Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 14 May 1930

Vol. 13 No. 20

Public Business. - Public Charitable Hospitals (Temporary Provisions) Bill, 1929—Second Stage.

Sir E. Coey Bigger

I move that this Bill be now read a second time. The voluntary hospitals in Dublin as in most cities have found it very difficult to carry on their work owing to the shortage of funds, and the suggestion has been made that they should be taken over by the State. I have given much time and thought to this question and have discussed it with the leading authorities in England and Scotland, in Canada, and throughout Australias—Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia and Western Australia. I found that the anxiety was the same everywhere, how to maintain the voluntary system and secure the necessary financial support. This is becoming increasingly difficult, more especially since the great war, as the cost per bed is at least 50 per cent. more than before the war. Subscriptions have not increased; in most cases they have fallen away. The Governors of these hospitals are exercising all the economy they can and at the same time are insisting on making the patients pay as far as possible. I was told recently by a leading surgeon that it was very difficult for patients who cannot pay to obtain admission to some of the large hospitals in Dublin. There is a greater demand for hospital treatment now than ever before owing to the advances in medicine and surgery, and the more scientific investigation in many of the cases. This all tends to make the hospitals more strict in refusing to admit patients who cannot pay.

My reason for supporting this Bill is to help the hospitals to carry out their original function to afford the best treatment to those patients most urgently in need of it, irrespective of any payment the patients or their friends can make to the hospital. This Bill, if passed, will assist those hospitals which will profit by the scheme to carry out the provision that 25 per cent. of the patients will either be free or not pay more than 10/- per week.

I admit there are two sides to the question of proceeding as proposed in the Bill, and I would rather the situation could have been met in some other way but not by State control. I know that the hospitals have tried by every means in their power to obtain further financial assistance and have failed. The Governors have accepted full responsibility for putting this scheme forward as their only hope of saving the hospitals from closing, or closing portion of the hospitals. The Governors of the various hospitals are high and broadminded philanthropists with as high moral and religious principles as any of us, and they take the whole responsibility for putting this scheme in force. This House is not asked to share any responsibility for the arrangements. I hope the Seanad will approve of the motion to give the Bill a second reading.

Mrs. Costello

Like Senator Sir Edward Coey Bigger, I support this Bill, and second the motion for its Second Reading. I am not enamoured of the Bill. I agree with Senator Sir Edward Coey Bigger in all he said about the need of the hospitals and the need of the people for the service of the hospitals and the difficulty they experience in getting into them. A great many people who live a long way from these hospitals in the country and who may have to go into hospital have first to pay their expenses up to town and cannot afford to pay much to the hospital. I do not know whether the scheme they have in England of having a Hospital Sunday was ever started here. I think the churches assist and generally get a very good sum. I believe Hospital Sunday was very successful in England, and I suppose it is still carried on there. I do not know whether it would be very good here. As to the rights or the wrongs of this particular method of obtaining money by lottery, I suppose if a push were made to get up charitable organisations, fêtes and bazaars and the rest of them a good sum of money could be raised by selling lottery tickets, but I think the system under this Bill would be far preferable, because it will be controlled and dealt with by adults for adults, and people will not be pestered by children coming round selling tickets which people generally do not want.

Colonel Moore

I think everybody should support this Bill. I think it is very important that they should do so, and I think they will. I do not know whether there are any Puritans here who will object to the fact of lotteries. I think those Senators who accepted the very scandalous system of betting and the opening of betting houses with their great demoralisation, will hardly stumble over such a mild thing as a lottery, which will not do one-twentieth of the harm that the betting system is doing. There are some points in the Bill that I do not understand, or rather, I hope I do not understand. When I turn to the matter of expenses in this Bill they seem to me to be very extraordinary. Section 5 sets out how this money is to be distributed, and as far as I can see thirty per cent. is to be spent on getting up the lottery. Another 7 per cent. may be spent on one or more people for also getting up the lottery, and finally there will be only 43 per cent. of the money that will be available for the tickets. Thirty per cent. is to go in expenses, and the ticket-holders will only have a chance of getting 43 per cent. of the money, which, I think, is a very unreasonable arrangement. This money ought to be given to the hospitals and not to the people who get up the sweep. But as far as I can see, only 20 per cent. is to go to the hospitals; 43 per cent. is to go in prizes, whereas 30 per cent. is to go to expenses and another 7 per cent. to more than one person who is to help. It all seems to me to be most extraordinary. Perhaps I misunderstand the meaning of the section, but on the face of it, it seems to me that my assumption is correct. Adding up 30 per cent., 20 per cent., and 7 per cent., we find that makes 57 per cent., which means that only 43 per cent. goes to the ticket-holders who invest their money, so that these people will have a very bad show in this matter. The hospital people will have a bad show, whereas the people who get the thing up will have a very good show, for they will get thirty per cent. of the whole.

Mr. Jameson

Who are they?

Colonel Moore

I do not know. It is stated, in general terms, that those people who get up the sweeps may take 30 per cent. of the money and that the individual or individuals who work it may take 7 per cent. That is my main objection, but I do not want to develop it any further.

Mr. Dowdall

I am one of those Puritans who oppose this Bill and the principle involved in it. I am that peculiar class of Puritan that I confess that I have to-day taken ten tickets in a sweepstake, but I think what a person may do in a private capacity for a private enterprise is rather in a different field than to support this Bill. This system of sweepstakes is not new in Dublin. I took some tickets for such sweepstakes and I took notice of what happened. I object to the principle of raising money by sweepstakes, because if it is accepted it will dry up, or cause to dry up, all sources of private and public charity which previously had gone to support those hospitals.

I really think this Bill will very largely defeat itself. I oppose the Bill with some misgiving, because I quite recognise what Senator Sir E. Coey Bigger said, that it is a choice of two evils. But I am further strengthened in my opposition to the Bill inasmuch as I believe if the element of sweepstakes comes in then inevitably you will have corruption. Money raised in sweepstakes some years ago very largely did not go to the hospitals, and many people like myself who took tickets would not have taken them if we knew the proportion that went to sources other than those set forth on the face of the tickets. I regret to have to do it, but I intend to oppose this Bill, and I hope other Senators will vote against it.

Mr. Johnson

I should like to move the rejection of the Bill and in this I suppose I am going to be in a minority amongst those with whom I usually act, as I was seven years ago in the Dáil. Senator Milroy will probably remember the circumstances on that occasion, and I hope the eventuality in this House will be the same as that of the Bill in the Dáil in 1923. I think the proposer of this motion gave away the case, inadvertently, when he said that during his travels in many parts of the world he met people associated with hospitals and that they were faced with the same difficulty as we are. That is to say, private hospitals could not obtain the funds from private charitable sources that they require to carry on this work. I would like the Senator to consider the effect of that statement upon his argument. We are going to meet the difficulty by a system of sweepstakes—sweepstakes which confessedly are not directed to the people of this country but are open to people all over the world. Following our example the hospital authorities in Australia seeing that they are in difficulties will adopt the sweepstakes plan and will appeal to the people, not of Australia, but all over the world and so will the people of South America and so will the people of England and the people of North America. In all those countries where the Senator found the same difficulties existing that we have they will follow the same plan and then what is going to be the result? Sweepstake tickets everywhere for charities everywhere, for purpose not of charity at all but purely of speculation in the hope that some day a profit may come to the holder of the lucky ticket.

I should like to read an extract from a speech delivered by the late Minister for Justice on the First Reading of the Bill of 1923 which was in effect, identical with this Bill. Mr. Kevin O'Higgins, who was then Minister for Home Affairs and afterwards Minister for Justice, speaking in the Dáil on 21st February, 1923, column 1577-8, said:—

"I want to make it clear, from the outset, that there is very little likelihood now that this Bill can receive anything but opposition from me in the position which I hold. I have given enough examination and investigation to the question of sweepstakes to realise that it would be almost impossible to close all the loopholes of corruption and fraud, and if this Bill comes along and says that the sweep shall be run under conditions and regulations to be approved of by the Minister for Home Affairs, the Minister for Home Affairs will have much satisfaction in opposing the Bill, and saying that he does not propose to put on his Department the work of trying to devise conditions and regulations which would do, or attempt to do, a thing which he regards as well nigh impossible."

It is interesting to note that although the Minister at that time had not very long experience of his Department, the Minister for Justice to-day, having Departmental experience of three years, is opposed to the Bill, as was the Minister for Justice in 1923. I now draw attention to the Report of the Committee of the Dáil of that year which was set up to consider the matter. It consisted of Deputies O'Maille, Milroy, Dr. White, Sears, Hughes, Nagle, Corish, Thrift, Magennis and Duggan. That Committee recommended that the Bill, which had been referred to them, should be amended so as to include this section: "It shall not be lawful for any Committee conducting a sweepstake or drawing of prizes to farm out or hand over for a money consideration the conducting of such sweepstake or drawing to a private individual or private individuals." Now, though ostensibly this Bill will be run by a Committee, there is provision made in it for the expenses which the promoter may draw. It is clearly indicated by the plan of the Bill that the Hospital Committee should be merely for show purposes, although the Committee, of course, would father or accept responsibility for the scheme which is to be submitted to the Minister for approval, but the running of the sweepstakes is to be within certain conditions handed over to a promoter.

Notwithstanding the very definite recommendation of that Committee to the Dáil in 1923 that, in their opinion, such a proposal should not be lawful, and that if there was to be any legitimisation of the sweepstakes system for the purpose of financing hospitals it should be done by the hospitals as a voluntary or semi-voluntary scheme, and a more of less amateur scheme. As to this professional sweepstakes business and the arrangement of it, anybody who has read the discussion before the Committee can have a clear exposition of the plan. The proposal is to raise £100,000; that is to say, to sell tickets to the value of £100,000, or £200,000, or £250,000. But £100,000 was commonly only mentioned. Ninety per cent. of these tickets are to be sold outside this country. Five to ten per cent. is the estimated figure that will be sold to the charitable public in Ireland. Eighty per cent.—that was the figure quoted in the Bill of 1923—of such tickets were to be sold in Great Britain, and the remaining ten or fifteen per cent. in other parts of the world.

Since that date certain experience has been gained probably, and it may be that a larger field than Great Britain will be sought for the sale of these tickets, because the police opposition in England may be more strict now than it was in 1922 and 1923, although it was recorded then that very large quantities of the tickets which were sent through the post in England were confiscated by the British Postal Authorities. Senator Colonel Moore has referred to the percentages that are set out in the Bill under Section 5, sub-section (2). The Senator has not quite correctly stated what is set out there. The proposal is that for the use of the name of the hospital and the legitimisation of the sweep the hospital should get 20 per cent. of the takings. That is, the commission to the hospital to be paid by the promoter of the sweepstake for the use of the name of the hospital will be not less than 20 per cent. of the takings. The commission shall not exceed 30 per cent. which 30 per cent. will include a sum not exceeding 7 per cent. for the promotion charges. That is to say, 50 per cent. will be left as provision for the prizes, the cost of printing the tickets, and certain other minor charges. Though it appears from this sub-section that these are the minima and the maxima, the plan, as enumerated by the promoters of the Bill in the Dáil Committee, is clearly that the 50 per cent. of the expected amount, or a sum that is equivalent to 50 per cent., will be available as prize money.

There is nothing in the Bill to limit the number of free tickets that the promoter of the Bill may allot to himself or to his friends. Presuming that we have a sale of £100,000 worth of tickets, what does this Bill provide for? It provides for £7,000 going to the promoter as his profit, and, if you like, payment for his risk and his insurance. That is, having his organisation, he can count on selling £100,000 worth of tickets by an expenditure of £15,000 or £20,000 in postage and printing, and he will make a profit of £7,000 for himself. As I have already said, it is a professional undertaking, and we are legitimising the profession of sweepstake promoters in this Bill.

The earlier Bill was limited to the period of one year, but this Bill is limited to a period of four years. In those four years very many sweepstakes can be promoted, all kinds of hospitals can seek the approval of the Minister for their sweepstakes. By that time the industry of sweepstakes promotion will have become established. There will, no doubt, be a considerable number of people employed as clerks, and, as I said on a previous debate on sweepstakes, vested interests, if one may so speak, will have grown up. It was put forward as one reason why these sweeps might be legitimatised that there were 600 clerks employed, and if you refuse permission to carry on the sweeps you will throw on the unemployment market 600 clerks. That was the argument then used. But the establishment and legitimisation of these sweepstakes for four years will mean that there will be a considerable plea at the end of the four years for their continuation, on the grounds that otherwise you are going to disemploy a certain number of clerks. I ask Senators, particularly those who are interested in local government, if we proceed to finance private hospitals by this method is there any reason on earth why the public hospitals—those under the control of the boards of health—should not be financed by the same method? There is no reason whatever——

Colonel Moore

None.

Mr. Johnson

——why the public finances of this country should be, according to the interjection and according to the plan of this Bill, financed by sweepstakes promoted and tickets sold to the citizens of other countries so that we should get our revenue out of the promotion of sweepstakes—our revenue for the maintenance of hospitals, by reliance upon anybody else but ourselves. This comes from the Sinn Féiners, those who talk and preach about self-reliance. We are not going to keep these hospitals by relying upon the charitable public, or the public exchequer, or the rates of this country. We are going to satisfy our consciences as to the maintenance of public health, as to the care of the sick, the cure of the diseased and the disabled by seeking the means to do so from the ends of the earth, and all this in the name of Sinn Féin——

Colonel Moore

I do not know why the Senator makes these statements about Sinn Fein, or who at the present moment he calls Sinn Féiners.

Mr. Johnson

That is the only conclusion one can draw from the promotion of this Bill.

Mr. Milroy

Philanthropy knows no geographical boundary.

Mr. Johnson

This is not philanthropy. This is a speculation in the industry of——

Colonel Moore

The Senator is talking of the ends of the earth. I do not accept his figures.

Cathaoirleach

Let the Senator proceed with his speech.

Mr. Johnson

I will refer the Senator who asked about figures to the evidence given on this Bill only two months ago.

Mr. Milroy

That was eight years ago.

Mr. Johnson

No, only two months ago. In the year 1922 and 1923 ninety per cent. of the money was raised by the sale of tickets abroad and it is accepted now that in the coming years 90 per cent. of the money raised by the sale of these tickets will be raised abroad.

Colonel Moore

We do not accept that.

Mr. Johnson

This is not a Bill for the legalisation of lotteries. I am not opposing this Bill on the grounds that it is a lottery or that it is a sweepstake. Sweepstakes have been run, and run up to date, notwithstanding the fact that they are illegal. I would much prefer the general legalisation of sweepstakes than this kind of Bill, which legalises for specific purposes for in the main the private profit of a few promoters who will exploit the needs of the hospitals for their profit. Is it accepted that we are to use the needs of the hospitals for private profit? One of the members of the Dáil Committee who has a considerable knowledge of the circumstances and conditions under which these sweeps will be run informed that Committee that the probability was that a great deal of the work will be done in Switzerland, because it seems that there is an organisation available there which it was not quite convenient to transfer to this country. It is, of course, set out that the printing will be done in this country, and that is part of the bribe for the legalisation, for a specific purpose, of sweepstakes. I do not think there has ever been a Bill introduced covering four or five pages and with ten or eleven sections which contained more objectionable features than this.

There are many loopholes for fraud; there is very little in the Bill to prevent fraud. Those of us who are in the way of being pestered by children and others in trying to sell to us those minor sweepstake tickets will know quite well how easy it is for fraud to be committed in this matter. You are proposing to send out, under the scheme embodied in the Bill, millions of sweepstake tickets. In the case of two sweeps it was reported that not less than three million tickets had been issued and somewhere else it was reported that nine out of every ten that are issued are never returned. Is there any safeguard under this Bill which will insure that the people who buy tickets receive the chance for which they are paying? Is there anything to insure that the person who sells the tickets will forward the counterfoil to the head office to insure that the ticket number will be drawn? There is nothing whatever to insure these things and I am as certain as I am here standing that there are many thousands of tickets sold all over the world to people who are attracted by the name of an hospital but whose tickets never come within the scheme and whose chances of drawing a prize are nil.

Many people pay for a ticket and that counterfoil never reaches the hospital. That and the money the person paid are retained by the seller of the ticket. If one bears in mind the very small proportion of these tickets that are within the jurisdiction of the authorities of this country, then one will see how impossible it is to ensure that fraud is not going to be perpetrated under this scheme. Because of the palpable risks of gross fraud and corruption, the Minister opposed the predecessor of this Bill. Nothing has been done to correct the possibilities of such frauds occurring now or to stop up these loopholes. We are calmly told in the Bill that notwithstanding that the Minister has to approve the scheme, it must not on any account appear in any printed matter or in any advertisement of the Bill that this has the sanction of the Government of the Free State. We are legislating for the sanction of these things. We are to give a certificate of legitimisation to this scheme, but we are to keep it dark from the world that the Government is authorising it. Do not let it be known that this is an authorised scheme for fear of the danger of the bad name and the loss of credit that will accrue to the Government.

It has been said that there is no alternative. I cannot understand the position of the friends of the hospitals in this matter. It seems to me that for some unaccountable reason they are very loth indeed to seek or even accept any money from any public authority in the State for fear that the Government may require supervision over their affairs. Why should there be any objection to the possibility of State supervision? As a matter of fact there are very many institutions that receive State grants at present and are not supervised in any direct way. I cannot understand the antipathy on the part of the hospital committees to this supervision by the State. If these hospitals are of social value to the country, why should they not come forward and demand a grant-in-aid? In 1923, I took upon myself the responsibility of saying that £100,000 could be raised in one year by the addition of one penny to the Health Insurance contribution, or that £50,000 could be raised by the addition of one halfpenny to the Health Insurance contribution. Apparently even the hint was not acceptable. I had no authority then to make that statement and I have no authority now to repeat it, but such a suggestion has never been repudiated, and I am sure the insured persons would be glad to pay that halfpenny or that penny provided that they and their families were ensured the right of hospital treatment.

There are ways in which the hospitals can be saved financially, and the best way, I believe, in which to do that is by a definite grant from the State funds which might be raised through the organisation of Health Insurance. I would much prefer, if you are going to legitimise sweepstakes for a specific purpose— for a social and benevolent need— that it should be definitely done under the auspices of the Ministry of Finance or somebody appointed and approved by the Minister to run the sweepstakes. Notwithstanding the suggestion that this Bill would only be opposed by Puritans—and I rather pride in the appellation, if I can be called a Puritan—I am not adverse to the system of premium bonds for this and other purposes run under official auspices, where every item of the expense can be scrutinised and where no private interest can be served in the matter. But the proposal on the part of the promoters of this Bill is: "We believe you ought to continue to make sweepstakes illegal in general; but for the specific purpose during the short period for which application is made by a certain class of persons we want you to legalise these sweepstakes." Then a group of financiers, probably three or four individuals, who are going to use the hospitals as their means of exploiting the public, are to benefit by the exploitation.

Mr. Connolly

I listened with interest to the speech of Senator Johnson. He has, I am sure, covered very completely some of the points that show our objections to this Bill. Whatever may be said about the position of the hospitals, I think we must admit that the system under which these sweepstakes are contemplated mainly makes for profiteering at the expense of the charitable public by an individual, or a group of individuals, who will be at the back of the promoters of each scheme. There are several other aspects of the Bill that will have to be radically changed before I would vote for it. There is the question of the supervision of the administration and control and the method of managing of the various hospitals. If we refer to Section 3 of the Bill we see it stated in sub-section (1) and in sub-section (2):

(1) When a scheme is submitted to the Minister under this Act, the Minister may, if he so thinks proper, and he is satisfied that the hospital or hospitals named in such scheme is or are a hospital or hospitals to which this Act applies, sanction such scheme either without modification or with such modifications as he may think fit to make therein.

(2) When a scheme is submitted to the Minister under this Act, the Minister may, for the purpose of satisfying himself that a hospital named in such scheme is a hospital to which this Act applies, require such evidence by statutory declaration or otherwise as he thinks fit.

I venture to suggest that the clause does not go nearly far enough to ensure that the hospital or hospitals applying for permission to run sweepstakes are entitled to run them. In my opinion, the Minister would require to satisfy himself on many other aspects. He would have to satisfy himself as regards the administration of the hospital, as regards the efficiency with which it does its work. The balance sheet will not necessarily convey that.

It is true that the balance sheet of the preceding year has to be submitted to the Minister, but a balance sheet will not convey adequately the proportion of service considering the resources at the disposal of the hospital. A hospital might be very much in debt and yet run a much greater service, say, to the sick poor than an hospital with a fairly heavy balance sheet. Then there is the question of the beds allotted, I presume, but it does not make it very clear in the Bill, that this means beds allotted and used. A hospital might allot 50 or 60 or 100 beds, but the per week or per annum use of those beds is, I think, the thing upon which the Minister would require to satisfy himself before he would grant a permit or say that a hospital was legitimately entitled to the benefit of the Act.

There is one other question and I do not think I am exaggerating when I say that it is a question that causes a good deal of discussion in certain circles in the city. That is the system of making appointments to the staffs. I may state quite frankly that so far as I know, and I am reasonably well informed, I believe that the staff appointments are very far from satisfactory to the main body of medical opinion and that considerations other than professional efficiency or competence, operate. All of us know, I think, that canvassing is rampant for every position vacant in the hospitals. We do know that various considerations other than those of competence are taken into account. I do not want to go into an historical survey with regard to the governorship of the various hospitals, but there are certain barriers in some of them due to old charters and to the maintenance of a certain type of board.

Mr. Milroy

On a point of order may I ask if we are not discussing the question simply that hospitals are not in funds and whether or not this is the proper way to assist them? It is not in order I suggest to discuss the internal affairs of hospitals on this Bill.

Cathaoirleach

I think the Senator is quite in order. We are discussing the Public Charitable Hospitals and the method of alleviating the condition of these hospitals, and the Senator is, I think, quite in order.

Mr. Connolly

I would point out to Senator Milroy that I am discussing the Bill from the point of view of the information and the particulars to be submitted to the Minister under Section 3. As I say, I do not wish at this stage to go into a historical survey of the various hospitals in our midst, but I do know, and it is generally accepted, that certain barriers do exist in certain hospitals. I am not referring to any particular sectarian hospital more than another. What I do complain about is that the system is, in my judgment, wrong, and I would suggest that if the Minister is going to pass any scheme for the running of a sweepstake under the Act, he should take such steps as will ensure that the administration, management and the equity of the staff appointments should come under his control before he gives his permission for such a scheme. I suggest to him and to the House that a medical advisory board could be called into being which would operate with him and could guide him in his decision as to whether all the things that he would expect a hospital to do were being adequately done before he gives such permission.

One other thing that occurs to me on this Bill is that, as legislation stands at present, any individual, or group of individuals, can take premises, occupy them—it may be only a tenement house—and proceed to create a hospital, apply to the public for funds, institute flag days and such things. I do not think that is as it should be. I understand that such things have been done, and done up to a comparatively recent time, in Dublin.

I suggest, arising out of this Bill, owing to the possibility of hospitals being created for the exploitation of the public, that a licence should be necessary before any hospital, which may apply for public funds, should be tolerated.

In the main, I am in agreement with Senator Johnson that the care of the sick poor should be a charge on the State, and that it is going to place us in a very dangerous position if we are going to leave ourselves at the mercy of promoters of sweepstakes who are really—let us be quite honest about it—betting men who want to exploit the charitable public and who want, for a certain fee, to use the name of the hospitals to appeal to the public. I think that is the history of previous sweepstakes, and that it will be the history of future sweepstakes if they are to be administered under this Bill. I understand that the promotion of the Calcutta Sweep and of the big Stock Exchange Sweep in England cost 10 per cent. That 10 per cent. covers all expenses, secretarial duties, printing of the tickets, etc. I see no reason why a sweep could not be carried on if it has a charitable object at the same rate for expenses here. If it cannot be done, I think, as the Bill stands at present, particularly with the expenses clause, it will only be used and exploited by the promoters of sweepstakes, with the hospitals as an excuse for profiteering.

Mr. Farren

I must say that I am not enamoured or in love with the proposed scheme for providing the funds that are required to carry on our charitable hospitals, but I have not yet met the person who can provide an alternative. I do know something about the position of some of the hospitals, and I am perfectly satisfied that if we do not do something like this to provide them with sufficient funds to carry on they will have to close their doors. There is no alternative at the moment. If any person could show me where £40,000 or £50,000 can be found, to pay off what is due on one of the best hospitals in Dublin, then I will not vote for the Bill; but unless I can be shown where they can get the money I will be compelled to vote for it. I must say that there were certain matters raised in connection with this Bill at which I was surprised. I commence with the criticism of Senator Connolly, who referred to the question of the management of the Dublin hospitals. I always believed that if there was one thing of which we could be proud and of which we could boast in Dublin it was the management of our hospitals. I have heard it stated by people who travelled the world that the management of our hospitals was superior to any they experienced in any part of the world, be they State-controlled or otherwise. I was certainly astonished to hear Senator Connolly complaining of the management of the hospitals. I would not attempt to go into the question which Senator Connolly raised in regard to the staffing of the hospitals, but from the little knowledge I possess of the Dublin hospitals—and I have some knowledge of them—I am perfectly satisfied that there is not good ground for the complaint. From the information at my disposal in regard to the hospitals, I think I can say that the complaint which the Senator has made in regard to their staffs is not well founded. I will not say any more than that.

Senator Johnson, in objecting to the Bill, told us that he took up the identically same position now which he did with regard to some similar effort that was made in 1923. The proof that the position he took up at that stage was wrong is that from 1923 the load of debt has been increasing on the Dublin hospitals and no satisfactory effort has been made to reduce it. In fact, they are all in a worse position than they were in 1923, and until an alternative has been put up to this method of raising funds—none of us are in love with it—we must accept it. That is the position. I remember, in order to help one of the best hospitals in Dublin—and they are all good hospitals; I do not want to single out one any more than another; they are all doing splendid work—a few months ago we had to have a dog race meeting to try to pay off the week's wages, to promote dog races to try to pay the weekly wages! It is a disgrace to people who call themselves Christians that we should allow the hospitals to fall into that terrible position.

It is hospitals which are doing most for the poor that are heaviest in debt. That is the unfortunate position. Unless we can come to their assistance in some way the poor will be deprived of necessary medical attention and treatment. The Saviour of Mankind, when carrying on His healing activities, did not seek out the wealthy man to heal him. He healed the rich and the poor. It should not matter to us whether a person is rich or poor if he needs medical attention. Unless some effort is made to provide funds for these hospitals the poor cannot be properly attended to. These are the brutal facts of the situation; we have got to provide the money somehow. If the State is prepared to provide the money I will not vote for this Bill. On the question of State control of the hospitals, I may say that I am perfectly satisfied that they are better managed under the present system than they would be under State control. I may be alone in that opinion, but after a considerable experience I am not prepared to support State control against the present control, which is better than any the State could devise.

The statement has been made that we are going to go around the world begging for the hospitals of this country. Any person who takes serious notice of passing events, who takes up a morning or evening paper approaching the end of March, a day or two prior to the running of some race, which is, I think, called the Grand National, we find column after column announcing the results of sweeps on the Grand National for various purposes —some bona fide for charitable and religious organisations, and a number of them for other purposes. In another few weeks' time if the people who talk about this Bill take up their morning or evening newspaper they will see whole columns of the paper filled with the results of sweeps on another race, which is, I think, called the Derby. If the people are prepared to take tickets for various purposes in sweeps on these races surely they will be prepared to take them for sweeps in aid of the hospitals. I believe there is sufficient money for the various sweeps for which tickets are sold in this country to keep our hospitals in a proper financial position, and we should not allow that money to go elsewhere. Might I go further and say that there is nothing in the world to prevent, to-night or tomorrow night, my buying a Stock Exchange ticket on the Derby Sweep if I want to? I can also get tickets on the Calcutta Sweep if I want to. Most people can get them if they know their way about. We buy Calcutta Sweep tickets, and Stock Exchange Sweep tickets, and we do not know to what purpose the money is being devoted. I believe that the proceeds of the London Stock Exchange Sweep are given to widows and orphans. What the proceeds of the Calcutta Sweep are devoted to I do not know.

Sir Bryan Mahon

To racing.

Mr. Farren

If we are willing to buy tickets for the promotion of racing, I think it is as well to buy them to assist our hospitals. There is undoubtedly a gambling spirit amongst our people, and we had better face it. Our people will invest in the half-crown or shilling ticket, and if they cannot buy it outside they will run a sweep in their own workshops. I was often in them myself. In fact, I have seen sweeps run in this House. If we are willing to contribute to those things, surely it is no harm to do it openly and above board when the proceeds will go to the aid of a hospital? Senator Colonel Moore referred to the question of expenses in connection with running sweeps, but the Senator forgot to say that 30 per cent. is the maximum that would be allowed for expenses under this Bill.

It is not laid down that 30 per cent. must be spent on expenses or that that is the maximum that can be allowed for expenses. From what I heard about sweeps, it is necessary to expend money on them in order to make money. If a large number of tickets are not printed and got into circulation, if the sweep is not well advertised, and good prizes offered, the money will not be raised. As to the question of safeguards, those who are opposing the Bill can, on the Committee Stage, move amendments safeguarding the position, and I will be prepared to support them. As a matter of fact, there are safeguards in the Bill already. In the first place, any hospital which proposes to run a sweepstake must, first of all, get the Minister's sanction. The Minister must be aware of the financial position of each hospital, the kind of work it is doing, the names of the Committee appointed by that hospital to run the sweep, and other particulars. There are safeguards in the Bill, but if they are not strong enough we can, by the insertion of amendments on the Committee Stage, ensure further safeguards. I am not supporting this Bill for the purpose of enriching sweep promoters. I have no interest in them, but I have an interest in our hospitals, because I know the work they are doing. It is because I know the position in which the hospitals find themselves, and because I know the work that they could do if they had more money, that I am supporting this Bill. I hope the Seanad will take the view that I take and pass the Second Reading.

Sir Bryan Mahon

I rise to support the Bill and I agree with what Senator Farren said. I do not support it in order to run sweepstakes, but because I think it will help the hospitals. There has been a great deal of talk about sweepstakes. In every civilised country that I know they are run for charitable purposes. Why should they not be run here for charitable purposes? You cannot get a better charity than our hospitals. I know something about the Calcutta Sweep. It is run not for charitable purposes but for the purpose of helping racing. An enormous sum is raised every year and the profits are given to racing. The promoters of that sweep had an excess of £100,000 three years ago and the money was given by the Calcutta Turf Club as a donation to hospitals. I would not be in favour of sweepstakes if any other means could be got to help the hospitals. If such a sweep could be run under the control of the State for charitable purposes it would be all the better.

Mr. Hooper

I would be more impressed by the opposition to the Bill if some practical alternative had been put forward. It is true that Senator Johnson suggested that money might be raised by extra contributions from workers under the National Health Insurance Act. Let us examine that suggestion and its practicability. The Senator told us that that suggestion was put forward seven years ago and he stated that he had no authority to put it forward then than now. Apparently he got no support even from his own Party. It was not taken up by the Oireachtas, and as Senator Farren pointed out, during these seven years nothing has been done to meet the emergency that has arisen. Even if we could get some assurance now that there was some prospect of Senator Johnson's suggestion being put into practice, one could better understand the opposition to the Bill. But we have no such assurance and, so far as anyone can tell, we may be in exactly the same position seven years hence that we are in to-day, or that we were in seven years ago. In the meantime the hospitals are struggling and something has to be done to help them. What are we going to do? Are we going to reject this Bill and to let them struggle on as they have been struggling or to give them the helping hand that this Bill holds out to them? What is their position? I was struck by reading a report of an hospital meeting held the other day—I think it was the Coombe Hospital—at which a statement was made by Sir William Taylor who, as we all know, is one of the leading surgeons in Dublin. This is what he said with respect to the position of the Dublin hospitals.

Taking a conservative estimate he could say that the Dublin hospitals are in debt to the extent of £130,000. It would take almost as much more to bring them up to modern requirements—a quarter of a million was wanted. They could not go to the Government for the money which would mean increased taxation.

Sir William continued:

I am sick and tired of trying for years past to raise money for hospitals with which I am associated. We have explored every avenue of income, but the fact is that the people have not got the money to give. We have got to face the fact that the only means left to the hospitals to enable them to carry on is the sweepstake.

Later he said:

Only by means of sweepstakes can the hospitals of Dublin be cleared of debt and brought into a condition fit for the successful practice of modern surgery and medicine.

Only last week I read the statement of another gentleman prominently identified with our Dublin hospitals—Lord Powerscourt. He said at a meeting of the Children's Hospital in Harcourt Street, that unless something of that kind was done the hospitals would have to stop and others like him were at their wits' end in the matter. Some help of this kind is essential if they are to continue. That being the case the question for us to put to ourselves is, whether we will oppose this Bill, or wait until some scheme, such as Senator Johnson put forward, is made available. Senator Dowdall told us that his main objection to the Bill was that it would dry up the springs of charity. Surely the reason this Bill is before us is that the springs have dried up. Another objection to the Bill was that it would lead to corruption. I cannot say that it is corruption proof but I should think that if we passed the Second Reading, on the Committee Stage we might be able, with the help of some of those who have taken exception on these grounds, to devise some means of preventing corruption.

Suggestions were made that swindling could be effected by people retaining the money for tickets which they had sold. One would think that this was really the first time that this kind of enterprise was carried on. Sweepstakes of this kind have been carried on for a very long time. So far as Dublin is concerned something of the kind has been in existence for at least 150 years. The most famous of our hospitals was built largely on the proceeds of a lottery. I refer to the Rotunda Hospital. Other public works in Dublin were carried on under similar circumstances. In recent times other sweepstakes were also carried out, and so far as I know no grave abuses were ever proved. Loose suggestions have been made, but I think when arguments are advanced in that way we ought to have some proof. Another suggestion put forward was that this Bill was introduced mainly in the interests of certain promoters. I think that is another statement that we should have some proof of. As far as I am concerned, I am not supporting the Bill in the interests of any promoters. I think enough has been said to show that this Bill is wanted in the interests of the hospitals. It is true that the hospitals and the committees that will have charge of the sweepstakes will have to get expert advice in the promotion of sweepstakes. It cannot be expected that the governors of hospitals could have the experience or the knowledge in order to efficiently conduct enterprises of the kind. It is only right that they should have authority to employ people who are experienced.

It was mentioned that the amount of money promoters would be entitled to draw was too large. It may be. If it is too large let us try when we come to the Committee Stage to restrict it in some way, but do not make that a reason for rejecting the Bill now. On the question of expenses I was reading some of the proceedings before the Special Committee appointed by the Dáil to deal with the Bill and some very interesting figures were quoted. Deputy Sir James Craig, who had charge of the Bill, mentioned the Toome Sweep in 1923 and stated that the figures relating to that sweep were before the Dáil. He said that 37 per cent. went in expenses.

This evidence was given before the Committee that the Chairman referred to, dealing with the Toome sweeps. Only £5,000 was given in prizes, while postage cost £31,000; printing and stationery, £6,000; wages, £3,600; advertisements, £205. The total expenses came to £31,171. That included the £5,000 spent on prizes. The tickets sold realised £84,863, so that the expenses came to 37 per cent. of the tickets sold, the profits being £52,999, or 63 per cent.

When this Bill puts a limit on the expenses allowable, 30 per cent., it cannot be regarded as an excessive amount in view of the 37 per cent. in the case of the sweep in the North of Ireland. These are all the points I wish to make, but I earnestly appeal to the House to pass the Second Reading.

Mr. Comyn

I am glad that the opposition to this measure has been voiced from various quarters in the House. Speaking of the Bill, I must say that it has been very skilfully promoted. Whoever had an interest in framing this Bill and legalising a lottery of this description has done his work well. He has first cast about for a truly charitable object, the hospitals of Dublin, and then he secured as sponsors for his Bill in the Dáil and the Seanad men of the highest character, men with a long record of unpaid service to the poor, men who have to admit that they are not in favour of this measure, except that they know of no other possible alternative. I submit to the Seanad that it is a perfect disgrace that the sick poor of this city should be left in such a position. They are the first charge on the resources of the State, and my answer to those who ask me what is the alternative to this is: "Tighten your belt, economise, and pay for the upkeep and for the medical attendance of your sick poor."

What does this Bill propose to do? It proposes to alter the general law against lotteries. In the Dáil, the Bill encountered the opposition of the President—the head of the Government—it encountered the opposition of the Minister for Justice, and yet it moved on. If all the bookmakers had been united on this Bill it would have been carried through the Dáil. It appears they are not.

I see in this Bill a very peculiar clause, Section 7 (2)—

No advertisement, memorandum, circular, ticket or other document issued by a committee in relation to a sweepstake held under this Act shall contain any words indicating or which could reasonably be construed as indicating that such sweepstake is being held under the auspices or patronage of the Government of Saorstát Eireann or any Minister head of a Department of State.

Is not that sub-section a confession on the part of the Minister that there is something discreditable in this measure for raising money? What I submit is this: if you have to raise money by means of a lottery, face the situation squarely and have a State lottery properly conducted. It was stated in the course of the debate that at least 30 per cent. of the money which would be collected from the public would go in expenses. That, I submit confidently, is a very expensive way of raising money. The cost of collecting the ordinary taxes require only 4 per cent. or 5 per cent. of the total amount collected. Therefore, I say as a tax on the people and as a method of raising money, it is a most expensive method, and the Ministry which allowed it, or the Oireachtas which passes this Bill would be much wiser if they faced their responsibilities and provided the money directly out of State funds, providing it either by economy of expenditure or by additional taxation if necessary. Is this sweepstake to be confined to Ireland? Even if it is, I would say that it is open to the greatest possible abuse and that there are in this measure loopholes for fraud in every section.

Apparently it is not going to be confined to this country. Apparently the central clearing house is to be Switzerland. It is to be an international affair. What are you going to do? Are you going to facilitate the sale of tickets for the poor of Dublin in friendly countries where the sale of such tickets is contrary to law? Will you allow bootleggers to bootleg tickets into countries where their sale is forbidden?

Mr. Farren

I would like the Senator to point out where it is stated in the Bill that these sweeps will be promoted in Switzerland.

Mr. Comyn

It was stated confidently in the course of this debate that the main work would be done in Switzerland, where there is a clearing house, or bureau, for business of this description.

Sir William Hickie

Was that said by a Senator in favour of the Bill?

Cathaoirleach

It was said by a Senator against the Bill.

Sir William Hickie

It is not authoritative.

Mr. Comyn

It was stated in the course of this debate, and I believe it is a true statement. I have the greatest confidence in the truthfulness of the person who used these words, and I am relying on them. Are you going to give the sanction of this State to an enterprise, one of the results of which would be that these tickets will be bootlegged into friendly countries where their sale is forbidden by law? Are you going to facilitate a breach of the law in friendly countries?

Mr. Barrington

What are these friendly countries?

Mr. Comyn

England is one of them, but if the Senator wants information as to whether countries 100 miles, 1,000 miles or 3,000 miles away are friendly countries, he can have it. Are you going to give the sanction of this State for the bootlegging of those tickets into countries where their sale is a breach of the law?

Mr. Milroy

Would it not be more in order for the speaker to discuss the Bill and not the laws of other countries?

Cathaoirleach

That is the Senator's method of discussing it, and it is within the scope of the Bill. The Senator suggests reasons why the Bill should not be passed, but his method of doing so is not one that I would not adopt.

Mr. Comyn

This Bill will enable a procedure of that character to be adopted. If the Bill is passed the promoters of sweepstakes will endeavour to sell as many tickets as they possibly can. The more they sell the better they will be pleased. I am sure they are intelligent enough to send them for sale wherever there is any hope of selling them. There are countries, some near and some far away, where there is every hope of selling tickets of that character.

Cathaoirleach

Your warning to these friendly countries may possibly prevent that.

Mr. Comyn

There are countries where the sale of tickets is prohibited by the municipal laws of these countries, and if you pass this Bill you will be facilitating a breach of those laws.

Mr. MacLoughlin

Will the Senator name one of those friendly countries?

Mr. Comyn

I have named one, and I do not want to name any other at present.

Mr. MacLoughlin

You named Switzerland, and it is permissible there.

Mr. Milroy

Is England a friendly country?

Mr. Comyn

I was going on to deal with the pushing of the sale of tickets in countries where their sale is illegal. Is the United States a friendly country? Is France a friendly country? Is Germany a friendly country?

Mr. Barrington

How will they get there?

Mr. Comyn

Through Holland. I am not going to give any information which may be used by highly respectable gentlemen, like my friend here, for the purpose of gambling. With regard to the pushing of the sale of these tickets, take the United States. It is to the interest of the man who gets tickets to push their sale by every means at his disposal and by every argument he can use. What is the first argument? "Why not buy these tickets? They are for the poor Dublin hospitals, the sick poor of Dublin. The Free State cannot afford to pay for its sick poor, and why not give a shilling to Róisín Dubh?" Dark Rosaleen, I can assure you, will be cited again and again for the purpose of pushing the sale of these tickets, and the names of the highly honoured and decent men who have been induced to become protagonists of this measure will be freely made use of. I have heard a lot within the last few days about disparaging the credit of the country, but nothing could disparage it more than hawking about the world tickets for sweepstakes to support the sick poor, who, by your own admission, you cannot support. It is, in my opinion, very disgraceful. Let us see the frauds that can be perpetrated under this Bill. I am not surprised that the Minister has as, I think, weakly guarded himself against any responsibility by saying that his name was not to be used in connection with these sweepstakes. Let us say that 10,000 tickets are sent to Kansas City, St. Louis, or any other city where Irish people reside, and they are sold. There is no provision in the Bill to secure that 1,000 of the tickets, or counterfoils of the tickets, will come back. £1,000,000 worth, or £500,000 worth, of tickets might be sold under this scheme, and probably will be, for there is a vast organisation and a great cause—the Dublin hospitals. They have great names behind this Bill, and then they have poor old Ireland. I thought we had sufficient self-respect, although we are poor, to prevent us from sending the hat around the world.

Mr. Farren

Hear, hear.

Mr. Comyn

I am very glad what I have said meets with approval from the Labour Benches, because I have seen from time to time great decency from those benches and a proper spirit. Are we to face the world as a self-reliant nation, a nation trying to pull through its difficulties? We were called the Cinderella of the nations, and we like to be called the Cinderella. If this Bill is passed, and its promoters are allowed to send their tickets all over the world, we will be called the beggars of the nations, and we will deserve it.

Mr. Foran

I can understand Senator Comyn's sympathy with the United States, seeing that certain people connected with his views and politics are over there exploiting them on behalf of a newspaper project. The Senator would think it a crime if we were to go there and ask them to assist the sick poor of this country. The Senator has referred to England as a friendly country, and naturally he is very anxious we should not exploit the Englishman in favour of the sick poor of this country. Coming to the realities of the position, we who live in the city cannot shut our eyes to the position of the hospitals. The three maternity hospitals are on the verge of bankruptcy. They have to curtail their help to the poor of the city. Every week-end we see people going around making guys of themselves trying to extract a few shillings from the sympathetic public of the city, and even the money got by that means falls short of meeting the requirements of the hospitals. Senator Johnson suggested that another penny could be put on the National Health Insurance, and he told us of the amount of revenue that would bring in. I want to tell Senator Johnson, in case he does not know, that the trade unions have a levy towards the support of hospitals in the city, and that they, as far as individuals are concerned, tax themselves to the very limit of their capacity. Owing to the lack of funds a Dublin citizen can hardly get admission into the city hospitals. Why? Because the county councils and the public health bodies down the country when they send a patient to an hospital in Dublin make a contribution towards the funds of the hospital, and naturally the hospitals in their present financial position embrace the people having money rather than the ordinary workingman who cannot pay directly for his keep in the hospital.

Mr. Johnson

It could be done by making the levy universal.

Mr. Foran

Yes, if we had the ideal State the Senator is thinking of that would provide all the accommodation required. The Senator has been agitating for that for seven years, and in the meantime we see the hospitals deteriorating, and getting heavier and heavier into debt. Now when somebody comes along with a scheme which might go some way to get the hospitals out of their present financial position, and certainly it will not go all the way to make the hospitals what they ought to be somebody expresses the opinion that there are too many loopholes for fraud, and that kind of thing in the Bill. We know that sweepstakes are going on all the time in the city, and has anybody any knowledge of the amount of fraud that comes from them? Here we have a properly set up constituted regularised national or semi-national sweepstake, and which will be on the lines of the London Stock Exchange. Safeguards are provided in the case of the London Stock Exchange tickets. You are assured you will get a receipt from headquarters for your contribution, so that you will know whether your money has been sent on or not. In the case of other kinds of sweepstakes we know that is not so. I believe that under properly regulated national sweepstakes, such as are contemplated in this Bill, the public will have a safeguard for the money they give. There will be a check on the funds— an audit, and so on. If we can exploit outsiders in England, America or elsewhere for the purpose of improving our hospitals I think we are perfectly entitled to do so. It is no indignity. Certainly it is less belittling to the country to go abroad to appeal for funds for the suffering poor, than it is to go abroad to ask for subscriptions for a newspaper or political associations. I think the Second Reading of this Bill ought to be passed, and if there is anything wrong with the Bill it can be amended in Committee.

Mr. Barrington

In spite of Senator Comyn's denunciation, I am a convinced and unrepentant supporter of this Bill, and for the reasons that Senator Farren has put forward. I have been associated with a certain hospital for a great many years, and it has been one perpetual struggle to try and clear off the debt that has accumulated on it. Until the trade and Labour societies of the district took it up and made a levy in its favour it was a fearful struggle to exist, and even now it is hard to get on. During the last three weeks it has been forcibly brought home what an immense amount of good the hospitals in Dublin are doing. A poor woman from the country, though she was a woman without any resources, freely received the kindest treatment at the hands of the medical authority in the hospital in which she was treated. Senator Comyn has suggested that we should tighten our belt, but that advice has been tendered to us so frequently and with so little effect that I am beginning to lose faith in it. Senator Mrs. Costello has suggested that the Churches should make appeals on behalf of hospitals. They do so every year. There is what is known as a Hospital Sunday, when funds are collected for the hospitals. I have not the smallest fear that the funds collected in that way will fall off because the funds of the hospitals are being supplemented from another source. We would be glad if they could be supplemented in another way. I have no faith in the method Senator Johnson suggests. I know an hospital in the neighbourhood of Dublin which is supported entirely by voluntary contributions. That hospital finds it hard to struggle along, and its facilities are being used by the public authorities for autopsies, inquests, and cases of the kind which cause expense to the hospital. Though the hospital has appealed to local authorities and to the Minister for Local Government they have been unable to get any assistance. It is all very well to say trust to something, but we have been trusting to something else all our lives, and the hospitals are accumulating debt after debt, and some of them will have to close down if something is not done. Unless someone comes along with a better proposal than what is before us, and one that can be put into operation at once, I fear that many of the hospitals will be closed. Until that is done I will support this Bill, or any other Bill brought in to assist the hospitals.

Mr. Milroy

I intend to support this Bill. Senator Johnson drew attention to a Bill with which I was associated in the Dáil several years ago. That Bill ceased because the general election eventuated. But I venture to say if that Bill was carried through seven years ago there would be no necessity for this Bill to-day. It seems that there are appalling sums of money to be acquired by means of sweepstakes, according to some critics of this Bill. Senator Comyn's only objection was that it might be successful, that too much money might be got. Many points have been made, but there is one in particular that I want to refer to lest a mistaken idea might get abroad from the discussion here. A suggestion was made with great emphasis that if we enacted a Bill of this nature we would be giving a tremendous impetus to sweepstake promoters. I think that is about the most unlikely thing in the world. I think if the Bill is enacted and the hospital authorities wish to have a sweep run, it may not be at all certain that they will be able to secure the services of a promoter because of the enormous risk he would have to undertake. It might be possible to insert in this Bill provision that such sweepstakes should be managed by a committee and not by any promoter. If the Seanad wants to put into the Bill something that would render its purpose futile, then they should insert such a provision, but if you want to give effect to the proposals you will have of necessity to allow the hospitals to engage the services of someone who knows his business and has had experience of that kind of enterprise. That particular person, before embarking upon a sweepstake, will have to put down £50,000 or £60,000 in a bank to guarantee the prizes, and that fact seems to be entirely overlooked. My own impression is that the number of that classs of people is not very great in the City of Dublin. And it does not follow that even if the committee gets the sanction of the Minister for Justice for running a sweepstake that it is going to carry it into effect, especially after what has been stated here.

If I was in the position of one of those who have had experience of that kind, and it had been put to me to undertake such a sweepstake, I would be very chary indeed before undertaking it. It is too much to expect that a man who planks down that amount of money is going to do that for sheer philanthropy. In the present circumstances of the various countries of the world it is not at all certain that such a huge amount will accrue from the sweepstakes as may be anticipated. However, I have no interest in promoters, and no interest in the Bill except as a member of this Assembly to consider its provisions. It was only when dealing with the previous Bill of 1923 that I realised, by contact with very distinguished heads of hospitals, what the dire necessities of these institutions were. In all the discussion to-day there has not been one practical alternative put forward to meet the situation that exists. Certain theories have been advanced, but theories are not going to take these hospitals out of their difficulties. If this operates, and you can get anyone to run sweepstakes, they will bring in sufficient money to clear off their debts.

Finally, I want to say that I see no objection whatever to enlarging the scope of the contribution to the hospitals of this city beyond the area of this city. I see nothing in the world wrong with that. I have heard no denunciation here to-day of the London Stock Exchange Sweep or the Calcutta Sweep, and I have heard no criticism of those who buy tickets for those sweeps. The only objection is that the consciences, the scruples and the theoretical ideas of certain people would require slight readjustment. They will have the consolation, if they succeed, of knowing that their particular theories stand high and dry and are quite unassailable, but they will also have to consider the fact that the vindication of their theories may cost this city some of its most desirable institutions.

Sir John Griffith

I wish to say why I cannot support this Bill. I am so convinced that the combination of charity and gambling is a bad one that I cannot believe that the effect hoped for in this combination will succeed in clearing the hospitals of debt. My own conviction is that if the case is carefully looked into you will find that there has been very considerable improvement in the management of our hospitals in the last few years. For instance, the wholesale free admission of patients has ceased where it was possible to obtain payment. That is the first step, and my own conviction is, and it is pretty well supported by Senator Johnson and several others, that for the very poor we must be prepared to pay. My own conviction, also, is that if this Bill passes a very large amount of what is called charitable contributions to our hospitals will cease if these hospitals accept this nostrum for their losses.

Mr. Guinness

Like Senator Sir John Griffith, I oppose this Bill. I oppose it on many grounds, but I shall only give two. One is that I feel if the Bill is passed and sweepstakes come into vogue the hospitals will inevitably suffer in the future. If a sweepstake takes place on behalf of one hospital, the money from private sources will dry up in relation probably to all the other hospitals. A sweepstake may again come along for a second or a third hospital and inevitably in a comparatively short time not alone will the sweepstakes have to cease but the supply of money from a benevolent public will also cease.

The other reason why I dislike the Bill is that some hospitals in Dublin—one, at least, and there may be more—have expressed the opinion and have written to the Press that they are opposed to this measure and will not become members of the society of the other hospitals that will adopt this scheme. That, I think, is a very strong argument against the Bill. As to the ethical situation, that is another question. Personally, I believe lotteries or gambling for the sake of charity are wrong.

Mr. O'Neill

I shall support this Bill, and I shall give one reason. Owing to the position which I once held, I had many opportunities of knowing the dire distress of the hospitals in Dublin. The reason I give for supporting this Bill is that no alternative has been offered, and until such alternative is offered as would enable the hospitals to go on in the good work they are doing I shall support this Bill.

Mr. Jameson

The objection I have to this Bill is that it drags our Ministry into it. If it was a question of the committee of the hospitals coming forward and asking us to pass a scheme they laid before us there might be no objection. But when a scheme is to be passed and may be approved or altered if necessary by the Minister for Justice, then I do not consider that our Minister for Justice should be asked to perform that task. It is dragging the name of the Executive Council, and the members of it, into a situation which I do not think any citizen ought to ask them to fill. But if the Minister for Justice is to do what it is said in his Bill he is to do—here are the words: "sanction such scheme either without modification or with such modification as he may think fit to make therein"—it is making him responsible for everything in the Bill. I cannot think of our Minister for Justice having either the experience or the knowledge or any of the qualifications that would enable him to sanction a scheme and say that he was perfectly certain that it was water-tight. I am perfectly sure he could not do it. If the committee of the hospitals ask us to approve of committees and of schemes put up for this purpose well and good, but to drag the Government into that position creates quite a different situation. When you come to think of it, the promoters saw this themselves. They put in a clause that the Minister's name shall not be mentioned, but everybody in the Free State will know if the Minister sanctions the scheme, that whether he made modifications or no modifications, he practically must accept the whole responsibility for it. I say we should not ask any member of our Executive to accept responsibility for such a scheme for any such purpose.

Question put.

The Seanad divided: Tá, 29; Níl, 11.

Tá

• Dr. Henry L. Barniville.
• William Barrington.
• Sir Edward Coey Bigger.
• Miss Kathleen Browne.
• R.M. Butler.
• Mrs. Costello.
• John C. Counihan.
• Sir Thomas Grattan Esmonde.
• Thomas Farren.
• Thomas Foran.
• Dr. O. St. J. Gogarty.
• Major-General Sir William Hickie.
• P.J. Hooper.
• Sir John Keane.
• Cornelius Kennedy.
• John MacLoughlin.
• General Sir Bryan Mahon.
• Seán Milroy.
• Colonel Moore.
• James Moran.
• Joseph O'Connor.
• Joseph O'Doherty.
• John T. O'Farrell.
• M.F. O'Hanlon.
• L. O'Neill.
• Bernard O'Rourke.
• Siobhán Bean an Phaoraigh.
• Thomas Toal.
• Richard Wilson.

Níl

• Caitlín Bean Uí Chléirigh.
• Michael Comyn, K.C.
• Joseph Connolly.
• J.C. Dowdall.
• Sir John Purser Griffith.
• Henry S. Guinness.
• Right Hon. Andrew Jameson.
• Thomas Johnson.
• Thomas Linehan.
• Seán E. MacEllin.
• Séumas Robinson.

Motion declared carried.

Committee Stage ordered for Wednesday, the 21st.