard to this section. With respect to Deputy O'Kennedy — I appreciate that a decision was made by his party to find grounds for opposing this Bill — the points made involve much ado about nothing. I accept Deputy O'Kennedy's view that, when putting legislation through the House, we should ensure that it is legally sound. Whatever about the position adopted by Deputy O'Kennedy's party, we expect him, on reflection, to appreciate that enabling legislation is required so that the national lottery can be set up and got under way. The Minister's power under section 3 is an enabling power, which is the proper procedure.
Deputy Creed mentioned the relationship between the Minister and An Post. I confirm and it is proper that I should give the full facts in this regard — that a decision in principle has been made by the Government to award the franchise to An Post and to issue the licence for a first period of ten years. These decisions have been conveyed to An Post and discussions have taken place between the representatives of the Government, officials of the Department of Finance and An Post and have proved very satisfactory. At this stage, the agreement on the financial arrangements for the running of the lottery has been finalised but that does not take from the fact that, after the Bill is enacted, further discussions will have to take place and we cannot do this until the enabling legislation is in place.
We will have to finalise the terms and conditions of the licence and discuss the draft memorandum and articles of association of the subsidiary company to be set up. We will also be involved in other discussions regarding rules for the lottery games and so on. I do not see that this takes from the view which I presented to the House that essentially we need enabling power to get this matter wrapped up. In some ways it could be said that the combination of the two proposals from Deputy O'Kennedy on this section are contradictory because, on the one hand, he suggests that the position of An Post should be enshrined in the Bill while on the other he suggests that the terms of the licence which we propose to grant should be halved——
The Minister has power to review the position at the end of the period.
The decision arrived at by the Government as soon as the Bill is passed is to grant a licence to An Post on a ten year basis. If we accepted the amendments proposed by Deputy O'Kennedy, what would our position be at the end of the five year period? We could be in a very difficult position, for example, if the operation of An Post was not entirely successful — perish the thought — and if we wanted to give consideration to another body we would not have the power to do so.
The Minister would have the power to do so.
On what basis? If we nominated An Post in the legislation—
The Government legislation mentions a period not exceeding ten years. I suggest a period not exceeding five years although it does not have to be five years. That is a matter for the Government. There are so many powers reserved to the Minister under this Bill and I am not objecting to them——
I am talking about the two proposals put forward by Deputy O'Kennedy whereby he wants to remove the power of the Minister of the day when a licence comes up for renewal — perhaps I am misreading his proposal — but my understanding is that he wants to nominate An Post for all time. Am I correct in that assumption?
I should like to clarify the matter. The Bill provides for what is necessary today but I am sure the Minister is aware of the fact that legislation can be amended if necessary. In this instance the amendment would simply be to delete An Post and substitute another company. I do not see why it should seem so complicated. We should do what is required.
There are other important issues to be dealt with but it would have been much better, before the Minister introduced the legislation to the House, to have concluded negotiations and discussions with An Post. Perhaps Deputy Creed is right; it might give An Post too strong a hand in negotiations—
I only asked the question.
I know, but if An Post will do the job, discussions and negotiations with them should be concluded before we give them the power to do so. The public may be surprised to know that although we decided that An Post would get the franchise, discussions could still go on for quite a time. We could toss this around for a long time but our legislation should be very clear.
I agree that we have discussed this point ad nauseum. Let me conclude on it by indicating that I do not think there is a whole lot between us. As I see it, now that Deputy O'Kennedy has clarified his position, he feels that the Minister should come back to the House at the end of a five year period rather than having an enabling power to consider somebody else, whereas I feel it is more sensible to have enabling legislation to re-appoint An Post, or somebody else if it was suggested that it was in the national interest to do so, when the matter comes up for review after ten years, a period which should give them a proper chance to become fully established. Discussions with An Post are very far advanced and many matters have been agreed with them but there are certain matters that cannot be finalised until we have the legislation. As soon as the Bill is through the Oireachtas it is my intention to complete these matters at the earliest possible date.
It was once said that Parliament is supreme and should not be asked to legislate on general good intentions. The more I see of this place the more I think that is right.
I would like to make two points. The period stated in the Bill is a period not exceeding ten years. The Minister has indicated that the period of the first licence is to be ten years, even though the Minister could decide any number of years up to ten. This is also covered under section 30 because the Minister really has power to do whatever he wants and may, in the public interest, make a direction in writing. He has power to make those changes. The other point is that the terms and conditions referred to by Deputy O'Kennedy should, I imagine, be discussed under section 9. I hope we get to section 9——
Section 9 will be reached in due course.
——which deals with the remuneration of the licensees. So we are not going to discuss that. I thought it was going to be discussed there and I would like to say a few things on that. The last thing I would like to point out is that he is very naive if he believes that lotteries around the world are making fortunes. Lotteries have their ups and downs. They have very bad periods where they are losing money as well as periods where they are making money and it is well to remember that. The Minister himself went back to the fifteenth century to see when lotteries began. Let me point out that the lotteries went back to the time of Sodom and Gomorrah when Lot asked the Lord to spare them if he could find 50 just men. Lot probably held a lottery to see who the first 50 would be to get out of the city. That is when they started.
It is not a foregone conclusion that they will make money. I very much doubt that lotteries will be a success here because of the size of the population and that is why I feel the Minister should give himself the option of linking up to a bigger lottery in a bigger centre of population, such as Great Britain, the United States or Europe. The Minister still has the power to do that and this might be done in the course of monitoring and scrutinising the situation within the company — I would prefer to call it a company because we have to have that flexibility. We cannot tie ourselves into a named body that might make an unholy mess of it, and be unable to extricate ourselves. I think the flexibility is there to make sure that whoever is operating the lottery will do so successfully on behalf of the people. If they do not I hope that, despite the squeals that may come from whatever body are operating it and their employees, the Minister will exercise his powers under sections 30 and 31 and under section 9. It is an absolute must, as Deputy O'Kennedy said, that the terms and conditions be definitely laid down. I hope we will get to section 9 so that we can talk about that because there are pitfalls there.
We will get there, with the co-operation of the Deputies. Is the Deputy withdrawing amendment No. a1?
I am not withdrawing it.
Question: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand" put and declared carried.
Amendment b1 not moved.
Section 3 agreed to.
SECTION 4.
Question proposed: "That section 4 stand part of the Bill."
There appears to be a slight misunderstanding. This section provides that at least 40 per cent of the total should be provided for prize money. I should like it to be clearly understood that the 40 per cent is a minimum figure and my expectation is that perhaps the percentage will be higher.
Who will determine that?
It will be a matter for final discussions between the Minister and the subsidiary of An Post.
It is another enabling piece of legislation and I understand that at least 40 per cent will go for prize money.
It is very important to say, even though we will discuss it on section 9, that the fact that 40 per cent goes for prize money means that the 60 per cent will cover the fund which the Government hope to use to do all the things they want to do. This would cost a maximum of 20 to 30 per cent; the remaining 20 per cent will have to cover everything from overheads, marketing, sales processing, tickets and so on. This is important because if the criteria under which the company must operate are not laid down they could be in a loss-making situation if they cannot work within that 60 per cent. I hope the Minister will lay down such criteria later on because we are talking about everything from renting an office block to employing people, to buying, equipment and so on. I would prefer to leave it until we reach section 9 provided the Minister bears in mind that he might have to refer back to this section.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 5.
Amendment No. 1, in the name of the Minister, amendment No. 1a in the name of Deputy O'Kennedy and amendment No. 2 in the name of the Minister will be discussed together. Amendment No. 1a is an alternative to amendment No. 1 and amendment No. 2 is related. It is agreed that they can be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 5, lines 6 to 9, to delete subsection (1) and substitute the following subsection:
"(1) Moneys paid into the Central Fund pursuant to section 8 of this Act shall be applied for—
(a) the purposes of such one or more of the following, and in such amounts, as the Government may determine from time to time, that is to say, sport and other recreation, national culture (including the Irish language), the arts (within the meaning of the Arts Act, 1951) and the health of the community, and
(b) such (if any) other purposes, and in such amounts, as the Government may determine from time to time.".
As I mentioned in my opening remarks on this Stage of the Bill, I did consider what was said in this House on Second Stage. I decided that my course should be to respond positively to the constructive remarks of the Deputies on both sides of the House. The Government had earlier made it clear that there was no intention whatever that the surplus funds from the lottery would be used for general Government purposes and also had made it clear that the proceeds, after expenses and prizes were met, would be devoted to certain beneficial uses which had already been announced. I had not the slightest doubt about the commitment in that regard, but I was somewhat concerned, in the light of the remarks made here, that there could be any confusion or misunderstanding on the part of the general public, arising from those comments, as to the beneficial use of the proceeds.
I felt that the proper response was to put down the amendment which I have now proposed, which will incorporate in the Bill and specify the various beneficial uses as already announced by the Government. Sport was mentioned in my closing speech on Second Stage. Sport and recreation are very significant elements. National culture, including the Irish language, and the arts were among the areas already announced. I take the point that it would be better, from the aspect of securing community acceptance and having greater credibility for the whole scheme to have these included in the Bill. I am quite prepared to do that and that is why, having listened to the Second Stage debate, I decided to put down this amendment. As far as I can see, I am ad idem on this point with Deputy O'Kennedy, who was one of the Deputies to raise this issue and whose amendment seems pretty much on the same lines as mine.
The Minister has said "pretty much".
It is pretty much on the same lines as my own. I do not want to be critical in any sense, but my amendment has received, as it were, the endorsement of the parliamentary draftsman and perhaps is that little bit——
The parliamentary draftsman is there to do as Parliament tells him to do. What the parliamentary draftsman wants is not at issue here at all.
I accept that.
He will do what he is told. He is paid to do that. Some are junior barristers I know very well. They are good lawyers, but——
I would be the last person to cast any criticisms on barristers, junior or otherwise.
They are good men, but——
I make the point that I have had the advantage of having the amendments which I propose put together for me by the parliamentary draftsman. That has to be borne in mind as well. Otherwise, there is not a great deal of difference between the two proposals except in one instance. I feel it necessary still to reserve the power to the Minister to add in due course other purposes as the Government may determine from time to time. I believe that power which Deputy O'Kennedy has not included in his amendment should still be incorporated in the Bill. It is necessary. I can go into a little more detail if the Deputy does not accept that. The other amendment is consequential and we can take it after discussion on the present amendment.
I wish this issue were one simply of the Minister's good faith. If it were, I should have no problem, but the question of accepting the word of the Minister is not the issue. I accept his good faith in this matter. First, I welcome the fact that the Minister was influenced by what we said on Second Stage debate to amend what he proposed initially in section 5. That is a measure of the Minister's readiness to consider positions. However, what he is proposing by way of an amendment does not, in fact, give effect at all to what we proposed and what I understand the general intention of this House to be.
What the Minister has done is to specifically mention sport and other recreational activity, national culture, including the Irish language, the arts within the meaning of the Art Act, 1951, and, he goes on, the health of the community. He also adds at this point, and "such (if any) other purposes, and in such amounts, as the Government may determine from time to time". He has accepted the general concern about these areas and is going to name them, as if that in itself is effective, because it is not. In naming them, he adds two very significant elements, first, the health of the community — and I cannot imagine anything more broad than that — and secondly, "such (if any) other purposes, and in such amounts, as the Government may determine from time to time". If that is passed, the Government are entitled to spend in whatever proportions they so determine from time to time, such amounts of money, be it for any purpose other than those which have now been specifically mentioned. Clearly, that is far too broad and vague.
The Minister said this is an enabling provision. I certainly agree; it enables the Minister or the Government of the day to do exactly what they wish with the money. The Act would not impose any obligation on them beyond saying that some of the money would go to sport, but it would not even have to. Let us assume that some would, but it could be an extremely small amount. If what the parliamentary draftsman has done is to give effect to what the Minister asked him to do, I suggest that the Minister go back to the parliamentary draftsman and get him, if he is worth his keep at all, to make the thing much more precise. He could do it in the form that I have suggested.
As far as I understood it, particularly from the former Minister of State, Deputy Creed — and I am not talking about the debate on the last day but generally — the bulk of the money from the proceeds of the lottery would go to sport or sporting and recreational facilities. What one means by the bulk one could argue about, but clearly if there was a main target area it would be sport and sporting and recreational facilities. I think we all agreed on that. We certainly responded in that way at all Stages. Without going into the history of it, on the last occasion Deputy Creed reminded us of where the original proposal came from and I can accept that. It came from Cospóir or some group in that organisation to his predecessor, Deputy Tunney, so I am not claiming credit for anybody in this instance. We all endorsed it and I want to see that endorsement translated into law.
It is for that reason that in the most precise, simple terms — and there is no harm in being precise or simple in drafting legislation — in my amendment I stated that these moneys would be for the promotion of sport, sporting and recreational facilities, charitable and voluntary philanthropic purposes, the arts and culture. Incidentally, I would be prepared to acknowledge that the Minister's reference here to national culture, including the Irish language, is probably better than mine. My amendment goes on to say, "provided that not less than half of the total proceeds shall be applied for the promotion of sport and sporting and recreational facilities". That is what we all want. That is as simple and precise as can be expressed in law and would not leave any doubt before any court as to whether it was being implemented in accordance with our general intention.
I ask the Minister either to indicate whether he is or is not in favour of seeing at least half of these funds going to sport and sporting and recreational facilities. If he is not in favour, then I can understand the position. If he is, I see no reason why he should not give effect to our wishes so that any future Minister who may have his maws or his jaws fixed on this nice fund will not be able to get it for other purposes. I am sure that the Government, with half yearly returns such as we had yesterday, would be glad to say; "Here is an extra £50 million which we can put on the right side and meet all our commitments". That is not the purpose behind this lottery. I do not intend to argue about the educational aspect as my colleague, Deputy O'Rourke, will deal in greater detail with that.
Apart from the general purposes the Government may determine, which in my view are far too vague, the Minister has specifically included the health of the community. We cannot get anything much broader than that in the health area. Does the Minister know how much is being provided or expended in the current public expenditure budget this year for the health of the community? If he does not know I will remind him. The figure is £1.213 billion.
Plus £58 million capital.
Obviously the Minister has the figures. That goes towards the health of the community. I am not arguing, and no one on this side of the House is arguing for a reduction in the health services. I will not go into the arguments already made. Those services are absolutely essential and are not developed to the point at which they should be. Wherever the funds to provide for adequate health facilities for our people are to come from, it certainly should not be by swallowing up the funds from the national lottery. If we are talking about £30 million or £40 million for sport, where would that figure go in relation to £1.213 billion being spent on health? Is it the Minister's intention to make sport the target area? If so, he should say so, as my amendment states. The all too general power the Minister proposes in paragraph (b) is so general as to make paragraph (a) meaningless. Paragraph (a) has good intentions. The various elements and interests are mentioned. Paragraph (b) gives the Minister power to do what he likes. There is a very strong case for supporting sport and recreational facilities and this is what we should do. That is what my amendment proposes.
A very important aspect of what we have been discussing in this Bill is the success or otherwise of the lottery. It is a new venture, a new proposal and something to which people are not accustomed. If we have a successful lottery it will be a very pleasant duty for the Minister or whoever distributes the proceeds of the lottery. If we have not a successful lottery the whole thing will blow up in our faces. This is one of the sections of the Bill which I referred to as a very important section. There are two important factors in the promotion of a lottery. One is the prizes. I compliment the Minister as I feel that that aspect is reasonably well covered. The Minister mentioned in the Bill and it was also mentioned on Second Stage that a minimum of 40 per cent should be devoted to prize money. The prize money is an important factor to people who are investing a small sum each week in a lottery. They look at the prize money that is available. This shows people that the prize money is adequate and attractive.
The other aspect which is equally important — I would say it is more important in this case — is the whole idea and the whole objective of this proposed lottery. I do not wish to repeat what I said on Second Stage but we cannot have some abstract objective for the public. In the amendment the Minister says "the purposes of such one or more of the following, and in such amounts, as the Government may determine from time to time, that is to say, sport and other recreation, national culture (including the Irish language), the arts (within the meaning of the Arts Act, 1951) and the health of the community, and"— this is the important one —"such (if any) other purposes, and in such amounts, as the Government may determine from time to time". If my interpretation of that is correct it means we are writing into legislation that the proceeds of the lottery could be spent on almost anything and to any amount.
I want to go back to the case I made in relation to sport. I join with Deputy O'Kennedy in thanking the Minister for listening to the views of the people on all sides of the House. The Minister said that the significant portion of the proceeds would be devoted to sport. At least there was some progress in that regard. Anybody who is promoting a lottery and trying to get the public's perception of that lottery correct should realise that sport is the main and primary attraction for the general public. I have had some experience of dealing with the 67 governing bodies of sport in this country who represent over 1.25 million people. They have high expectations of this lottery.
In 1983 the allocation for sport was £619,000. I know it is now about £1.5 million which is a fairly major increase. There is pressure from the sporting organisations to try to get a regular funding mechanism, in other words, that there would not be a stop-go situation, so that they could plan in advance, that they could arrange for international events for 1987 because they would have some idea of what was available to them. There can be a fairly wide definition of the word "significant" in the Minister's speech. At least it is a commitment that sport has a kind of priority in this lottery. If the sporting organisations and the governing bodies saw that they would benefit significantly, from this lottery that would mean the success of this lottery.
Will the proceeds from the lottery which will be devoted to sport be in addition to the annual allocation? There is a strong economic case to be made for the promotion of sport. I spoke on Second Stage about the major voluntary contributions and the very generous sponsorship which are available and the value of getting young people involved in activities of all kinds. There are many areas in sport apart from what the grant-in-aid is intended for. I am talking about what we had in this House some time ago, for example, the outdoor education centres and recreational facilities. The recreational facilities grants were withdrawn some time ago. If this lottery can be made successful it could be a major source of finance for the promotion of sport.
We have certain facilities for recreation, we have sport centres, and there is a case to be made, economically, for the building up of such facilities. I agree with some of the points made about the health of the community, but if you ask people to become involved in a lottery whose proceeds will be devoted to the health of the community, to recreation, the arts and culture, I do not believe you will make it attractive enough to be a success. If that is to be written into legislation, anything goes and you will have applications from Connemara and throughout the country for vast sporting facilities. I should like the Minister to examine that aspect of the national lottery, which is a completely new concept.
Deputy O'Kennedy spoke about the huge sums devoted annually to the health of the community. When you regard the proceeds from this lottery as a contribution to health funding it will be a very small amount. In a single year it would be less than £2 million or £3 million — I do not know what the contribution of the Irish Hospital Sweeps was annually.
It will be important to try to sell this lottery and we must have an objective that will be attractive to the people. I think the Bill caters very well for the prize money and I am not worried about that part of this section.
I am glad the Minister has referred to some of the points made both on Second Stage and this week. However, I regard the Minister's amendment as inadequate and I would hope he will support our amendment. I share Deputy Creed's viewpoint about making the lottery a success. Deputy Skelly told us that some lotteries in the US were financial flops. People contributing to this lottery and buying their weekly or monthly tickets will need to know they will be doing it for a good reason. It is all right to say it is "for the health of the community" but in the political climate of the day, if there is a shortfall in the funding of any of the Departments, I am sure the Government will hijack some of the proceeds of this lottery to fill that gap. If the lottery is to be a success people will have to understand that the proceeds will go to the promotion of sport, culture, the Irish language and the arts, but we must impress on them that the main purpose will be the promotion of sport. Since the idea of the lottery was first mooted seven years ago it has been thought by people that the proceeds would be devoted to the promotion of sport. People will have their flutter and they will be more likely to do it if they think their money will be devoted to sport.
The whole thrust of the Bill will be dissipated if we are to believe some of the words used by the Minister. We were told that the money will be dissipated among several worthy objectives, unspecified, "as the Government may decide from time to time". That is not good enough. As I said earlier, the Government from time to time may find themselves short of money and decide to hijack some of the proceeds. We are suggesting that the proceeds will be used as an addition to the amounts annually voted in the budget for education and sport. There is nothing in the Bill or the ministerial amendments to guarantee that. I am afraid that these funds will go into the general coffers of the Government.
This Bill will not attract the public to involve themselves in the lottery. People have been talking about the proper equipping of sports centres and of a national sports centre. If any of us was to attend a sports meeting tonight and asked the people what they thought the proceeds should be devoted to they would say it should go to the provision of a national sports centre.
In Athlone.
I will come to that. I have spoken about the need for such a centre in Athlone. I put it to the Minister to tell us what proportion of the proceeds will be applied to sporting and recreational facilities. Would he not meet us half way in our amendment which would have selling value for the lottery. Does the Minister appreciate the therapeutic and medical values of sports promotion? Has the Minister consulted with his colleague, Deputy Barrett, on these matters?
I accept without qualification the points made by Deputy Creed. It was always thought that this lottery would be used to fund an area which we cannot afford to fund, and not for recreation and sport. I have always said that we do not understand the arts or culture and that we will not be able to improve the arts we have already. The only use we make of our culture is to entertain foreign dignatories.
What about Deputy Haughey's tax exemption to the arts?
I was going to say, as I usually do, with the exception of Deputy Haughey's attempts. I would like to bring reality into this situation. As Deputy O'Rourke has said — and I accept her sincerity — it is the gathering of money. If we go back to biblical times, Christ spoke about the tax gatherers. We are going to gather a tax. We are going to call it a lottery. Let us take it a bit further. It is a very inefficient way of gathering money as opposed to taxing people. I am 1,000 per cent certain that those involved have never thought about lotteries. If they had thought deeply about it we would not have put them in. There are spin-offs. This Bill will go through, because everybody is in favour of it except myself. I have to put on the record what I feel about it. We should use the lottery for the best possible purposes.
With our young population I see the need for facilities which we have never had. All those of my age group and older know that when we were young we had no facilities whatsoever. We did not even have a place to swim. Sport will do nothing to feed the nation and will not employ very many. As we are trying to put most people on unemployment assistance or social welfare payments, we need this kind of activity to keep our minds off other things. I am not trying to be insulting when I say that this is an inefficient way of raising money as opposed to taxing people, but I would like to see a headline that this lottery is a voluntary tax not only on the poor but the stupid. We are guaranteed a minimum 40 per cent payout. We are talking about a huge amount of money and ridiculously laughable odds of up to one million to one. The odds are so ridiculous that only stupid people will buy the damn things because one has no chance of winning. If anyone were to tell me that they were going to buy a ticket for £1, that the prize money is £1 million and that their chances of winning are one million to one, I would say that they were totally stupid and they were thick, unless they wanted to give the £1 contribution to the State, which is another way of looking at it. If the Government collect enough pounds they will be able to build the things they want to build and we would not have to waste 60 per cent of it on overheads etc. in order to pretend we were doing something worthwhile. If something is worth doing in the life of the nation, it is worth taxing people for.
At present countries are getting out of lotteries. Governments have made pronouncements on them. Ministers have made pronouncements on them. Sociologists have made pronouncements on them and everybody have made pronouncements on them because they are immoral. They are an immoral way of collecting tax. I am surprised to hear otherwise very sensible, mature and learned people going on about this lottery as if it is something wonderful. This lottery is a disaster for our people. It is a tax on the poor; and today I have said it is a tax on the stupid. On all the race courses around the country at present those who attempt to buy tickets for these accumulators or prizes, I forget the name of it——
The Tote?
No, it is not the Tote. It is one of these that if you can name all the winners——
The accumulator?
The jackpot?
It is not the accumulator, but it is something like that. Anyway, very few do it and none of the regular punters does it because the odds are so long. That is what we are asking people to do. Let me say one other thing which is very important and which I hope will not be forgotten. At some time in the future we will review the situation. Everybody has the best of intentions. Not only is it a tax on the poor and the stupid, but it will also cause unemployment. Nobody has considered that. It will definitely cause unemployment. The only way we can get around that is to do something similar to what has been done in the football pools in England and that is to keep it manual as much as possible. Then we will be able to create, just like they had in the Sweepstake ten year ago, 1,000 jobs for people who are generally unemployable, such as widows.
Remember that what we are doing is collecting a tax in order to keep them going. The sad part is that most of the money is going to be swallowed up. We do not know whether or not it is going to be able to make a profit within that 60 per cent. If we spend that 60 per cent in importing technological equipment such as terminals in order to run the lottery, we are also at a loss. Apart from the fact that it is going to compete with sweeps, horse racing, dog tracks, pools etc., the profit motive is based on the fact that we will have a monopoly. The company going to run the lottery will have a monopoly. I want to point out those things when we talk about where the money should go.
The Minister has been generous in trying to meet Deputy O'Kennedy's amendment. If what Deputy O'Kennedy is afraid of happens and if, as Deputy O'Rourke has said, the money is hijacked and brought back into the general coffers and absorbed into the Estimates, as has been mentioned, it will be laughable. The Government would be a laughing stock if they did that. It would be a fraud. The Government would then be saying that they were going to collect money under false pretences in a lottery and would use it if they got into trouble. I do not think that any Minister of any Government has that intention.
What happened the youth employment levy, Deputy? Where has that gone?
That was for employment.
It was meant for youth employment.
I take the Deputy's point and can see that she is worried about it. If that happened not only would we not deserve to be in Government, it is unlikely we would be in Government because we would be way down past scraping the barrel in trying to get this few extra pounds.
Deputy O'Kennedy made the argument for the Minister. In the health area spending is at £1.1 billion. If £20 million were added to that it would be swallowed up. What reason would the Government have for doing that? If a Government were thinking politically, they would be more inclined to spend the money in the way Deputy Creed spoke about. If we were that badly off, it would do something for the unemployed and in providing facilities for a nation that was crippled. Have we to stoop so low as to start taking the pennies which are going to be handed up by the less well off, from whom most of the money in lotteries comes? I would not have any worries about that and I would be quite happy, even with a Fianna Fáil Government or a Progressive Democrats/Fianna Fáil Government, to leave the section as it is, allowing the Government to apply the moneys for such purposes as they may from time to time determine. The only genuine worry is that it might be blatantly and deliberately used to promote the policies of whatever Government happen to be in power. If that is the concern, it is a genuine one, but it is catered for by the structure of the other sections. In the long run a company will be spending the money and that is where the attention of the critics should be directed. We must make sure that whatever company has this power cannot abuse it — for instance, by using the same suppliers as are used at present. I will refer to that point again. I do not know whether the Minister should tie his hands again by taking that amendment.
I agree with Deputy O'Rourke about the public perception of this lottery. We are certainly not going to go back over 2000 years and do as Lot did by looking over his shoulder because he did not pay out the proceeds of the lottery he ran. Perhaps that is why he was turned into a pillar of salt.
We are really splitting hairs and being oversensitive. The Opposition are being very sensitive to the powers being given to the Minister or the Government. If a change of Government comes about and we are in Opposition we will be very happy to see this lottery properly set up so that there will be no criticism of it. That is the general intention.
I will not go back into Biblical history but I will go back a few years and remind Deputy Skelly what happened to the youth employment levy. That is one of the reasons we are anxious to have this section changed. The Government's intention in relation to this Bill was shown when the Minister of State, Deputy Jim O'Keeffe, was asked to take it. If one examined the history of this legislation one would have to go back to the days of Deputy Jim Tunney and Deputy Máire Geoghegan-Quinn and the former Minister of State at the Department of Education, Deputy Donal Creed. There is no doubt that the perception of the vast majority of people was that this national lottery was designed to promote sport and the provision of greatly improved facilities for large numbers of people. I am not talking about very specialised facilities, although they too are important. Deputy Creed would also like to see the proceeds of the lottery spent for the benefit of the majority. I would refer specifically to the community games which are being run very successfully with very scarce resources. Extra funds could provide great benefits. There is reference to the health of the community but I suspect this means the few miserable pounds now coming from the Sweepstake.
Deputy Skelly claims this is a very inefficient way of raising money. I suppose the Government have thought of every other means of taxation and this is probably the least painful.
The public perception of this lottery is vital to its success. It will not succeed if the public suspect that the money is to be used as part of general Government revenue. Deputy Creed obviously carried out a lot of research on this matter, but the Government's intentions were shown when the Minister of State at the Department of the Public Service came into this House with this Bill rather than his colleague, the Minister of State at the Department of Education.
We are short of first-class facilities for a number of sports. Swimming is an example. There is no 50-metre pool which is a standard utility for international swimming. There was tremendous criticism recently after an international soccer match about the state of the pitch. There is no doubt that the vast majority of young people feel that the revenue from the lottery should be devoted to sports facilities.
Deputy O'Kennedy's amendment is reasonable and goes some way towards meeting the various points raised on Second Stage. I acknowledge that the Minister has gone some way to meet the points made by Members on Second Stage but I cannot understand his reluctance to accept Deputy O'Kennedy's amendment. The Bill is supported by the vast majority of Members and I do not see why the Minister will not copperfasten the various percentages in it.
The Minister will forgive me if I am a little suspicious. It is my view that he is anxious to hold the first lottery a short time before Christmas so that the people in a festive mood will support it. I do not think there is any festivity left in the country following the activities of the Government in recent years. The hope is that following that first lottery the Minister for Finance at budget time in January will have a little extra in his back pocket to spread the goodies. Approaching the general election the Government hope to be able to spread jam on the margarine people have had to use up to now.
Dairygold.
It is unfortunate for the Government that this will mean more money for Fianna Fáil when they are elected to Government after the general election. The Minister should accept Deputy O'Kennedy's amendment because it reflects the views of most Members. I have never seen so much difference about a Bill the principle of which is accepted by so many Members. The Minister should accept the amendment.
I hope the Minister will accede to the request of a former sportsman who played many sports.
I listened carefully to his eloquent plea. What strikes me about the discussion is the similarity in the approach suggested by Deputy O'Kennedy and the amendment I tabled. There is one essential difference in that I consider it necessary that we should retain a degree of flexibility so that other purposes could be added. I want to knock on the head any suggestion that there is any intention to use lottery funds for general Government purposes. I should like to reiterate that all the receipts after expenses and prizes are met will be devoted to official uses as already announced by the Government or such further beneficial uses as will be announced. It is my view that it is proper and appropriate to write into the Bill the general beneficial uses already announced by the Government.
There is an acceptance that I have tried to respond to the positive views expressed by Members on both sides. However, I believe that the enabling power is necessary in case the Government of the day decide to use some funds for other beneficial purposes.
Will the Minister give the House an example of what those other purposes might be?
I am glad the Deputy asked that question. I gave a commitment in the House that, in the event of voluntary organisations who run periodic lotteries being able to produce figures to show they have suffered as a result of the national lottery, I will be prepared to give their application for compensation favourable consideration.
They are covered precisely in my amendment.
It could happen that such an organisation would not be operating directly in the area of sport, culture, the arts or health. My hands would be tied in that event and I could not fulfil my commitment. The proposal I put forward gives me a degree of flexibility to enable me to fulfil my commitment. I should like to give another example. This morning I was given a letter from Comhairle Náisiúnta na nÓg in regard to the lottery. I have not had an opportunity to take any advice on whether the proposal in the letter can be accommodated under subsection (a) and I am not saying the proposal cannot be covered but I want to use that letter as an example. If I find that the official uses I have outlined do not cover the activities sponsored by that organisation I will not be able to help them. There is a need for flexibility to facilitate such organisations.
The House should bear in mind that the Bill provides for full visibility of what is done in regard to the lottery. There will have to be a public announcement in Iris Oifigiúil of any such purpose and it will be possible to have it debated in the House. There is no possibility of underthe-counter activities in regard to the proceeds of the lottery. I hope that by reasoned argument the Opposition will see the need for this flexibility. I have every confidence in the Irish electorate returning my party to power after the next election but there must exist a remote possibility that the main party in Opposition might some day in the near or distant future find themselves on this side of the House. I am sure in that unlikely event their Minister would not like to have his hands tied on this issue. A worthy cause, which may carry the endorsement of all sides of the House and the public, may be presented to the Minister who would not like to have his hands tied in regard to the granting of funds to it.
There was reference to the health of the community in the course of the debate and Deputy O'Kennedy seemed to suggest that this was a new proposal.
The Minister who has the figures in front of him must have had some knowledge that the Health Estimate was an element in this.
The figures I have came from my head.
There is no harm in coming prepared for a debate.
The Government, in announcing the lottery on 17 October 1985, said that the proceeds of the lottery would be used to assist sport and recreation, the arts, culture, the Irish language and health. There is nothing new about the health element and I want to knock any suggestions or suspicions in regard to that.
Deputy O'Kennedy made some play of the use of the phrase "of the community". When the papers came back from the parliamentary draftsman I asked why these words should be included and it was made clear to me that if the word "health" were left in on its own it could be legally interpreted as meaning animal health or some such thing. The reason for inserting the words "of the community" was to make it quite clear we were talking about human health.
It is relevant to point out that many existing bodies are doing outstanding work with regard to health. I am sure colleagues here subscribe to many of them and, if I may be forgiven for being somewhat parochial, perhaps I could quote the example of Cork Polio. There are many similar organisations doing excellent work and I consider it quite proper that their work might be helped by giving them a portion of the proceeds of the lottery. I am sure most Members here would agree with me on that point.
For that reason I had included them specifically in my amendment.
They are also included in my amendment. It appears we are not at odds. Perhaps we are approaching the target from two different directions but we are allowing the Minister of the day the flexibility to achieve the same result. As I expected, I was very impressed by Deputy Creed's pleas on behalf of sport. He was capably supported by Deputy Calleary, a quite natural thing in view of his background.
Deputy O'Kennedy used the word "target". I confirm that sport will be the main target area of the lottery. Deputy Creed said he would like to see sport and recreation having a kind of priority and I can confirm that this will be so. I also confirm that the amount allocated from the proceeds for sport and recreation will be significant and that it is the intention of the Government that such benefits will be additional to existing supports. Sport as a beneficiary was foremost in the thinking of the Government when they decided to establish the lottery and I have no doubt that substantial funding will be available from the lottery once it is operating successfully.
Deputy O'Rourke referred to a national sports centre. I agree we need a fully equipped sports centre but I shall not get into any hassle as to its location.
What chance Skibbereen?
Again, I find myself in agreement with Deputy O'Kennedy. We are of the one mind. The Deputy has planted a suggestion that I should perhaps encourage in other quarters. What is being put before the House is an enabling procedure that we hope will permit an increasing amount of money to be available each year for the purposes we have outlined. Of course a national sports centre could be one item to which the money could be put.
Deputy Skelly made a point which brings out the fundamental difference between Deputy O'Kennedy's amendment and my amendment. I think some degree of flexibility should be left to the Minister but so far Deputy O'Kennedy does not agree with me fully on that point. Deputy Skelly summed up the position very succinctly when he said we would be silly to tie our hands. I agree with him and I also think that a degree of flexibility, with all the safeguards already provided, should be available to the Minister.
In my amendment I have set out specific commitments. I have proposed that not less than half of the total proceeds should be provided for the promotion of sport and sporting and recreational facilities. As I understood it, that is in line with all the general statements and intentions set out by the various Ministers over the years and reechoed by the Minister today. If we want to achieve what we agree is necessary, I suggest the Minister should accept my amendment. Nothing he has said has convinced me there is any reason for not accepting it.
My first responsibility in Government, and one I enjoyed greatly, was as Parliamentary Secretary with responsibility for youth and sport. I established the first sports council, the predecessor of the present Cospóir. Those of us who have had dealings with community organisations have been greatly impressed by them and I should like to think we could go a stage further and specifically commit not less than half of the proceeds for the promotion of sport and sporting and recreational facilities.
The Minister said he does not want to have his hands tied. I am not trying to do that. My amendment does the opposite because it also uses the words "charitable and voluntary philanthropic purposes". That would cover any general intention as referred to by the Minister. My amendment also speaks about "the arts and culture". In a way, I prefer the Minister's reference to "the arts, national culture, including the Irish language". I would like to be associated with that, but we are talking about giving effect to what was agreed. We will not reach agreement on who will be responsible in Government in one or two years' time. I will leave that to the people. Any punter or anybody with a shrewd eye to the political scene will come down very heavily on the fact that it is money-on that the Minister and his party will not be in Government in a few years' time.
It would be safer if he put his money into the lottery.
We are not trying to tie the hands of this Government but we want to enter into a commitment which will be honoured by every successive Government and which will be part of the legislation we pass. As my colleague, Deputy Calleary, alias Séan Kelly in the days when he was playing two sports — the Leas-Cheann Comhairle, who was a rugby player and supporter, will appreciate that he had to use the two names because he was very proficient in both Gaelic football and rugby — said, sport is the attraction and will sell the lottery.
There is no point delaying the House any further. I ask the Minister to accept my amendment, which covers all the points raised and most important, ensures that half the proceeds of the lottery will go to sporting and recreational facilities. We are not talking about intentions. I do not doubt the Minister's intentions, but I am anxious to ensure that the law we pass will guarantee what will be done with the proceeds of this lottery. That is why I believe my amendment deserves the support of the House.
Deputy O'Kennedy and I are not very far apart in our intentions except that I believe there must be a certain degree of flexibility. I have given a very strong commitment to sport and I do not believe it is necessary to actually write those commitments into the Bill. We need to have a certain degree of flexibility and I have already outlined the reasons why. I do not have the slightest doubt but that sport will gain significantly from this lottery but I do not believe it should be written into the Bill. I would remind Deputies that my amendment was put down having listened to the various contributions made on Second Stage.
Is the amendment agreed?
No.
I am putting the question——
If the Minister's amendment is carried, does my amendment fall?
Yes.
In those circumstances I must call a vote.
Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 67; Níl, 57.
Tá
- Allen, Bernard.
- Barnes, Monica.
- Barry, Myra.
- Begley, Michael.
- Bell, Michael.
- Bermingham, Joe.
- Birmingham, George Martin.
- Boland, John.
- Bruton, John.
- Bruton, Richard.
- Cluskey, Frank.
- Conlon, John F.
- Connaughton, Paul.
- Coogan, Fintan.
- Cooney, Patrick Mark.
- Cosgrave, Liam T.
- Cosgrave, Michael Joe.
- Coveney, Hugh.
- Creed, Donal.
- Crotty, Kieran.
- Crowley, Frank.
- D'Arcy, Michael.
- Deasy, Martin Austin.
- Desmond, Barry.
- Donnellan, John.
- Dowling, Dick.
- Doyle, Joe.
- Dukes, Alan.
- Durkan, Bernard J.
- Enright, Thomas W.
- Farrelly, John V.
- Fennell, Nuala.
- FitzGerald, Garret.
- Flaherty, Mary.
- Glenn, Alice.
- Harte, Patrick D.
- Hegarty, Paddy.
- Hussey, Gemma.
- Kavanagh, Liam.
- Kelly, John.
- Kenny, Enda.
- L'Estrange, Gerry.
- McGahon, Brendan.
- McGinley, Dinny.
- McLoughlin, Frank.
- Manning, Maurice.
- Mitchell, Gay.
- Mitchell, Jim.
- Molony, David.
- Moynihan, Michael.
- Naughten, Liam.
- Noonan, Michael. (Limerick East)
- O'Brien, Fergus.
- O'Brien, Willie.
- O'Keeffe, Jim.
- O'Sullivan, Toddy.
- Owen, Nora.
- Pattison, Séamus.
- Prendergast, Frank.
- Quinn, Ruairí.
- Ryan, John.
- Shatter, Alan.
- Sheehan, Patrick Joseph.
- Skelly, Liam.
- Taylor, Mervyn.
- Timmins, Godfrey.
- Yates, Ivan.
Níl
- Ahern, Michael.
- Aylward, Liam.
- Barrett, Michael.
- Brady, Gerard.
- Brady, Vincent.
- Brennan, Mattie.
- Brennan, Paudge.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Doherty, Seán.
- Fahey, Jackie.
- Faulkner, Pádraig.
- Fitzgerald, Liam Joseph.
- Flynn, Pádraig.
- Foley, Denis.
- Gallagher, Denis.
- Gallagher, Pat Cope.
- Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
- Haughey, Charles J.
- Hilliard, Colm.
- Hyland, Liam.
- Kirk, Séamus.
- Kitt, Michael.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Leonard, Jimmy.
- Leonard, Tom.
- Leyden, Terry.
- Lyons, Denis.
- McCarthy, Seán.
- McCreevy, Charlie.
- Browne, John.
- Burke, Raphael P.
- Byrne, Hugh.
- Byrne, Seán.
- Calleary, Seán.
- Collins, Gerard.
- Conaghan, Hugh.
- Cowen, Brian.
- 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'Kennedy, Michael.
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Malley, Desmond J.
- Ormonde, Donal.
- O'Rourke, Mary.
- 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.
Amendment declared carried.
Amendment No. 1a falls as a result.
Amendment No. 1a not moved.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 5, subsection (2), lines 10 and 11, to delete "paragraph (a) of this subsection" and substitute "paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of this section".
That is purely consequential.
I am taking the Minister at his word.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 5, as amended, put and agreed to.
SECTION 6.
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 6, subsection (5), line 18, after "Company" to insert "under section 31".
This is a minor amendment to correct a typographical error. It is to make it clear under subsection (5) that, should the Minister appoint a manager in relation to the company, it will be under section 31 of the Act.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 4:
In page 6, subsection (5), line 20, to delete "section 31" and substitute "section 30".
This is also to correct a typographical error. It is to make it clear that, should the Minister give a direction to the company in relation to the company, it will be under section 31 of the Act.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 6, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 7.
Amendment No. 4a in the name of Deputy O'Kennedy. Amendment No. 6a is related and they can be taken together by agreement.
I am not so sure that they are related as amendment No. 6a relates to section 14.
They need not be taken together. We will take amendment No. 4a.
I move amendment No. 4a:
In page 6, between lines 35 and 36, to insert the following subsection:
"(2) Voluntary organisations whose sole purposes are the promotion of the well-being of the handicapped, disadvantaged and underprivileged shall be authorised by the Company to act as Agents for the sale of Lottery tickets for the purposes of sale through their individual organisations subject to an agreed commission and a proportion of the profits of such sales at a rate not less than 20 per cent.".
We are anxious to ensure that the funds of voluntary organisations, their fund raising activities and the various resources at their disposal for entirely desirable and commendable principles should be not only protected but enhanced as a consequence of this legislation. Many speakers on all sides of the House, while supporting the idea of a lottery, have naturally been concerned as to what impact it will have on voluntary organisations. It will have all the resources of the State behind it; it will be in a monopoly and will have the resources, financial and otherwise, to gather the maximum amount of available money for the purpose of the lottery.
We are all conscious that there is a definite limit on the funds available from the community, even for desirable purposes. We are very concerned that the consequences of launching the lottery will not be to undermine the role and function of the many voluntary organisations who have made a magnificent contribution to the wellbeing of society generally. Nowadays, one hears far too much negative criticism of the condition of society, the lack of direction, idealism and purpose. We also hear criticism in relation to vandalism and breakdown of the family and their causes and we must address ourselves to these problems.
The most effective way to do this is to encourage people not just to concentrate on their own immediate, personal, selfish needs but to become involved in the voluntary work of so many of these organisations, especially those dedicated to the wellbeing of the handicapped, disadvantaged and underprivileged. A characteristic of what is best in our community over the past 15 or 20 years is that so many of these organisations have become entrenched in the community and have won considerable support and respect from them because of the work they do. We should ensure that this legislation will not undermine those organisations, particularly the positive effect they have on society. I know they had discussions with the Minister — it is no secret and I am not breaching any confidences — and they also had discussions with me as the appropriate spokesman for the Opposition. I was greatly impressed by the case they made and this amendment is to give effect to that case.
Voluntary organisations should be appointed as commission agents for the sale, through their own organisations, of lottery tickets. If the lottery is set up before this commitment is entered into and this arrangement made, it is almost inevitable that, as the lottery is launched and funds are made available by the community for it, these organisations will be immediately disadvantaged unless we link them to the lottery system. They would be the ideal people to link to the sale and distribution of tickets through their own organisations. This does not mean they would have the right to compete — if that is the word — with the normal channels, for example, sub-post offices of An Post.
However, they could act as agents for the sale of lottery tickets through their individual organisations. That would guarantee that these organisations, who have been so effective in raising funds for their very laudable purposes, would also be enabled to do the same in respect of the sale of lottery tickets on a commission basis. If that is not done, all these voluntary organisations, who are household names dealing with the handicapped and so on, will be placed at a great disadvantage when the lottery is launched.
The promotion of the lottery, the publicity attached to it and the specific channels of sale through An Post and otherwise will mean that unless voluntary organisations are recruited as agents — with a very defined purpose and limited channels — they will lose out. I am sure nobody here wants to see them in that position. We would all like to see them not only maintaining their position but enhancing it. This can be achieved by giving them commission on sales, referred to in section 6, which enables the company to authorise such persons as it may determine to sell national lottery tickets. The total number of persons will be determined by the company with the consent of the Minister. I propose that here the organisations should be specified — for example, organisations concerned with the well-being of the handicapped, disadvantaged and underprivileged.
If the Minister follows through to form, his response will be that he does not want to tie his hands even though his intention is to help these organisations. He may say that as it stands at the moment he is free to authorise such persons as he wishes. It also means that he need not authorise certain persons. While the Minister should have a certain discretion in this area, there should be specific provision for these organisations.
I mentioned also that there should be an agreed commission. That is a matter for the promoters of the lottery and the organisations to work out the appropriate commission and arrangements by which they would actually effect the sale of the tickets. I would suggest that it should be not less than 20 per cent of the profits, which is not excessive. I might have said 30 per cent or 40 per cent but I say not less than 20 per cent of the lottery, for other purposes, would take 80 per cent. That is about as good a balance as one could strike. We would like to see that 30 or 40 per cent but at this stage I do not know enough, any more than the Minister does, about what the receipts from the lottery would be. But if there is a commission and a 20 per cent profit this would enable them to have a guaranteed income dependent on their own promotions to enhance or maintain their income which comes almost exclusively from voluntary activities. I have little doubt that, given the challenge, they will respond very effectively and that not only will they protect their own interests and the interests of those they are concerned about but they will enhance the proceeds of the lottery by really using this opportunity to expand their own activities through their own organisations.
I will end by asking who is going to gain from this. The handicapped, the disadvantaged and the underprivileged will benefit. The Minister might say that they are covered in general terms by the Department of Health. This is far too broad. While I recognise it as an important target area that can cover anything from building hospitals to health administration and that it already accounts for £1.213 billion, I am anxious for the success of the lottery so that our own people, who have shown a magnificent response in this area, will continue to treat those who have been visited with handicap, who are disadvantaged or underprivileged as special, because they are. We all acknowledge that. If one watches the various sporting activities on television or at community games we are never more inspired than when watching those organised for the handicapped. People get a sense of fulfilment just watching the sheer joy and happiness that accrues to these people who have a special place in our society. I do not need to say any more. The facts speak for themselves. I ask the Minister to recognise the role of these organisations whose job it is to help these people. The Minister will be doing a great day's work if he responds to our proposal.
I appreciate the sentiments of Deputy O'Kennedy in putting down this amendment. I realise that we should support this section of our society. The Minister can do that himself or through the company by allowing them to be an outlet for the sale of tickets. It has been done before, but unfortunately it does not work. It does not work because once voluntary organisations get exclusivity like that——
It is not exclusive to them. Their purposes are exclusive but they would not be exclusive sales agents.
If they are given tickets and are in this category they get this 20 per cent commission. It is aimed at those people. It does not work because the organisation give the job to either a company or people with experience who will get involved in selling the tickets for the benefit of the organisation and pass the cheque back to them. But then we are into the old Catch 22 situation which we have always had with those organisations collecting for charities and voluntary organisations dealing with the Third World in that much of the money goes on administration, promotion costs and so on. That was tried in another lottery in Canada and it was abused to such an extent that eventually they dropped it and left it open because they could not control it. The company could do it if they wanted to. But there is another snag, that is, that fixing a figure of 20 per cent means that 80 per cent goes back to the lottery company and then there is an assumption that in that 80 per cent there will be profit for the central fund and the remainder will go for general overheads and administration of the company. There is no guarantee that there will be anything left for the lottery fund if we go along that road.
The third element is one in which I see the most danger, and one cannot write everything into the main legislation. It is important that all outlets allowed to sell tickets would operate on an equal footing with the main company so that the company, especially for commission purposes, cannot use all their own outlets and lump them together so that their sales would be greater than anybody else's and therefore they would be entitled to more commission. The company control the volume of tickets going to any particular outlet and can also ensure that their outlets receive supplies as a priority. I know one cannot itemise everything in legislation, but that is very important from the equity point of view. Equity, honesty and the uprightness of the whole system have been very carefully taken into account in the drafting of the legislation, hence the law section dealing with the scrutineer's appointment. If a wrongly numbered ticket is drawn and a dispute is involved as a result, the blame might fall back on the Minister. That is why we have these protective sections included in the Bill.
I do not want to interrupt the Deputy, but as far as one can see regarding the organisation of the lottery and the conditions under which it is organised, there is very little likelihood of the Minister being blamed in regard to the running of the lottery. The Bill is rather well drafted in that area.
I hope that the Deputy is right, but I think the buck will stop with the Minister. It is important that his office be protected all the way through by independent auditors and scrutineers and that we do not include in the legislation an amendment such as this which could cause complications and problems by abuses creeping in, not on the part of voluntary organisations but of other business organisations, consultants and outlets that do get involved and have got involved in a very big way internationally through voluntary Third World and charitable organisations. It was discovered that as little as 10 per cent and 5 per cent of the money collected for the disadvantaged poor of the Third World eventually found its way to them. Perhaps the Minister might mention whether, under the terms and conditions, he could incorporate the commission aspects. If he is satisfied after examination, that it could work, I would have no objection to taking it on board and it is a rather unique and clever way for Deputy O'Kennedy to try to help those who are inevitably going to be affected as a result of the setting up of this lottery, which I think is his main concern.
Yes.
He is concerned that they are going to be hammered. There is no question that not only lotteries but bingo pools, and also horse racing will be affected as a result of setting up the lottery. In the legislation the Minister can if he wishes, if he does not accept that amendment, take account of or perhaps advise the company to take account of this. The company's interests may conflict, for example, with the Government's interests or the policy of the Government of the day. I have the impression that some Members think that because it is An Post that are going to be the first appointee or licensee, they will automatically be working in favour of the Government, the Government employees. That is not necessarily so. A company's interests will not be the same as those of the Government. That is another reason why it is important that the Minister reserve on to himself the power to be able closely to scrutinise the operation of the lottery, direct it and make orders as it gets going.
The intention is that the lottery will be for the benefit of those bodies to which Deputy Creed has referred and ultimately for the benefit of the taxpayer, even though I think that may not be possible. They are the sentiments and that is what it is attempting to achieve. I wonder if it would be advisable to take this on board, given the experience internationally of other lotteries. It took them years to get the lottery back out of the system and the Minister might be better advised to look at it from arm's length.
This is my first contribution, and it will be short. I must agree with Deputy O'Kennedy's amendment. A lot will depend on the policy of the Government of the day and on how the legislation is implemented. It is necessary that safeguards be built into the legislation to protect the voluntary organisations. A group of organisations for the handicapped have grouped themselves together. I gather that there are 40 included, but there are many other smaller organisations and charities that will suffer severely when this lottery is set up. They advertised in the past but will not have the power and wealth to compete in advertising with the new operation. That type of organisation will be severely hot. I have grave reservations about that.
I was surprised to see my friend, Deputy Skelly, in support. He spoke out vehemently against another Bill which was being introduced into the House some time ago and was instrumental in having it withdrawn. This was a form of lottery or gaming. No Government should be involved in a lottery because it gives bad example. No matter what guarantees are given by the Minister, there will be only so much money to go around. There are 40 very deserving charities that call themselves the Union of Voluntary Organisations for the Handicapped. They have done much-needed work in the past and I hope they will continue to do that. All of those charities grew out of voluntary subscriptions and their own type of lottery. Many in recent years have been helped, aided and assisted by the health boards or the Department of Health, which may be the same thing. They will have to face further restriction because they will not have the type of funding which is available to a national lottery. One voluntary organisation that comes to mind is the Cork Polio and General Association, which had done tremendous work in our area, and Deputy Creed is as familiar with this as I am. They are suffering at present because of the economic climate and there will be further restraints imposed on them.
There will be further restraints imposed on them because they will not have the moneys available from the sources they had in the past. At the end of the day people will only have so much money to spend on lotteries, to buy tickets or to take part in non-stop draws. We, as politicians, suffer enormously from having to purchase tickets. I am concerned about this, especially for the voluntary organisations. I have just singled out one which will have its problems. It has given a service to the community by aiding the physically and mentally handicapped. I do not think any words of ours would be able to thank them for what they have done. It was done basically through voluntary subscriptions, lotteries and pools. Those organisations have made submissions to both the Opposition and to the Government. They made very worth-while suggestions which the Minister should bear in mind. He should look at them sympathetically because of their nature and the type of work that they do. Being offered an agency is not very satisfactory.
The moneys collected by all Governments can often stray into central funds. The money for the youth employment levy has strayed. In a tight budgetary position there will be leakages and it will be hard to come to grips with the problem. Because of the State involvement a certain amount of political representations will be made to get increased funding for organisations above and beyond what the allocation may be. I do not agree with this. It will be embarrassing for the administrators and for the Minister. He will have a certain amount of authority, discretion and power and will be able to make recommendations. That is a weakness and a reservation which I express about the lottery.
We are being told that the vast majority of the population in the years ahead will be in the greater Dublin area.
I hope that does not happen.
It seems that there will be a further weakening from the point of view of rural areas, small towns and villages. The money will be inclined to gravitate towards the Dublin area for projects in Dublin. The rural areas will not get their fair share of what will be available.
The Deputy need not have any worries on that score so long as I am here.
The Minister might not be there. There will definitely be damage done to voluntary and charitable organisations. I received a submission which states that damage is likely to be done to the fund raising programmes of voluntary organisations for the handicapped by the national lottery. It will entice away from them some of their subscription income. The scale of the damage will be at its highest for those bodies promoting weekly pools and instant number games. That is very definite in the climate in which we live. There will be an erosion of the funding of those organisations for the reasons I stated. The submission states further that the degree of impact lessens but is nevertheless acute for infrequent lotteries and door to door collections. We must remember that the money is collected by voluntary people who give up their time.
In this new operation we will have a bureaucracy. We, as politicians, have to deal with them from time to time. We will now have another one. We will have administrative costs we could well do without. Those are the weaknesses I see from the point of view of the voluntary and charitable organisations. We should have a certain amount of professional sport but, at the same time, our priorities should be to look after the handicapped and the retarded people in our society. This is all being done very adequately by voluntary organisations. Many are now suffering because of our budgetary position. A large percentage of funding will now be taken from them because of this new development.
I do not want to give the impression to the House that I am not in support of voluntary organisations or organisations who do what I would describe as very commendable work for the community. Of all the sections of the Bill, this is one of the areas where we should not under any circumstances restrict the Minister in any way in writing into the Bill any action we feel should be taken in this area. My personal opinion, and it is the opinion of others too, is that if there was one national lottery, if all the lotteries were under one umbrella, it would be a more effective and efficient way of raising funds, which is the purpose of the lottery. Listening to some of the contributions one would get the impression that the Minister for Finance is introducing a lottery — which I hope will be successful — and we will go out to the highways and byways and say to the voluntary organisations: "Make your claim if you feel that this has militated against your lottery in any way. The Minister, the Exchequer and the proceeds of the lottery are there to redress your position".
When we talk about channelling tickets through all those organisations the principle may be good. We will get the goodwill of the organisations and of people who have been involved in lotteries for a considerable time. However, if we do that to the extent that the amendment proposes, we are creating an administrative monster and sinking the lottery. That is one area about which I am very concerned.
When Cospóir, the National Sports Council, made their submission to the Minister in 1979 it was included in that submission that voluntary and existing lotteries should be looked at, that those who were doing charitable work and providing a service in the community should not be weakened in any way and their work should be recognised. How do you recognise or assess the damage being done by a national lottery? This is why I say the Minister's hands should not be tied in any way. If any one of the long list of voluntary or charitable organisations comes to the Minister when the national lottery is in existence and says: "We have lost hundreds of thousands of pounds," how does the Minister deal with a situation of that sort if he is restricted in this legislation?
The national lottery will militate against the fund raising efforts of smaller voluntary organisations if we force them to submit audited accounts of those efforts. If you insist on insuring them against carelessness or negligence it will be too much for them. The State and the national lottery will come to the rescue anyway no matter how much money has to be made up. This is a dangerous area over which the Minister should be given control.
Which voluntary organisations will benefit from the Bill? We have been given a long list of them during the past 48 hours and I agree with Deputies who complimented them on the valuable work they do.
I am particularly interested in those who promote sports for the handicapped. Anybody who had the honour to attend the Special Olympics, to which we invited 15 nations, would appreciate the valuable work that organisation do. I would be worried about the voluntary organisations and the charitable organisations which have not been listed. We have the Simon Community providing accommodation for the homeless, and valuable work has been done by other such bodies.
There is a job here for the Minister and he must sit down and work out some agreement or arrangement with voluntary organisations because it will be necessary to control them. There is a large amount of duplication of voluntary effort because of the multiplicity of charitable organisations. There is considerable wastage because of competition between so many bodies. We should like to know which organisations will come under the scope of this Bill. There are some organisations who have dubious objectives. It is a difficult job for the Minister and I agree that he should have the maximum possible flexibility. My point is that we do not want the national lottery to militate against those organisations, but at the same time we must be realistic and approach the matter in a cautious way. For that reason, I suggest to Deputies opposite that they should not press the amendment.
I am very conscious of the work of the voluntary organisations referred to by Deputy Creed. Their efforts will not be diminished by this Bill. When we are considering this matter we must bear in mind that most lotteries run by these bodies earn subscribers not for monetary gain but because people wish to support these charities.
The first point that must be dealt with is that the establishment of the national lottery with very big prizes should not diminish the efforts of those organisations and the excellent work they are undertaking and will continue to undertake. Very extensive discussions have taken place between officers of the Departments of Finance and Justice in regard to the various concerns expressed by these organisations and an effort was made to come up with responses to those concerns. There will be four specific areas in the Government's response to the concern put forward by representatives of voluntary bodies. The first is the existence of restrictions on advertising and publicity provided for in the Gaming and Lotteries Act, 1956. Continuation of those restrictions would affect those bodies in the promotion of their lotteries side by side with the national lottery. The restrictions will be lifted.
More important, there are limits on the prize money those organisations are able to offer. At present those limits are governed by the 1956 Act. Lotteries operated under Garda permit cannot exceed £300 and lotteries governed by District Court licences have a maximum of £500. A case has been made for substantial increases in the prizes.
How much?
Section 34 of the Bill enables the Minister for Justice to increase the figures substantially. The £300 limit on lotteries under Garda permit will be increased to £3,000 and lotteries under District Court licences will be allowed to increase the £500 prize to £10,000. As a result of section 34 the Minister of Justice will have power to increase those figures and to announce new limits.
A third point in the Government's response to the case made by charitable organisations is that many of the voluntary bodies would be able to obtain benefit from the national lottery proceeds. The success of the national lottery will help to supplement the work of voluntary and charitable bodies, particularly those mentioned in Deputy O'Kennedy's amendment who deal with the handicapped, the underprivileged and disadvantaged. The provision I have made in section 5 as regards health being a beneficiary of the lottery proceeds will enable to qualify.
The fourth point I want to state by way of a response to the case made for voluntary bodies is that where such bodies, presently holding periodical lotteries, can demonstrate satisfactorily, if such be the case, that the national lottery has adversely affected their proceeds, the Government are prepared to take steps to make funding available to them from the lottery surplus. Those are four specific positive responses to the case made by voluntary bodies. This is the background to the further point now raised by Deputy O'Kennedy. It must be made clear that it is not intended that the national lottery should supplant in any way the existing fund raising activities of charities or voluntary bodies.
It may not be intended but may do so as a result.
In case it does have that result, there are the four different specific responses which I have mentioned. What I have said so far is by way of background to my specific response. If there is to be participation in the sale of lottery tickets it will have to be on the same basis as other fixed location sales outlets. For instance, that rules out door to door sales. Any such participation (a) would have to be subject to criteria for sound business operation and security to be established by the lottery company and (b) could only earn the same sales commission as will be paid to business outlets.
In that situation the retention of a portion of the gross sales proceeds over and above sales commission by any charitable body would be contrary to the structure of the national lottery and the business ethos in which it must operate. On that basis the amendment proposed by Deputy O'Kennedy must fall. While the number of agents must have the consent of the Minister, the determination of the agents will be a matter for the lottery company. They will develop their own criteria. Apart from their own offices, the indications of what they will be looking for are outlets where there is substantial customer throughput — for example, food stores, newsagents etc.
I want to make it very clear that it is not anticipated that there will be a substantial sales commission. It will be a matter for negotiation and discussion between An Post and the people concerned. The Minister will be indirectly involved from the point of view of setting a ceiling. Any such commission will not be of the order of 20 per cent. It will be a fraction of that. That is an aspect which has to be borne in mind. There may be a possibility for some voluntary bodies to have discussions with An Post particularly those who have facilities where there is a large throughput of people and who feel that through the level of sales commission they will obtain a return which will bring better benefits to their charity rather than selling lottery tickets of their own. As I said, that is a matter for discussion between any intending sales body and An Post.
In summary, my heart is with Deputy O'Kennedy's plea on behalf of voluntary bodies. The four specific areas I have mentioned are a genuine and reasonable response to the concerns voiced by them. I do not believe the approach suggested by Deputy O'Kennedy is the proper response to the concerns expressed by voluntary bodies. In the circumstances I am not able to agree to the proposed amendment.
The Minister mentioned that voluntary bodies can have discussions with An Post. Will they be able to enter into negotiations and draw up terms of reference of their own which would be more suited to them? Could the Minister also clarify whether in the case of a voluntary organisation who for one reason or another has to raise once-off funds An Post would have the authority under the Act to agree to fund that type of operation?
On the first point, I would not like to make too much of the suggestion I made about the possibility of discussions between voluntary bodies and An Post. I mentioned it merely in passing. An Post will be establishing a number of sales outlets for the lottery. Conceivably, there might be some voluntary bodies who would have an area where there is a large throughput of people and where it might suit them to have discussions with An Post from the point of view of having an authorised outlet. In such an eventuality, clearly the basis of the agency arrangements would have to be the same as for everybody else.
Negotiation.
It will have to be negotiated but it cannot go beyond the maximum arrangement available for everybody else. Therefore, I would not make very much, if anything, of that point. I see it as a possibility. My major response is the four specific points I mentioned earlier.
On the second point, I understand from Deputy O'Keeffe that he is talking about anxiety on the part of some body to apply for some of the lottery surplus for a specific once-off project. In that situation, such an application will not be to An Post. An Post will be running the lottery. The distribution of the surplus will not be a matter for An Post but for the Government. As pointed out in section 5, a number of areas, such as art, sport, culture and so on, will benefit from the surplus. I would not see any problem for a body applying for an allocation for a specific project provided they come under the headings in section 5 (2). They would not be inhibited from applying, provided they satisfied the criteria.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Question proposed: "That section 7 stand part of the Bill."
There is a point I wish to bring to the Minister's attention. Section 7 (7) (a) states:
None of the following persons shall be entitled to own a National Lottery ticket that has been purchased for value or awarded as a prize in the National Lottery or any part of such a ticket:
(i) the Company or a director, agent or employee of the Company,
(ii) a person who prints National Lottery tickets or an employee of his or, if the person is a company, a director of the company,
(iii) a person who supplies any computers or other electronic devices of any kind, or part for, or equipment or computer programming or instructions for use in or in conjunction with, any such devices used by the Company or a person who operates, maintains or repairs any such devices used by the Company or an employee of any of the persons aforesaid or, in the case of a person aforesaid that is a company, a director of the company.
Section 7 (7) (b) states:
If a person specified in paragraph (a) of this subsection becomes the owner of the whole or part of a National Lottery ticket:
(i) he shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable—
(I) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding £1,000, or
(II) On conviction on indictment to a fine not exceeding £20,000,
(ii) the National Lottery ticket shall not be entered in the National Lottery and, if it is so entered, the owner or owners thereof shall not be entitled to be awarded any prize in the National Lottery in respect of the ticket, and
(iii) if a prize is awarded in the National Lottery to the owner or owners of the ticket, the prize shall be returned, not later than one month after its receipt, to the Company and, if it is not so returned, it or an amount equal to its value may be recovered by the Company from the owner or, jointly and severally, from the owners of the ticket as a simple contract debt in any court of competent jurisdiction.
Section 7 (7) (c) states:
It shall be a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to show that the National Lottery ticket concerned was purchased for him without his knowledge or consent by another person and (in the case of a person other than the Company) that, as soon as reasonably possible after becoming aware of the purchase, he informed the Company of the purchase and of the fact that he was not entitled to be the owner of the ticket.
I can see the reason for this provision but it is grounded on the experience of the Sweeps where a person put a hand into a drum and took out a ticket or might have been able to put a hand into the drum with the ticket already stuck to it. This provision is designed to assure the public that there is no possibility of fiddling. Let us suppose that the same conditions apply and everything is being dealt with manually. It might be a possibility that somebody could stick in a ticket. Does not section 7(7) (c) make nonsense of this since it can be put forward as a defence that a ticket was bought without the knowledge of a particular person and that the company were informed of the purchase and of the fact that he was not entitled to be the owner of the ticket? It is ridiculous. Somebody might buy a ticket for a child, but this type of thing could be extended to the purchase of a ticket for an employee of the company. I understand that this is another precaution by the Minister to ensure against dishonesty but I believe it is silly. It is stating that people who work in the organisation can tamper with the system. If that is the case then the system is faulty. What we should be saying in setting up this lottery is that such a thing cannot happen. If that is the case, there is no reason why any person should not be able to buy a ticket. There is therefore no reason for this provision, quite apart from the fact that it can be got around.
Even if it came to pass that someone purchased a ticket for somebody else who actually won money, it is really compounding a minor offence by specifying these penalties. I am glad imprisonment is not mentioned but rather a fine. I suggest that the Minister can be well satisfied that there will not be any dishonesty because the lottery will be run with the aid of technology and it is most unlikely that any fraud will take place. The president of the Ontario lottery won a prize of $50 in his own lottery. Why bother having this provision since if we cannot control the lottery we should not have one at all? If we can control it, there is no need for this provision since it is an admission of the possibility that someone on the inside could work the system to his advantage. The employees and their relatives should not bear the mark of Cain and should be allowed to participate if they wish, in the same way as the employees of companies such as Jacobs and Rowntree Mackintosh can take home biscuits and sweets every weekend at a knockdown price.
I understand Deputy Skelly's approach but section 7 must be part of the framework of the Bill. We are providing every possible precaution to ensure absolute public confidence in this lottery. Various powers have been reserved to the Minister for that purpose. The confidence of people must be reinforced by the security arrangements for the actual running of the lottery. It is necessary, however, to have a provision which will make it an offence for certain things to happen which could in any way reduce that public confidence. Bearing in mind the difficulty of convicting anybody on such a charge, it is necessary to have this section. Regarding the provision in section 7(7)(c), I do not think we should create absolute charges. We must provide for the person who makes an innocent infringement of the regulations and enable him to explain his position legitimately to the court.
Section 6 provides for the scrutineers.
Yes.
Question put and agreed to.
Progress reported: Committee to sit again.