Public Business. - Public Charitable Hospitals (Temporary Provisions) Bill, 1929—Committee Stage.
The Seanad went into Committee.
SECTION 1, SUB-SECTION (1).
(1) In this Act—
the expression "the Minister" means the Minister for Justice; the word "sweepstake" means a drawing or distribution of prizes by lot or chance whether with or without reference to the result of a future uncertain event;
the word "hospital" means and includes any hospital, sanatorium, or other institution which affords medical, surgical or dental treatment; and
the expression "governing body" means the council, board, committee or other body having the control and management of the hospital in relation to which the expression is used.
(2) This Act applies to every hospital which complies with all the following conditions and to no other hospitals, that is to say, that such hospital—
(a) is situate in Saorstát Eireann; and
(b) is in receipt of voluntary subscriptions from the public; and
(c) during the financial year of such hospital next preceding the passing of this Act actually used on a daily average taken over the whole of such financial year not less than twenty-five per cent. of its total accommodation for indoor patients for patients who did not pay for treatment in such hospital, or who paid or on whose behalf there was paid for such treatment payment at a rate not exceeding ten shillings per week or in the case of a dental hospital accorded free treatment to not less than twenty-five per cent. of the patients treated.
There are a number of amendments in my name dealing with the same issue. I think it would be preferable that the issue should not be raised on the discussion of amendment 1, as it is, in fact, a consequential amendment. It would probably be better to discuss amendment 2 first. I prefer not to move amendment 1 at this stage. Amendment 1 reads:
To delete line 16 in Section 1, sub-section (1).
On the section itself I want to call attention to paragraph (b) of sub-section (2), and I want some enlightenment on that. Sub-section (2) defines the kind of hospital to which this Act applies; (a) that it should be situated in the Saorstát, (b) that it is in receipt of voluntary subscriptions from the public, and (c) that it has during the financial year of such hospital next preceding the passing of this Act provided a certain amount of accommodation. I am not sure what the intention is, but it seems to me that provided that any public local authority hospital received a voluntary subscription, then that hospital would come within this definition, and it would therefore be valid within the scope of this Bill for a board of health to promote a sweepstake in aid of the rates so long as the accumulated sum would go to the hospital, inasmuch as that hospital would have been receiving certain voluntary subscriptions. I have made inquiries, and I am informed that it is not an unusual thing for public hospitals of the character I am speaking of to receive voluntary subscriptions either in cash or in kind. Therefore, all this class of hospitals would be covered by the Bill. I want to draw attention to that, because it does not seem to have been intended by the promoters of the Bill.
The point raised by Senator Johnson is, I think, met, because of the fact that the term voluntary charitable hospitals is well understood. The board of health maintains a hospital in a county, and that hospital is maintained entirely from the rates. The contrary is the position with regard to the voluntary charitable hospitals. They are maintained entirely by voluntary subscriptions, except that in Dublin they get a small grant from the municipality. They get a grant of a few hundred pounds a year in Dublin from the municipality, but that sum is not worth speaking about in connection with their expenses for the year. The other hospitals are maintained entirely out of the rates. The position is easily defined. A public charitable hospital is a hospital that depends mainly upon voluntary subscriptions.
My correction of Senator Farren's statement is this, that county hospitals collect from those patients who are able to pay a fee. These hospitals, therefore, are not entirely dependent on the rates. The patient who is able to pay has to pay. Therefore, they are not entirely dependent on the rates.
The Poor Law Regulations regulate that. The person who is in a financial position to pay is not entitled to free attention.
I would suggest that this matter be deferred until the Report Stage when an amendment might be put down for discussion.
Cathaoirleach
The Senator in charge of the Bill. I am sorry to say, is not here.
Cathaoirleach
I am inclined to think that that would not come within the scope of the Bill, but I would be sorry to give any definite opinion on it.
The title of the Bill will have nothing to do with what is a hospital within the scope of the Bill. This paragraph is intended to define what kind of hospitals come within the scope of the Bill. The definition is framed in such a way as to allow a publicly-owned hospital run by local authority to come within the scope of the Bill, provided it receives any voluntary subscriptions from the public. I am not objecting to that. If the promoters of the Bill intend to allow boards of health to raise funds to relieve the rates by means of sweepstakes it is for them to propose amendments on the Report Stage.
In Section 3 there is a paragraph which, I think, deals with that. That paragraph reads: "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." I think the Minister will be able to say if there is any straining in that.
Cathaoirleach
That would hardly meet the contention of Senator Johnson. Perhaps it would be better to leave the matter over for further consideration and help from the promoters.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
SECTION 2 (4).
(4) A committee appointed under this section for the purposes of a sweepstake shall prepare and submit to the Minister a scheme specifying in relation to such sweepstake the following matters, that is to say:—
(a) the name or names of the hospital or hospitals the governing body or bodies of which desire to hold such sweepstake, and such particulars of such hospital or hospitals as may be necessary to establish the fact that it is or they are a hospital or hospitals to which this Act applies, and
(b) the names of the members of such committee, and
(c) particulars of the prizes intended to be distributed in such sweepstake, including the money value of any prize which is not a sum of money, and
(d) the number of drawings of prizes intended to be made in such sweepstake and the date on which, the place at which, and the manner in which such drawing or each of such drawings (if more than one) is intended to be made, and
(e) the price intended to be charged for tickets in such sweepstake, and
(f) the amount or the maximum amount proposed to be allowed or expended by way of commission, prize, or other remuneration in relation to the sale of tickets in such sweepstake and the proportion of free tickets proposed to be allotted by way of reward to the seller of any particular number of tickets in such sweepstake, and
(g) the manner in which it is intended to apply in accordance with this Act the money received from the sale of tickets in such sweepstake, and
(h) the trustees in whose names and the bank in which the deposit or deposits required by this Act of the amount of the prizes is or are intended to be made and, where such deposit or deposits is or are intended to be made wholly or partly by the deposit of securities, particulars of such securities, and
(i) the date before which such deposit is to be made or (where the case so requires) the respective dates before which each such deposit is to be made, and
(j) the person intended to be employed in accordance with this Act to audit the accounts relating to such sweepstake.
I move:
Section 2, sub-section (4), to delete the words "shall prepare and submit to the Minister" in line 5 and to substitute therefor the words "may prepare and advertise."
This is the first of a series of amendments which are intended to give effect to a series of arguments that Senator Jameson and I raised on the Second Reading Stage. I do not know whether it would be allowable to refer to this series as the Jameson-Johnson or the J.J. amendments. They are in effect intended to relieve the Minister for Justice of any responsibility for the scheme to be promoted under this Bill. First I want to draw attention to the fact that under the section the governing body of the hospital may appoint a committee. Then sub-section (4) says that the committee shall prepare and submit a scheme to the Minister. I do not think such a committee should be obliged by law to prepare and submit a scheme to the Minister. But if the Bill passes in its present form the committee must do so, though in this case as in many other cases there is no penalty attached to their not doing it. However, it is obligatory on the committee to prepare and submit a scheme to the Minister. The second point is more important from the point of view of the amendment. That is that the scheme shall be submitted to the Minister. As will be seen from Section 3 the Minister may sanction such a scheme either without modifications or with such modifications as he may think fit to make therein. The principle involved is that the Minister is being given the obligation implied to examine the scheme that is being prepared and to alter it in any way he sees fit. Once it is sanctioned by the Minister he is entirely responsible for the scheme. Unfortunately the promoters of the Bill have not considered and do not appear to have considered the effects of that. It would seem to me inevitable that when the Minister has sanctioned the scheme that he should be responsible to see that the scheme is carried out in accordance with its provisions. There is nothing in the Bill so far as I can find out to oblige the Minister to undertake the supervision of the carrying out of the scheme. Once he has sanctioned a scheme, it may be fulfilled, it may be evaded, it may not be complied with and there is no responsibility upon the promoters for non-compliance. There is no penalty for not having carried out a scheme that had been sanctioned.
The Minister, for instance, has to satisfy himself as to the prizes that are to be given. He may modify the scheme according to the size of prizes. He may alter the prizes and decide that instead of £100,000 or £50,000 or £5,000, it shall be any sum that he wishes; he may modify it. Then he has to decide what the price of the ticket is to be. That throws a responsibility upon the Minister which I think should not be thrown upon him. It is hardly within his competence. There is no side of his Departmental work which would enable him to give a good judgment as to what the price of a ticket should be. So that his responsibility is practically a personal one. What the Minister asks himself is this: "Does this seem to fit in with the scheme of the Act? If so, I approve or disapprove or suggest modification." Right through Section 4, there are obligations placed upon the Minister and he has to give judgment in regard to them. It is not satisfactory that these obligations should be placed upon the Minister. The passing of my amendment would lead to this position—that the governing bodies of the hospitals, having got sanction by law to promote sweepstakes, should be wholly responsible for the character of these sweepstakes. They are presumably responsible, honourable men to whom would be entrusted the authority of supervising and seeing that the scheme is carried out in accordance with the provisions of the Act. But it is their responsibility and not the Minister's. Throwing this responsibility upon the Minister really means relieving the governors of the hospitals of their responsibility, because it will be seen that though the Board is nominally responsible, the plan will be to hand over the running of the sweepstakes to a promoter. I think that the general scheme should not be one that, even by implication, is being run under State auspices or any auspices or authority or sanction of the Minister for Justice. Especially is that so in view of the statement made by the Minister and his predecessor as to the difficulty of providing against evil practices by law or by Departmental regulation. The feeling is that there is very considerable risk of fraud, and if the Minister is made responsible for the scheme he should, at least, have power to follow up the working of the scheme and to prevent laxity in administration. At present there is no provision made for the Minister to follow up the working of the scheme. Therefore, I think the proposal to make the Minister responsible for sanctioning the scheme should be deleted. I beg to move it.
Senator Johnson has put quite clearly what I tried to make plain the other day on the Second Reading. I find I can add practically nothing to what the Senator has said. It always seemed to me to be quite wrong to bring the Minister for Justice into contact with sweepstakes and bookmakers. I do not think that it is good for the Bill. The promoters of the scheme here will be some of the most influential members of the surgical and medical profession, and with their names on the prospectus if the public do not trust the scheme without the knowledge that it has been passed by the Minister, then there cannot be much confidence in the whole thing at all. These gentlemen who are at the head of the hospitals will have their names on the prospectus. Why, then, drag in the name of the Minister? It is quite evident that if the promoters have their names on the prospectus that there is no necessity for having the name of the Minister. There is a section in the Bill which provides that it shall not be mentioned in the advertisement that the Minister has sanctioned the scheme.
The promoters undoubtedly want to use the fact that the scheme is one which has the approval of the Minister and with that clause in you cannot deprive the Minister of responsibility. I do not think it is fair for the House to put such a burden on the Minister. If there is anything good in the scheme it should be carried out on the responsibility of the gentlemen who are at the back of it. If it is not good enough in that way, you should not force it on the public with the name of the Minister behind it. That is the one point I want to make.
Might I point out that this Bill has been submitted to the Minister and the words which appear here, "shall prepare and submit," are those which after consultation with the Minister, the draftsman inserted. They are, therefore, the words which the Minister himself prefers. The Minister has a certain amount of responsibility. He is willing and prepared to accept that responsibility and this is the form which he himself suggested the Bill should take. I do not think that the Senate should act on the suggestion of Senator Jameson and Senator Johnson and alter the wording of the Bill.
If there are such a number of worthy men behind these schemes, men whose names are household words, what harm can come to the Minister for Justice by being associated with the Bill? I hold that it is an additional guarantee for people who subscribe to these sweepstakes to know that the Minister has approved of the scheme. We hear a lot of talk from real "goody-goody" people, but from the knowledge we possess, we know that these hospitals are sadly in need of money, which must be provided or they must close down. From my knowledge of humanity and form experience, I know that thousands upon thousands of people will purchase a 5/- or a 10/- ticket, when they will not put a threepenny bit into a charity plate. It is the only method of providing the money for carrying on these hospitals, although it may not be desirable from every point of view.
Behind the objection to this Bill there seems to be a mentality that I thought long ago sailed out with the "Mayflower." Everybody has taken it for granted that betting is immoral, but the State has already licensed bookmakers. The only question that now arises is: should the Minister be connected in any way with the promotion of these sweepstakes? It is perfectly consistent to have the name of the Minister behind the scheme and to realise at the same time that his name should not be published, because this is a temporary and extraordinary measure for which the State does not normally stand. If the Minister's name were to appear as being associated with the scheme people would say, "Mr. Blythe has backed such and such a hospital." As Senator Fanning has stated, the need for these schemes has arisen because the ordinary resources of the hospitals are inadequate and the State has not come to their assistance. I do not blame the State for that, as I think the hospitals themselves should have merged into one institution. At present we have eleven hospitals, all overlapping one another in the city. The Rockefeller Grant some years ago made us an offer of £2,000,000 if we could come to agreement in that regard. Of course, we could not come to an agreement, because some of the hospitals are endowed on a definite basis, religious and otherwise, and they could not be merged. If they were merged there would be no necessity for this system of raising money.
The idea that betting is immoral is a mediaeval or puritanical outlook. It is worse, because very many of the first-class States have an annual lottery whereby they enhance the flotation of their loans. Betting, in its philosophy, I presume, is about the only attempt you can make to test your state of grace, as it were—
On a point of order, may I point out that the amendment does not raise the issue of the principle of the Bill, the morality of sweepstakes, or anything of that kind?
Cathaoirleach
Senator Jameson stated that he did not like to have the Minister for Justice associated with the running of any of these sweepstakes, and I think Senator Gogarty is entirely within his rights in referring to the particular aspect of the case with which Senator Jameson dealt.
Surely, Senator Johnson wants to save the face of the Minister, to save him from this puritanical notion that there is something inherently and radically wrong in betting. Betting is the only way one has of testing how one stands with fortune. It is the same feeling that you have when you pride yourself on things to which you contribute least. We only pride ourselves on those things for which we are least responsible. I might pride myself on being six feet high, but I did not make myself six feet high. No man can add a cubit to his stature. In the same way a man when having a run with fortune is constantly in contact with his state of grace.
The opposition to this measure is inspired by that attitude which looks at betting askance, and which wants to save the Minister as if he were creeping into a casino. Everyone knows that these things are always run by bookmakers. The bookmakers will probably get about three times as much as the hospitals will get, but it is a matter of reaching the market. We cannot turn ourselves into bookmakers. There are certain risks, just as there are risks in surgery, but they are not exactly the same. The bookmakers risk can be wiped off by "covering up" or putting another figure against the risk, but if we could come to some understanding that the proportion which must inevitably fall into the hands of the bookmaker should be more stringently dealt with——
Cathaoirleach
That arises on another section.
It only remains for me to say, when we are talking about betting, that the income from betting does not come from this country; it comes from England. The money is being brought into the country to that extent, and I think that should be considered by those who say that there is something radically unpuritanical in betting. I may say that at a Hospital Board meeting with which I was connected, it was doubtful up to a certain point whether the hospital would countenance such a method of raising funds. The Board were against participation in anything in the nature of a lottery or a sweepstake, and it is not altogether with the full approval of any hospital that this Bill has been submitted. It is because there is such a dire necessity for what is really, to a very large extent, a public service. Another matter that should be considered is that not one of the men interested in this will benefit personally. Everybody knows that the person who will benefit most will be the bookmaker, and if we could devise some method of keeping that money more exclusively for the use of the hospitals, I think that it should satisfy Senator Johnson, Senator Jameson, and others, who hesitate to countenance it.
I am opposed to this amendment. It is not often that I am opposed to an amendment of which my friend, Senator Jameson, is in favour, so that I think it is necessary to state quite clearly why I am opposed to the amendment. We have decided by passing the Second Reading of the Bill to allow hospitals to raise money by a method which but for this legislation would be illegal. Therefore, we are giving them this exceptional power of carrying out an illegal way of raising money, by saying that it shall be legal for this purpose only, for only four years. If you are to have a sweepstake at all, it is much better in the interests of the public and in the interests of the people who are organising it, that it should be carried on under proper conditions with a proper scheme and under certain control.
The necessity for control is really this: Senator Johnson complained of the fact that there is no penalty if a committee does not conform to the scheme and does not carry out the scheme. That is, however, wrong. A sweepstake carried out under this Bill with a scheme that was not approved of or sanctioned by the Minister would be illegal. If the scheme is sanctioned by the Minister, and if the people who are carrying it out fail to carry it out in accordance with the scheme, again the act becomes illegal, and it can be stopped by an action in the courts brought by the Attorney-General for a declaration that it is illegal. The penalty will be very severe in the matter of costs, so that there is a penalty for failure to carry out a scheme properly. I do not like sweepstakes for any purpose myself, but I submit to the House that if you are to have them—and we have decided that they are to be allowed for this purpose—it is far better they should be carried out under proper control, and that everything should be done in accordance with what the Minister thinks is right and proper.
This question can be completely and adequately debated without introducing the name of the bookmaker into the discussion at all. I see no place for the bookmaker in this scheme. It is a matter of raising money to assist the hospitals and to adopt the most workable suggestions. To ask the Minister to be associated with it is to guarantee the bona fides of the whole scheme. I can see no reason for bringing in the name of the bookmaker except to prejudice the whole scheme.
As the name of the bookmaker has been mentioned. I would like to say that I was greatly surprised to hear Senator Gogarty say that the bookmaker would get three times as much as the hospital. Under the Bill the hospital is to get at least 20 per cent. and the bookmaker is to get 7 per cent. How that 7 per cent. is going to be expanded to 60 I do not know. I know nothing about the tick-tack. Although I was opposed to this measure, I am free to say that I am as fond of a gamble as anyone else. I think the desire is innate in human nature, and I feel that Cain and Abel may have had a bet as to which of two crows perched on a bough would fly away first. That was an even chance. If gambling is fairly carried on, I can see no great objection to it, but I do see some objection to associating gambling with piety, because as one Senator said gambling and piety do not marry. I am opposed to this amendment for this reason, as Senator Brown has said, that this Bill is designed to dispense with the law. There is a law against sweepstakes. The object of this Bill is to dispense with that law for a special purpose, but in order to dispense with that law the Minister must be satisfied that the gamble is being carried out honestly. Sub-section (3) of Section 3 says:—
When a scheme submitted to the Minister under this Act has been sanctioned (whether with or without modification) by the Minister, it shall, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other Act, be lawful for the governing body of the hospital or the governing bodies of the hospitals named in such scheme to hold the sweepstake to which such scheme relates...
The Minister is, by his word, to say that the scheme shall be lawful. If the Minister has to say that the scheme shall be lawful, surely it is only fair that the Minister should have the scheme before him and should know what it is he has sanctioned. There is no doubt, of course, that money is required for the hospitals in Dublin, but I would have been very much better pleased if, instead of collecting money for them in this way by the holding of sweepstakes, the Government had faced up to its responsibilities and held a State lottery. That has not been done. The money is to be got in this way, and if that is to be so, and the Minister has to give his sanction to make lawful what without this Act is unlawful, then I think he should see what he is doing. For that reason I am against the amendment moved by Senator Johnson.
I am against the amendment. I recognise that a very important principle is involved in this and in some of the other amendments. There seems to be a great difference of opinion in the House as to whether sweepstakes involve any element of demoralisation. Probably that difference of opinion will continue to exist. But, as it is obvious, I think, that we are going to have sweepstakes, we are all agreed with the view that they should be efficiently controlled. In my opinion they are things which demand sound and thorough control. If you are going to have control, then who could better exercise that control than the Minister? With regard to what Senator Comyn said about State lotteries, I quite agree. State lotteries exist in some countries which, I think, can be described as non-gambling countries. They certainly have not demoralised the peoples in these countries or made them greater gamblers than they otherwise would be. As a matter of fact, the countries where the holding of sweepstakes is illegal are amongst the most gambling in the world. There is really nothing new about the holding of sweepstakes. The point that I wish to make is that I would like to see them thoroughly controlled. I do not see how you are going to get a better system of control than by having the one proposed in the Bill. For that reason I am going to vote against the amendment.
Senator Bagwell and Senator Brown emphasised the point that they considered if you were going to make sweepstakes legal for a specific purpose, as is proposed in this Bill, that then you should do so under the best possible system of control. Both the Senators assume, but to my mind did not argue or prove, that the present Minister for Justice or the future Minister for Justice will provide the best method of giving that efficient control. The question in this amendment is not whether we are going to pass this Bill or not. Personally, if I had been here last week I would have opposed it. The question that now arises is: are you going to connect the State definitely with this or not? This is a purely temporary measure brought in for one purpose, and one purpose only, to help the hospitals. I think that the hospitals concerned should be responsible for the carrying out of the scheme. I believe that you would get on the boards of the particular hospitals concerned responsible people to act and see to it that these sweepstakes were efficiently carried out. I think that the amendment will not have the effect that Senator Brown thinks. I think it is bad to connect the State specifically with these schemes. For that reason I am in favour of the amendment.
The principle in this amendment and in a number of other amendments is to cut out the State altogether from having any supervision over the running of these sweepstakes. If that principle is accepted, then it means wrecking the whole framework of the Bill. The purpose of the Bill is to make the holding of sweepstakes legal. At present it is illegal to hold them. The proposal to make the holding of sweepstakes legal is done for the specific purpose of endeavouring to help the hospitals, which are now loaded with debt. In order to enable people connected with these charitable voluntary hospitals to run sweepstakes they will have to comply with certain conditions which are laid down. Senator Johnson proposes to delete the words "shall prepare and submit to the Minister" and to substitute for them the words "may prepare and advertise." The Bill lays it down that the committee appointed under the Bill shall prepare and submit to the Minister a scheme certifying, in relation to such sweepstakes, the matters set out in detail in the Bill. I submit that if we are going to have sweepstakes they must be carried out on proper lines and be under the supervision of a responsible Minister. If the principle in the amendment were accepted the whole framework on which the Bill rests would fall. I would ask Senator Johnson, in view of the almost unanimous feelings expressed against the amendment, to withdraw it.
The discussion on this amendment has been very interesting. There have been a number of objections raised based upon the morality of gambling or the morality of sweepstakes. The emphasis laid on the morality question almost suggests a certain amount of conscience-stricken feeling because that issue is not touched upon by my amendment at all. The object of the amendment is to leave out of the Bill the placing of responsibility on the Minister for giving approval to the scheme. If the amendment is defeated, and the decision of the House is that the Minister shall give his sanction to a scheme that is prepared, then it seems to me to be inevitable that there should follow upon that certain new provisions in the Bill. Several Senators have spoken of the desirability of having the working out of sweepstakes supervised and controlled for the protection of the public and so on. It is perfectly true that if you are bringing in the Minister at all you must give him authority to continue supervision, but the Bill does nothing of the kind. The Bill provides that the Minister shall have submitted to him a scheme which shall specify in relation to such sweepstakes, the matters set out. Once he has given his sanction to the scheme, it complies with this provision in the Bill. It is then free to the committee to carry out the scheme. The Minister does not come into it at all after that, so that the Minister's supervision is nil once he has sanctioned the scheme.
What is it the Minister is asked to sanction or modify? He is asked to sanction a scheme which contains particulars of the prizes intended to be distributed in such sweepstakes, including "the money value of any prize which is not a sum of money." You are asking the Minister to sanction the statement that, say, the money value of a house in Clontarf is £1,000. You are imposing upon him an administrative responsibility which is going to involve expense. You are throwing upon him the responsibility of sanctioning a scheme which defines the prices that are to be charged for the tickets and for the proportion of free tickets which are to be allotted by way of reward. Paragraph (h) sets out that the scheme is to state the names of the "trustees in whose names and the Bank in which the deposit or deposits required by this Act of the amount of the prizes is or are intended to be made and whether such deposit or deposits is or are intended to be made wholly or partly by the deposit or security, particulars of such securities" and so on.
It seems to me that before the Minister can sanction the scheme he has to be satisfied that the securities are of a value that are sufficient to cover the prizes. That again gives him the responsibility of valuing the securities. Once the scheme is approved by the Minister, then where are we? If Senators look through the Bill they will find certain provisions regarding the printing of names on the outside cover of the tickets. There is a liability in case that is not complied with. There are one or two other liabilities, but there is no liability upon anybody to see that the provisions set out in the scheme are carried through. Senator Brown said it would be possible for somebody to go to court and make an objection that the Act was not being complied with. But who is going to be responsible for doing that? Not the Minister. As a matter of fact the Minister's supervision has ceased as soon as he has given his sanction to the scheme. He has no responsibility for the working out of the scheme. That is my reason for putting down the amendment.
If the House is prepared to associate the Minister with the scheme, then it will be necessary, on the Report Stage, I think, to move amendments to secure that the Minister will have some continuing responsibility, and authority to stop the working of the scheme if he finds that it is not being carried out in accordance with the provisions in the Bill, as well as an amendment to provide certain penalties. Clearly the majority of the House is not in favour of the amendment. I do not propose to withdraw it, but as I see that there is no chance of it being carried I shall not force it to a division.
In reply to the point made by Senator Johnson, might I draw his attention to the provision in the Bill which deals with the auditing of accounts of sweepstakes. That section shows to my mind, that there is a continued responsibility vested in the Minister. I think it does away with the whole of the argument which Senator Johnson has put before us, and that his apprehensions are absolutely groundless. I would like to say that before I saw this amendment I was under the impression that if there was one Senator who would insist upon the State having supervision over an enterprise such as this it would be Senator Johnson.
But it will have to be a continued supervision, and not just using the Minister's name for advertising.
Cathaoirleach
If Senator Johnson thinks that there are not sufficient safeguards in the Bill, then he can bring in an amendment on Report to have the matter more clearly defined.
I take it that having closed the discussion and having heard Senator Milroy afterwards that I am entitled to say one word more, and to point out that the penalty regarding the provision of accounts is one thing but that it has nothing whatever to do with the conducting of sweepstakes. It only comes in at the final winding-up when all the damage, if any, has been done.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment 3:
Section 2, sub-section (4). At the end of paragraph (h) to insert the words "where the deposit is to be made by instalments the guarantee for the lodgment of such instalments, and."
The Seanad has accepted the principle of this Bill. I think it is due to the Seanad that we should loyally accept its decision and endeavour to improve the Bill wherever improvement is possible. I think this amendment of mine will be an improvement to the Bill.
Amongst a number of other things the scheme has to set out that the money must be lodged for the prizes before the sweepstake is set in motion. The meaning of my amendment is that where a deposit is to be made by instalments there must be a guarantee for the lodgment of such instalments. I want this further security in the Bill: that in case the promoters say that they wish to lodge £20,000 or £30,000 by instalments extending perhaps over a period of six or twelve months, that they are to give security that these instalments will be lodged on the days named. The object of the amendment is to protect the public in case a sweepstake turns out to be a failure. It will not appear to be a failure for a considerable time after it is started. A number of tickets will have been sold to members of the public. Thousands of tickets will have been sold to people to whom it will be represented that the prizes mentioned are available for them, and they will have given their money on the faith that the prizes will be there. Now the prizes will not be there unless the full lodgment is made some time or other.
Where does the Senator get authority for stating that lodgments may be made by instalments?
If the Senator would read paragraph (h) he would find it states "the trustees in whose names and the bank in which the deposit or deposits is or are intended to be made and, where such deposit or deposits is or are intended to be made wholly or partly by the deposit of securities, particulars of such securities."
There is nothing about instalments in that.
No; but on the construction of these two sub-sections it is perfectly clear that the deposits need not be made in one sum, but that the deposit might be made in one, two, three or four sums, and that is a perfectly reasonable thing. I simply submit the amendment for the consideration of the House, and I urge it no further than that.
I do not think there is any necessity for this amendment. If Senator Comyn will look at sub-section (1) of Section 4 he will find that provision is made there for the deposit of the total amount. He will see that it is provided that the total amount must be deposited, and I think there is nothing more clear than that.
There is provision there that the prizes and that the full sum must be lodged—that is, a deposit representing the full value of the prizes. But it is not necessary under the scheme, or under that section, to lodge the entire deposit at once. It can be lodged by instalments under the sub-section I have read, but all the lodgments must be made before the drawing of the prizes. That is the reasonable construction of the Bill, and that is what will be done generally.
Is not what the sub-section says that the sum must be deposited in full?
Before the drawing of the prizes, and what I want to guard against is the rare case I am sure, and one which I hope will not arise. It may be that £10,000 will be lodged first; then at the expiration of three months they may lodge another £10,000, and at the expiration of 6 months another £10,000 may be lodged. That is all. The lodgments are contemplated to be made before the drawing of prizes. It may happen—I hope it will not—that a sweepstake may not be a success, and in that case there would be no drawing of prizes. Numbers of tickets will have been issued to people who bought tickets on the faith of the full deposit, and my amendment is simply to secure that the full deposit shall be made some time.
I would ask the promoters of this Bill if it is intended that under this scheme the date referred to in sub-section (3) of Section 4 may be any time before the drawing of the prizes. It is essential to the scheme of the Bill that the deposits shall be made before the advertisement of the sweepstake takes place.
"Every deposit under this section shall be made before the date named in that particular behalf in the scheme, relating to such sweepstake as sanctioned by the Minister," and the Minister must approve, I think. If the Minister is expected to approve of this scheme which contains a date three weeks before the drawing, and then does not approve, if the money is not deposited and the tickets are sold by the hundred thousand, what will be done then?
It will have to be wound up as a failure and there is provision for that.
And the people will be deprived of their contribution?
There will be a share out.
Perhaps it would relieve the anxiety of Senator Comyn if I told him that within seven days of the passing of this Bill the money will be lodged, and in a way that will satisfy even Senator Comyn.
Now we are beginning to know something about it. But a promise to lodge £60,000, even on the word of Senator Fanning, is rather a big draft on my credulity.
It is not on my authority at all that that statement is made, but on behalf of the influential committee that stood behind this thing.
I take it that Senator Comyn's amendment is to give a guarantee to the public that a deposit will be made prior to the launching of the scheme. Notwithstanding Senator Farren's interpretation of sub-section (3) of Section 4, I refer him to sub-section (1), where it is stated that the committee shall see that there shall be two or more drawings of prizes in such sweepstake and cause to be deposited in relation to each such drawing a sum equal to the total amount or value of the prizes in such sweepstake to be drawn for at such drawing. My interpretation of that portion of the section is that there could be three drawings for particular sweepstakes under certain specified conditions; that it is not necessary to deposit the full amount covered by prizes for all these drawings, and I think it is very important to safeguard against the sale of tickets before there is a guarantee placed in the bank.
It is quite clear that the date on which the money will have to be lodged will be named in the scheme as submitted to the Minister for Justice.
Cathaoirleach
From my reading of the Bill, certainly.
It does not say on the respective dates.
What point is there in that?
That there may be two lodgments at different dates: or there may be a third lodgment.
I take it the people promoting a sweepstake of this kind may organise it in relation to more than one event. They may work it in regard to one particular race and the money for that may be lodged on one particular day; and the money relating to another race, on another day, and the scheme provides that that will come before the Minister. It will be for the Minister who is responsible to say whether the money should be lodged on these days or whether it should be lodged earlier or not. But having given the Minister authority to sanction schemes, we should also leave with him the discretion to say whether the day put before him is the proper one and whether the security is good enough or not.
All I am doing is this: I am not taking away any authority from the Minister, but I am giving the Minister power to ask these gentlemen for some security that they will make a lodgment.
If it is possible that Senator Comyn's words were correct that the lodgment has to be guaranteed, but not to be made, and that a bank is brought in—I suppose it is the bookmaker who will put up the money; it is he, I suppose, will get this seven per cent.
We must not mention the bookmaker.
The gentleman who will put up this money will get the seven per cent. Is the bank to be expected in these circumstances to give a guarantee and a certificate to say that the money is lodged for the prizes? If a man goes into a bank and, instead of depositing £10,000 there, he says: I will give you a guarantee that I can lodge £7,000 in a month's time——
Where is the word "guarantee" used?
Nowhere except in the amendment, and therefore I do not think this amendment is required. I do not think it will be possible that a bank could make itself liable to pay £10,000 on deposit because someone walked in and said: "Here is £10,000, and I shall give you the rest of the £10,000 in a month's time." That could not be taken as a guarantee for a deposit. If a person gives a guarantee it is not making a deposit, and nothing will be taken by the promoters except the actual amount on the date mentioned. I do not think Senator Comyn's amendment is required. If it were required we would have to look much more seriously into the whole matter of the Bill.
I am very much astonished that people cannot see that the prize money might be deposited in different instalments. I think it is as clear as daylight. And if it can be made in different instalments nobody is safe in the matter unless there is a certainty that these instalments will be made. If the Bill is wrong that is another matter. But in the Bill it is quite clear that the deposit can be made by instalments. What is to happen if half the money has been lodged and if it is found that the lottery is a failure and cannot be proceeded with? The money has to be handed back to the people no doubt but only half the money is lodged and there will not be enough to go around.
I confess that the apprehension which has been raised by this amendment appears to be unfounded. Senator Comyn is a lawyer, I am not, but having read Section 4 it seems to me that his apprehension is unfounded and that the amendment is quite unnecessary. Section 4 appears to cover the whole thing.
The more I read this amendment the more I am convinced that if it were accepted, it would weaken the Bill. Senator Comyn asks for guarantees. The Bill says hard cash and that these lodgments must be made in full before the date of the drawing. You cannot have anything better than that.
Of course, if what Senator Farren represents as the construction of this amendment were correct I would have no answer, but I have already said that this Bill, on its true construction, provides for lodgments to be made at different times and contemplates lodgments at different times in respect to the same drawing of prizes; that is one point. What I want to provide for is this, there will be one lodgment, say of £5,000 to start with, and there then may be provision in the scheme for another lodgment of £5,000 in a month or two months' time, and there may be provision for a third lodgment in three or four months. There is one lodgment in cash or security to start with, and there is a promise to make further lodgments. I want to see that these promises will be kept. Of course, the only guarantee the Minister would accept would be a guarantee from a bank or some substantial corporation of that character. I would like to make sure that the guarantee would be effectual, and that poor people who have very little money and who paid their shillings for the tickets would be properly looked after.
May I point out the word "guarantee" is not used in the Bill at all. It is only used in the Senator's amendment. The Bill provides hard cash.
We have here at the back of this scheme such men as Lord Powerscourt, Sir William Taylor and a very responsible firm of solicitors——
Cathaoirleach
We are not concerned with that at the moment.
I was only endeavouring to remove Senator Comyn's anxiety.
Amendment put and negatived.
I move amendment 4 "Section 2, sub-section (4) to delete paragraph (j)."
This is a very simple amendment and there is no very great principle involved. Whether the sub-section is retained or deleted will not affect the Bill very much. The section provides that a committee appointed under this section for the purpose of a sweepstake shall prepare and submit to the Minister a scheme specifying in relation to such sweepstake the following matters including those set out in sub-section (j). The sub-section as it stands simply means that the auditor is to be appointed when the scheme is submitted to the Minister, and the amendment would have the effect of leaving it to the Minister to appoint the auditor at some other time. I would suggest that the auditor ought not to be appointed until more or less the last month. He ought not to be appointed as part of the scheme because he would then be in touch with the work too closely and he might be too closely identified with the people running it. I think it would be much safer if the auditor was appointed later on.
Cathaoirleach
Your amendment would hardly do that because the Minister would have no power at all over it in that case.
There is a further amendment to meet that in the name of Senator Mrs. Clarke.
If the Minister is to be responsible for all these things, I think he ought to satisfy himself that the auditor is a fit and proper auditor. It is most necessary that he should satisfy himself in that respect.
It is not proposed to strike out of the Bill any reference to the auditor, but it is proposed to strike it out in the scheme. There is a further amendment in the name of Senator Mrs. Clarke which provides in Section 6 (1) after the word accountant, in line 25, to insert the words "to be approved by the Minister." We want to have the Minister's approval of the auditor's name delayed as long as possible. If the name of the auditor is put into the scheme it will be known, and that might not be desirable. We propose to put in the name of the auditor after the drawing of the prizes, and after the accounts have all come in. The name of the auditor is then mentioned, and at that stage the Minister will give sanction.
With all respect, there does not seem to be much sense in the amendment. Senators agree that the auditor to be appointed must be approved by the Minister, and the object is that when a scheme is first proposed and laid before the Minister for his sanction, he must have a guarantee that the accounts will be properly audited and that a proper balance sheet will be prepared. If we delay the matter at that stage it may mean later a wrangle between the committee and the Minister. The proper time to settle the matter is before the Minister gives sanction, and for that reason I think the amendment should be withdrawn. The other amendment in the name of Senator Mrs. Clarke proposes that the auditor must be approved by the Minister. From the commonsense point of view, and from the business point of view, I think when a scheme is being proposed the Minister must be satisfied before he gives his sanction that the auditor employed will be of reputable standing in the profession. The object is to safeguard the public.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question: "That Section 2 stand part of the Bill," put and agreed to.
SECTION 3.
(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.
(3) When a scheme submitted to the Minister under this Act has been sanctioned (whether with or without modification) by the Minister it shall, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other Act, be lawful for the governing body of the hospital of the governing bodies of the hospitals named in such scheme to hold the sweepstake to which such scheme relates, subject to and in accordance with the following conditions and not otherwise, that is to say:—
(a) such sweepstake shall be conducted and managed by the committee appointed under this Act by whom such scheme was so submitted, and
(b) such sweepstake shall be held, conducted, and managed in all respects in accordance with such scheme as sanctioned by the Minister, and
(c) the provisions of this Act requiring anything to be done or prohibiting the doing of anything in relation to a sweepstake held under this Act shall be observed in relation to such sweepstake.
I move:—
Section 3, sub-section (3). After the word "Minister" in line 60 to insert the words "by order under his hand."
While I am committed to the Bill I feel, unlike Senator Johnson, that Ministerial responsibility should be extended, and in every opportunity that occurs I shall endeavour to extend the responsibility. The Bill provides for sanction by the Minister, and I desire that that responsibility should be given "by order under his hand."
How could the Minister make an order in any other way except under his hand?
He could. There is no provision for making it. He could make it here in the room by saying "Yes, go ahead."
In the accepted sense an order made by a Minister must be an order under his hand. The orders and regulations that we see every day are made under the hand of the Minister. I think the amendment is not necessary.
What objection is there to it?
We have the assurance of Senator Farren that it is unnecessary, but the point may arise that orders could be made by a Minister without any writing under his hand. There is no requirement whereby the Minister must sign every order made by him. The Minister would need ten or twenty hands if he were to sign all the orders made every day under his responsibility. The purpose of the amendment is this: the sweepstake goes on and is legalised. Some persons may not know that it is legalised, and there may be a prosecution. The only defence to that prosecution would be an order under the hand of the Minister. I think the matter was not fully considered and that this proposal should have been inserted in the original draft. As it does no harm, even according to Senator Farren, I think the Senate should accept the amendment.
May I repeat what I said already: before this Bill was submitted to the Minister and obtained his approval, it went to the official draftsman, and this is the form in which it emerged from his hands. I see no reason to depart from the decision at which the Minister and the draftsman arrived.
I suggest to the House that the amendment is entirely unnecessary. I have never been a Minister, and I do not expect that I shall be one, but any person in a similar position is responsible for everything that goes on in his office.
It is a great pity we could not have the Minister here to deal with it.
Senator Barrington has stated twice that the form in which this Bill appears has had the sanction of the Minister. I beg leave to doubt the accuracy of that statement. As far as I am informed the position is, not that the Bill has had the sanction of the Minister, but that a Committee of the Dáil drew up certain amendments, and they were then submitted to the draughtsman, who put into legal phraseology what the amendments appeared to him to provide. I think it is not correct to say that this is the form in which the Minister desired the Bill to be drafted. I am not clear as to whether the effect of the phrase "that the Minister shall give sanction" would be satisfactory. I can see the possibility, if a case came before the courts, that it might be necessary to prove that sanction had been given by calling the Minister, whereas if there was some official statement in "Iris Oifigiúil" that it had been done by order, the production of the document would be sufficient. That is the only point I can see, and I think it is rather a matter for lawyers to decide whether the word "sanction" is enough, or whether there would have to be some official document which could be produced in court.
As to the Minister's approval of the form of the Bill, I would like to say that he was a member of the committee, and when these amendments were sent to the draughtsman and came back to the committee, he attended the meeting which considered them, and he approved of them, as they are now embodied in the Bill.
I think it is safer to have it in the Bill. It is extraordinary, because people say that the Minister said he would do something that we should follow that.
Cathaoirleach
The House will decide the matter presently.
I am astonished at such a case being put forward. I do not know, a Chathaoirligh, if you regard this as a precedent or if it is in order. I want things to be done in a proper form, and not, as is constantly suggested, to have the statement, "Oh, it will be all right; the Chairman and the Minister can do everything." I would like to have set down in the Bill what the Minister is to do under his hand, and not something that might be done by someone in his office. If that is not done it may lead to lawsuits, which are very good for the lawyers, but for no one else. The proposal in the amendment is a simple one, and there is no harm in it. It makes the point clear.
I would like to say, in connection with what I said with regard to the Minister's attitude, that my information was taken from the official records that are circulated to all members of the House, and that are open to everyone. I did not speak as a result of hearsay, either from the Minister, or from anyone else, but from what is in the official documents.
Cathaoirleach
I think Senator Moore's point is that the mere fact that the Minister approved or disapproved is not binding on us.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Before Section 3 is passed, I would like to make a few observations. The amendment states that the Minister may sanction a scheme. Of course, that scheme has to be in accordance with the principles of section 2 (4) and must contain the limitations which are contained in Section 5 (2). But it is left entirely to the Minister to form his own judgment, without any guidance in the Bill, as to what should be the protection for the public. It has been stated time and again that the intention of bringing in the Minister is to protect the public, and to give them greater confidence, but as drafted the Bill leaves the question entirely at the discretion of the Minister, as to what he thinks is necessary, and without any guidance as to the principles that should help him to form his judgment, for instance, as to whether there should be provisions to prevent fraud. I think that is a flaw in the Bill. In Section 3 we see that a scheme once sanctioned, makes the sweepstake lawful. But supposing it is found in the course of the conduct of the sweepstake that something has happened, there is no provision in the Bill to provide for the possible withdrawal of sanction. I think that again is a defect in the drafting of the Bill.
Question—"That Section 3 stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.
SECTION 4 (7).
If the drawing of prizes in relation to which a deposit is made under this section is, with the consent of the Minister, not made the trustees in whose name such deposit is standing shall return the moneys or securities comprised in such deposit to the person by whom they were provided.
On behalf of Senator Connolly I move:—
Section 4, sub-section (7). To delete all after the word "shall" in line 51 down to the end of the sub-section and to substitute therefor the words "out of such moneys or securities pay any liabilities lawfully incurred by the Committee to the extent of any deficiency of funds in the hands of the Committee to meet the said liabilities and return the remainder of the moneys or securities comprised in such deposit to the person by whom they were provided.
The amendment provides for the withdrawal of the sweepstake with the consent of the Minister. There is no definite date to the giving of such consent, so that I presume all the preliminaries and the sale of tickets might have been going on for some time when the consent of the Minister is withdrawn. The purpose of the amendment is to provide safeguards for the subscribing public. The object is to provide against the securities being handed back intact, together with interest, while allowing the liabilities to remain unpaid.
If the scheme fails the liabilities cannot be paid out of the money that is paid for tickets. I cannot see where it is provided in the Bill that the expenses which have been incurred—and they will be fairly considerable—are to be met out of that money. The amendment proposes that the liabilities are to be taken out of the deposits lodged by the promoters. The promoters are a committee of the hospital. In case of a failure can someone tell us how the expenses will be paid? I do not think the promoters should take the amount out of the securities. I see nothing to that effect in the Bill. I do not know if anyone answering for the Bill can solve the problem, but it occurs to me the matter cannot be raised on this amendment. I would like to be informed who is going to pay the expenses if a scheme is a failure. The moneys paid for the tickets must be returned in full. Are the hospitals going to put up some of the expenses in case it is a failure?
I think the amendment would interfere with the scheme in the Bill. The scheme sets out that the deposit money is a guarantee to subscribers that the money is available and that it will be disbursed to prize winners. The other expenses incurred will be the management expenses. These will be promoters' expenses and, if there is a loss, it is the promoters' loss.
It will fall on the hospitals?
No, they are not the promoters.
The Bill provides that certain things shall be done and that the hospital committees shall be empowered to put forward a scheme and guarantee that a certain amount of money will be deposited in the bank. That deposit is only for the purpose of covering the prize money. The promoter of the scheme understands that if the sweep is a failure that is his loss.
The loss is the subscribers' loss.
Not the subscribers' loss but the promoters'.
It is the promoters' loss. The money subscribed for tickets will be refunded in full if no draw takes place. Any loss that will be incurred will depend on the arrangement made by the committee of the hospital with the persons who promote the sweepstake on their behalf, so that the matter does not concern us. What we have to see is that there is a guarantee the prize money advertised on the tickets is available if the draw takes place. If no draw takes place, we have to see that the people who purchased tickets get back their money in full. Any other loss is no concern of ours. That can be settled between the hospitals committee and the promoters acting on their behalf. In my opinion the amendment is unnecessary and would if passed interfere with the whole working of the scheme.
I can quite understand that if this amendment is passed it will interfere with the plans of some people. I was very glad to hear Senator Jameson speaking on this amendment, because it is really a very important one. A sweepstake is arranged for, tickets are sold in thousands to people not only in this country, but perhaps all over the world. Notwithstanding that the sweepstake may be a failure, and if it is I see no provision in this Bill for paying back the money to the people who bought the tickets. There is no fund out of which that can be done. Assuming that there is a failure or a likelihood of failure as the sweep goes on, the money that comes in from the sale of tickets is paid out in expenses week after week, and it is all gone. The only fund available is the deposit. The amendment is designed to meet that case. There is money deposited by the undertaken in the bank, say £20,000 or £30,000. Suppose the sweepstake is a failure, is he to go into the bank and walk away with that deposit and leave the poor people who bought the tickets with their fingers in their mouths? I submit if there is honesty in the Bill that this is a fair amendment, and that the money that is lodged by way of bona fides should, in case there is no drawing of prizes, be available to discharge all the liabilities of the scheme, including payments back to the people who bought tickets. It is only when that has been done that the undertaker should get the balance. That is what is contemplated by the amendment, and that is what it will fulfil if you accept it. If you accept the amendment, I can see that there is a desire that the thing is going to be fair, and that the man who is to gain something by this scheme will run a chance of losing something also. As it stands at present, it is highly dishonest to allow a promoter in case of failure to walk away with the entire deposit and leave the people who buy the tickets to bear the loss.
The effect of the amendment if passed would be to render the fund which is being provided for the people who buy the tickets insolvent, because anybody who had an order and who was running a sweepstake, and had printed tickets, and went to expense of that sort, could come down on the fund. I venture to think that the people who print tickets and go to expense of that kind are very well able to take care of themselves, and they will not allow people to incur debts with them unless they are satisfied as to the security and the ability of these people to pay them. If the amendment is passed the fund specially provided for the payment of prizes will be depleted to such an extent that it will be insolvent.
Cathaoirleach
I do not think that this amendment arranges for the repayment of the ticket money.
It would be better if on the Report Stage an arrangement could be made as regards the payment of these debts in case of the failure of the promoters. An arrangement could be made with the promoters that the debt incurred in the promotion of the scheme should be paid out of the deposit. We should have a definite statement on the Report Stage as regards that. The amendment raises an important question, and voting on the amendment will not settle it, for we do not uiderstand the matter.
It seems to me there is no difficulty in the matter. This section provides for the deposit of money to cover the value of the prizes. The amendment before us asks us to provide that any liabilities incurred by a promoting body shall be paid out of that deposit, which is for a specific purpose.
With the consent of the Minister.
The Senator who put down the amendment wants us to give authority to the Minister to take out from the special funds enough to meet all the liabilities of the enterprise in the event of failure. The deposit is not made for any purpose of that kind. It seems to me there is a misapprehension on the part of some of the speakers on the matter. This is not a State transaction we are giving authority for. It is an ordinary business transaction that we are legalising for the first time. In an ordinary business concern the people who enter into a contract look after themselves. The committee organising a sweepstake of this kind will go to the promoter and enter into arrangements with him. They may put up the expense money or he may do so, and he may then enter into contracts with other people. If he fails in his obligations they have the same remedy against him as any other trader has against one who he thinks is doing him an injury. This Bill does not take a sweep out of the category of ordinary business transactions. Everybody concerned in the arrangements for its promotion has an obligation to look after his own interests. Our interest here is to look after the subscribers who will send money to the promoting committee. We do so by providing that the deposit of the prize money shall be made beforehand, and that there shall be a guarantee that the man winning the prize will be paid. A question has been raised as to the repayment of the money sent in for tickets. Assuming that a sweepstake fails, thousands of people will be entitled to the return of the money paid for the tickets. Every single one of these will have cause for an action against the person who has received the money, and there will be no necessity for our embodying any provision of this kind to pay all these liabilities out of a fund which has been deposited for a specific purpose.
In the course of the discussion it was apparent that Senators are thinking of a particular sweepstake, but this Bill deals with any sweepstake that may be promoted in the four years by any hospital or group of hospitals as long as it has the sanction of the Minister. It is not desirable that our discussion should be clouded by the assumption that the plans which are at present in preparation for a particular sweepstake are the only plans we are considering in the Bill. We have to assume there will be other sweepstakes of a less glorious nature, let us say, which may be sanctioned by the Minister, and I take it these conditions are intended to apply to them all. I think it is clear the deposit is not intended to cover the administration expenses. It is intended to cover the prizes, and only the prizes. There is no provision in the Bill, as far as I can see, to secure the return of the money to ticket holders if the draw is not concluded. That is a matter for each individual ticket holder to take whatever steps he likes against the committee, not the promoter. May I draw attention to the fact that right through the Bill it is the committee and not the promoter who is responsible? The committee may make arrangements with the promoter to do certain work for certain pay, but that is not going to exonerate the committee from their responsibility if by any chance the scheme is not a success. I take it that in the arrangements they will make the committee and the promoter will ensure themselves against possible loss.
Cathaoirleach
And the return of the money.
That is another matter. I think one of the provisions of the scheme should be to provide for the return of the money, but it seems to me the amendment does not deal with the ticket money at all. It deals only with administration expenses. Printing and postage have to be paid, and wages, which probably have to be paid weekly. I do not think there is very much value to be obtained from the amendment as drafted.
The amendment rather tends to reduce the amount of the security. I do not see that we have anything to do with the protecting of anybody except the people who get tickets, and they are protected, as no scheme can be promoted without the sanction of the Minister and he can make the terms he thinks desirable.
Having listened to the arguments, I am still convinced the provisions in the amendment should be embodied in the Bill. It is our duty in the event of the failure of a sweep to see the ticket money is returned. Senator Farren dogmatically stated our duty consists in securing for the public in general a deposit to cover the amount of money offered in sweepstakes, so that the money could be returned to the people who bought the tickets. The Bill, I submit, does not embody any regulations which would guarantee a return of the money to the purchasers.
Cathaoirleach
Your amendment would not secure a return of the money.
My amendment provides for that. When a sweepstake is undertaken, immediately sanction has been given certain liabilities are entered into on behalf of a committee by a promoter—for instance, the printing and the postage of the tickets, and there is an accumulation of small liabilities like that, amounting to a large sum. The Minister at a certain date comes round and withdraws his consent to the scheme. Now while the work of printing the tickets, the distribution and sale of them has been going on, the money coming in is being paid out by way of expenses, so that the ticket money is being depleted weekly and daily by the amount of money necessary to meet current expenses; and my point is that that money should be reimbursed out of the deposit in the bank. That daily and weekly expenditure of money out of the money coming in is being made with the authority of the Bill. Taking the point that this is merely a question of contract between the individual purchaser and the committee, I think it is rather a puerile argument that we who are here legitimising a thing which is for other purposes illegal should say that no onus devolves on us for the protection of the public. It is more puerile still to suggest that the average purchaser of a ticket has a remedy by way of a lawsuit. Take the ordinary poor working man who purchases a 5/- ticket. Is it to be suggested that that man to whom 5/- means more than £500 to another man, will run the risk of losing £50 or £100 in a lawsuit with a committee or with any other individual responsible in the running of the sweepstakes? I submit that this is a very important question.
No provision is made in the Bill for the return of the money and no provision of a fund has been made. My amendment simply is this, that the fund allocated through securities in the bank is a guarantee that the prize money is forthcoming—and in the event of the sweepstake being withdrawn with the consent of the Minister, a portion of that, proportionate to the amount actually expended on current expenses should be put to the balance left of the ticket money, in order that the promoters of the scheme would be in a position to hand the money back to the subscribers.
Is it intended that the words "liabilities lawfully incurred" cover the liabilities to repay the ticket money?
If that were made clear my mind would be clearer on the matter. It seems to me that "the liabilities lawfully incurred" would only cover such things as the printing liabilities.
I would ask to have this matter postponed, because if "liabilities lawfully incurred" covers this, then the point is an exceedingly good one, but there is another kindred point and that is as to the exact position of the promoter in the case of a failure. Has he got a right prior to the ticket holder or has he not? I do not think that is fairly covered in the Bill. I am not clear that it is. I think, therefore, that some provision of this kind is necessary. I think that it should be possible on the Report Stage that the Senators interested and the promoters of the Bill would get together and find a way of dealing with it.
Cathaoirleach
Would the House agree to adjourn it for the Report Stage?
If the promoters of these sweepstakes satisfy the community and satisfy the Minister for Justice that the amount offered as prizes is securely deposited in the Bank, where does the anxiety on the part of Senators Comyn, O'Doherty and others arise? Supposing the amount of money was not subscribed but that the amount of money deposited is sufficient to cover the prizes, obviously the purchaser of the ticket has not lost, and any loss in connection with the promotion of a sweepstake, printing, clerical work and otherwise will be met. One might imagine from the statements made here this evening that the promoters of these schemes were persons of shady character instead of, as they are, worthy persons of the most high character.
Cathaoirleach
We are quite satisfied on that point.
These men are prepared to stand a complete loss in the event of failure of the scheme, and in that case there will be nobody hurt unless the committee or the promoters of the sweepstake and people interested in the hospitals who are working to clear off the debt on the hospitals. We are all pretending to be full of anxiety about the hospitals. There are people who will not pay a three-penny bit towards a charity fund, but they will try to hinder a genuine effort by the sporting community to make these sweepstakes a success in order that the hospitals of the State should be put on their feet.
Here is a means by which a worthy body of men are trying to carry on these hospitals. They are prepared to carry out these schemes and guarantee the money, and what is the necessity of throwing all this doubt about it? We are told that the people will not subscribe to these sweepstakes. That is just like the miserable creatures that are telling you that the Third National Loan is going to be a failure. They tell you that these sweepstakes will be a failure. They will be nothing of the kind. There is over £80,000 going to the Calcutta Sweepstake every year from this country, and over £60,000 to the London Stock Exchange Sweep. Three times as much money could be obtained here as is obtained for those sweeps. If these schemes only get a little bit of encouragement and if we only repose a bit of confidence in the honesty and sincerity of those associated with and interested in the hospitals and give them a chance it would be much better than to have members of a Legislative Body trying to hinder these schemes and endeavouring to side-track them.
Cathaoirleach
I think it is wrong to say that this is not a genuine amendment. I think it is, and Senators here interested in the Bill agree that it is.
The promoters of the sweepstakes are prepared to take the risk.
Cathaoirleach
Quite so, but it is unfair to say that the amendment is not a genuine amendment.
I think this is not a matter that is imposing any loss on the community.
Cathaoirleach
I think it is better to put the amendment and let the House decide it.
Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 13; Níl, 24.
Tá
- Miss Kathleen Browne.
- Michael Comyn, K.C.
- James G. Douglas.
- Sir John Purser Griffith.
- Henry S. Guinness.
- Right Hon. Andrew Jameson.
- Thomas Johnson.
- The McGillycuddy of the Reeks.
- Colonel Moore.
- Joseph, O'Doherty.
- M.F. O'Hanlon.
- Séumas Robinson.
- Richard Wilson.
Níl
- John Bagwell.
- Dr. Henry L. Barniville.
- William Barrington.
- Samuel L. Brown, K.C.
- R.A. Butler.
- Mrs. Costello.
- John C. Counihan.
- William Cummins.
- The Countess of Desart.
- Michael Duffy.
- Sir Thomas Grattan Esmonde.
- Michael Fanning.
- Thomas Farren.
- P.J. Hooper.
- Cornelius Kennedy.
- James MacKean.
- Seán Milroy.
- William John Molloy.
- James Moran.
- Joseph O'Connor.
- L. O'Neill.
- Bernard O'Rourke.
- Siobhán Bean an Phaoraigh.
- Thomas Toal.
Amendment declared lost. Section 4 put and agreed to.
SECTION 5.
(1) The balance of the moneys received from the sale of tickets in a sweepstake held under this Act remaining after paying or providing for the prizes distributed in such sweepstake and the expenses incurred in holding such sweepstake shall, where such sweepstake is held by the governing body of one hospital only, be paid to such governing body and, where such sweepstake is held by the governing bodies of two or more hospitals, be distributed amongst and paid to such governing bodies in the proportions stated in the scheme sanctioned by the Minister in relation to such sweepstake.
(2) The following limitations shall apply in respect of the application of the moneys received from the sale of tickets in a sweepstake held under this Act, that is to say:—
(a) the amount applied out of such moneys for paying the expenses incurred in holding such sweepstake (other than tickets, commission, prizes or other remuneration given in relation to the sale of tickets) shall not exceed thirty per cent. of such moneys;
(b) where a payment is made to a person for promoting such sweepstake such payment shall be deemed for the purposes of this Act to be part of the expenses of holding such sweepstake and shall not exceed seven per cent. of the said moneys received from the sale of tickets in such sweepstake;
(c) the amount paid in pursuance of sub-section (1) of this section to the governing body or governing bodies holding such sweepstake shall not be less than twenty per cent. of the said moneys received from the sale of tickets in such sweepstake.
I move amendment 12:—
Section 5, sub-section (2). To delete in lines 5-7 the words "(other than tickets, commission, prizes or other remuneration given in relation to the sale of tickets)."
It seems to me in reading the Bill that no provision was made against the possibility of a promiscuous distribution of free tickets. This amendment is to provide in one way, at least, for their distribution. The same section provides that not more than thirty per cent. of the amount shall be applied out of such moneys for paying the expenses incurred in holding sweepstakes. I do not intend to make any speech on this amendment. I think we should all be anxious to prevent the distribution of free tickets. In a further amendment there will be found a definite suggestion as to the percentage in the way of remuneration and commission.
If this amendment is carried I am afraid our scheme will be found unworkable. It is a common practice in order to get people to undertake the selling of tickets that a couple of free tickets are given with each book. That is the usual thing up to the present, that a person who has gone to the bother and trouble of going around canvassing people to buy tickets gets a couple of free tickets for selling a book of tickets. It is in order to induce them to sell the tickets that these free tickets are given. If you are going to say that in future these free tickets must be included in the 30 per cent. mentioned in this section, then I am afraid our scheme is unworkable. We must face the facts, and the position is, that if this amendment is carried it will be impossible to carry through any scheme. There is no use in proposing amendments and making a great profession of honesty. Senator O'Doherty has not a monopoly of honesty. We had better, in this matter, face the facts and the fact in this case is that we are doing a thing which some of us do not like, and that is legalising this matter of sweepstakes. But the people who are opposed to it have no alternative. These are the brutal facts. The hospitals of the city are loaded down with debts and, as Senator Fanning said, they will have to close their doors if something is not done. We are proposing by this Bill to help them. We know of no other way of helping them. I respectfully suggest that these amendments are wrecking the Bill, because it will be unworkable if amendments like this are passed by the Seanad. We might as well be honest about it. That is the position.
I do not think it is fair to say that this is a wrecking amendment. The proposal in the Bill itself provides that the amount applied out of such moneys for paying the expenses incurred for holding such sweepstakes ... shall not exceed 30 per cent. of such moneys. Then it makes the proviso, "other than tickets, commission or any other remuneration." That is not to exceed 30 per cent. of such moneys. I can see a reasonable case made that the word "prizes" should be exempted from this provision of the 30 per cent. maximum, but as it reads now one does not quite know what is the amount "other than tickets, commission, prizes," etc. Is it the cost of printing the tickets? Senator Farren points out that it is the practice, and it is proposed in the scheme he has in mind, that a commission or other remuneration shall be given to sellers of the tickets. If we omit from that 30 per cent. maximum any possible sum to be paid by way of commission, and any possible number of free tickets, or any other kind of remuneration which may include the commission, it may include free tickets and other remuneration to the promoters for promotion purposes or auxiliary purposes and the actual promotion expenses. But it seems to me that this exemption of tickets, commission, or other remuneration leaves a very wide margin for excess over 30 per cent. which would come then within what is presumably the estimated amount to be devoted to prizes. It seems to me that the purpose of the promoters could be secured by putting a separate provision in regard to the cost of tickets, commission and remuneration. The Bill, as it stands, leaves an opening for very heavy sums to be paid over and above the 30 per cent. by way of free tickets and commission and other remuneration. I think if the amendment is carried some other provision to safeguard the intentions of the promoters would be required. As the Bill stands, I think it is desirable that the amendment should be carried, because this proviso in the paragraph leaves a wide gate open.
I quite agree with Senator Farren that the acceptance of this amendment would destroy the whole idea underlying the Bill. I understand that in the sale of the tickets two at least out of every twelve are given free to the seller— that is one-sixth of the total. You may think that a large proportion, but that is the arrangement apparently that is found to work in a practical way. That means that 16? per cent. of the tickets are given free. If that 16? per cent. is to be taken out of the 30 per cent. allowed under the Bill, it leaves only 13? per cent. for the running expenses of the scheme. On the last occasion on which we had this matter under discussion, I quoted from a statement made before the Dáil Committee by Deputy Sir James Craig, who was in charge of the Bill in that House, in which he gave some figures of an actual sweep which took place in the North of Ireland, in a place called Toome. On that occasion I said that the postage came to £31,000; printing and stationery, £6,000; wages, £3,600. The total expenses came to £31,000, so that the first item must be wrong.
I think the figure for postage was £13,000.
The total expenses, at any rate, were £31,000, and they included these large items, such as printing, £6,000; wages, £3,600; advertising, £205, and, if Senator Johnson is right, £13,000 for postage. If these figures are to be taken as a basis it is quite obvious that the 13? per cent. that would be left, if the free tickets were not exempted from the 30 per cent., would be utterly inadequate to carry on any scheme of this kind. In the circumstances, unless Senators set themselves out deliberately to prevent the working of the scheme, having approved of the principle, they will reject this amendment.
Senator Farren is usually very reasonable in his statements in this House, and I generally find myself in agreement with him, but I think he is very unreasonable in his statements to-day when charging other Senators with smashing the Bill, and things of that kind. I have supported this Bill from the beginning, but that is no reason why I should support every clause in it if it seems to me that particular clauses should be amended. We know generally that in all Bills some amendments are necessary. In regard to the particular amendment under discussion it is laid down that 20 per cent. of the money must go to the hospitals. Another thirty per cent. may be devoted to expenses. That is a total of 50 per cent. Therefore, there is only 50 per cent. left for tickets. If, as is stated by those opposing this amendment, large sums must be taken out of that 50 per cent. for expenses, where would the ticket-holders come in? They will get much less than 50 per cent.
Long ago, when I used to make bets—and I very frequently made them—I always liked to be a little to the good in these matters. I always like to have a fair good chance of winning, perhaps a little more than a fair chance. That was the principle on which I worked. As one has ordinarily a very bad chance of winning a bet, unless you have some little advantage you are bound to lose. If people get less than 50 per cent. of the money subscribed they will have a bad chance, in my opinion, and the people who will be the gainers will not be the hospitals. I would not grudge it to the hospitals; I should like to see them get more of it. I should like that 30 per cent. for expenses to be 20 per cent., but as matters stand the expenses are going to be very much more. No one knows how much more, because 30 per cent. is laid down, and then there are other expenses such as these free tickets. That is all to be taken out of the sale of the tickets, and I think it is right that it should be laid down exactly how these expenses are to be paid for.
Senator Hooper in opposing the amendment quoted from the figures given by Deputy Sir James Craig in respect of the progenitor, shall I say, of this scheme. He referred to the sweep at Toome. I would like the House to bear in mind that the figures which Senator Hooper quoted included the prize money; the percentage of expenses was 37 per cent. of the total receipts. That left 63 per cent. to go to the church building fund. This proposal allows 30 per cent. plus the prize money. That would mean 80 per cent. as against 37 under the scheme which is quoted as an example of the possibilities of the help which hospitals might receive from this system of sweepstakes. I think that that throws a certain light on the proposal to remove these exemptions from the provisions of paragraph (a).
It is right to point out that the prize money on that occasion was only £6,000. If you take £6,000 from the £31,000 you will get for general expenses £25,000. The total received on that occasion was £82,000, so that even excluding the prize money the general expenses were about 30 per cent. of the total sum. On these figures the 30 per cent. included in this Bill is not an extravagant figure, excluding prize money and free tickets.
I think this amendment differs a great deal from the amendment regarding the security for the payment of the debts. I do not think it is the duty of the House really to say what chances are to be given to people who subscribe for tickets. If we pay our money for tickets that are going to give us such bad value, that is our own look-out. When you come to look at the Bill with the amendment left out, the tickets are the tickets described in Section 9 after the free tickets given away to the distributors and sellers of other tickets, and the commission and prizes or other remuneration are excluded. That will be part of the scheme. I suppose the Minister who is going to look into these things will have to see that an outrageous amount of money is not devoted to these free tickets. The Minister will check the scheme. I think both Senator Farren and Senator Hooper have been quite fair in telling us unless they give something outside the 30 per cent. they could not carry out the scheme, and I think the House ought to rely on the Minister's checking the figures. If a great many free tickets are given away the people who pay for the tickets have a mighty small chance of getting anything, but that is their own lookout. I do not think the Minister will pass any scheme in which it will be quite evident that the people who pay for tickets will have a very poor chance of getting anything. I think this is really a case where if the Minister has to superintend the scheme he should be left to exercise his superintendence in such a way as to ensure that everyone should get a fair chance, and that it is carried out on reasonable lines.
Under paragraph (a) it is stated that "the amount applied out of such moneys for paying the expenses incurred in holding such sweepstake ... shall not exceed 30 per cent. of such moneys," and then it is stated under paragraph (b) that where "a payment is made to a person for promoting such sweepstake such payment shall be deemed for the purposes of this Act to be part of the expenses of holding such sweepstake and shall not exceed 7 per cent. of the said moneys received from the sale of tickets in such sweepstake." Is it intended that the seven shall be additional to the 30 per cent. or part of the 30 per cent.?
Cathaoirleach
So that 30 per cent. is the utmost that can be charged?
Cathaoirleach
I do not think that is quite clear.
In answer to Senator Jameson, the scheme does not provide at all for the percentage of free tickets that are to be issued; therefore, 50 per cent. of the tickets may be free tickets.
Amendment put and negatived.
I move:—
Section 5, sub-section (2). To delete in line 12 the word "seven" and substitute therefor the word "five."
An amendment for a similar purpose was turned down by the Dáil, but I hope the Seanad will treat this amendment in a different manner. The idea of the amendment is not to wreck the Bill, as I suppose I will be told. I feel that this idea of giving remuneration under these circumstances is a bit repellent. It seems extraordinary that a hospital committee could not run these sweeps themselves, get the lists from those who have them, even if they were to hire them, pay whatever the necessary salaries are, and pay no more. However, the promoters say they themselves cannot do it. They insist that some sort of remuneration shall be given. They suggest seven per cent. Seven per cent. is very near the usual commercial percentage, but there are very few commercial undertakings, I think, which would be safer investments than this one. Not only that, but they are getting their seven per cent. on the turn over and not on the money invested. Another 23 per cent. is to be used for the purpose of working this scheme, so that the promoters can get their salaries out of the 23 per cent. and have the 7 per cent. as clear profit. I think it would be much better to say 5 per cent.
Personally, I would much prefer, as I have said, to see such a sweep run merely with an allowance for actual salaries and expenses. The amount of money which has to be raised is only a relatively miserable sum of £40,000. It might sound ridiculous if I were to say that the amount of money involved in the turnover will run into six figures. Taking the Calcutta Sweep alone, the promoters can afford to give £125,000 in prizes, and the selling of the tickets is most jealously guarded. Hardly any one can get them. In an open sweepstake such as can be run under this Bill, the tickets will be sold everywhere, and I can quite easily believe that the £1,000,000 worth of tickets will be sold. There is another matter in connection with the percentage. Each sweepstake will stand on its own I take it. I believe that a sweepstake can be run in about three months. That would mean that you could run about four in the year, which means about four times 7 per cent—28 per cent., or, according to my amendment, 20 per cent. It will be seen, therefore, that the amount of money involved is an enormous sum. I maintain that it would be much better to reduce this percentage to five. I introduce the figure 5, but if a smaller figure would work, or no figure at all, I would prefer it. There is too much of the atmosphere of commercial speculation about this percentage. It is very much like what the "Independent" or any business concern would offer.
In connection with this amendment, I would just like to point out that the Bill does not say that the promoters shall get 7 per cent. What the Bill provides is that the promoter shall receive a sum not exceeding seven per cent. If the hospitals committee running a sweepstake can get a person to run one on a smaller percentage basis than seven per cent., then they are quite free to do that. All that the Bill provides for is that they cannot pay the promoter more than seven per cent. Senators should not lose sight of the fact that a considerable risk is involved in the running of a sweepstakes. Heretofore, the promoter had to undertake all the risk. On one occasion a promoter running a sweepstake for a particular hospital in Dublin guaranteed, in the first place, the hospital a very substantial sum of money. In the second place, he guaranteed the prize money. He did all that before he issued a ticket for the sweepstake, placing the two sums on deposit in the bank. He undertook a great risk in running that sweepstake. The printing in connection with it cost him a fabulous sum. He had a staff of more than 200 engaged on it for over twelve months. The postage bill was enormous. The office expenses were also very heavy. Is there anyone going to take that risk at the present time? We ought to be reasonable about this, and say to ourselves that the committees of these hospitals are not going to be such jolly fools as to give a promoter any percentage he asks. The committee may be relied upon to deal with that matter in a business way. They will endeavour to make the best bargain possible, always taking care, of course, to get a reliable person to do the work.
We all know that the members of these hospital committees could not undertake the running of these sweepstakes themselves. Most of them would not have the time, the inclination or the ability to undertake such a job. They are very good people, of course, for looking after the sick, but they would hardly be competent to undertake this business of running sweepstakes. We might as well be honest about this, and say that you must have experts for the job. These experts will have to undertake the running of the sweepstake, and the Bill proposes that the sum paid to them is not to exceed seven per cent. I believe that if this amendment were accepted, with the hospital committees tied down to five per cent., you would not be able to get promoters to run sweepstakes and the Bill would become unworkable.
Senator Robinson will run them at the five per cent.
I believe that the hospital committees will endeavour to make the best bargain they can. After the first or second sweepstake has been run under this Bill, the information that will be available for the Minister for Justice will be very valuable indeed. The audited statement of accounts of the first sweep run will reveal a great deal to the Minister. If the Minister is satisfied that the promoter's share of the proceeds in connection with that first sweep was too great, then in connection with subsequent schemes he has the power to refuse to sanction them unless the promoter's share is reduced. We are all anxious to help the hospitals. For the reasons I have given I ask Senator Robinson to withdraw his amendment. I may say that I am in sympathy with the Senator and hope the promoter will not get even five per cent. But it is not the promoter I am thinking about when speaking on this. I am thinking of the hospitals and the sick poor in them. There is nothing in the Bill to compel the hospital committees to pay the promoter seven per cent. It is definitely laid down that he cannot be paid more than seven per cent. I think we may rely on the good sense of the Minister, after he has got the returns in connection with the first or second sweepstake, to see that this matter is attended to, and that the money subscribed by the public generally to help the hospitals, while at the same time taking a sporting chance themselves for a few shillings of winning some of the prizes offered, will reach the destination intended for it.
I quite agree with the very able and enthusiastic Senator who has just sat down that the Minister will get a tremendous lot of information as a result of the first sweepstake held under this Bill. In the course of this debate we had some interesting figures quoted in connection with the sweepstake held recently. The sum of £80,000 was received from the people who bought the tickets. The sum of £5,000 was the total value of the prizes. That is to say that the man who bought 16s. worth of tickets had one shilling's worth of a chance. Six per cent. is all that the man who buys a ticket gets in the way of a chance. I think it is unreasonable that the promoter should get seven per cent. He ought at least get something less than the man who buys the tickets, and I think five per cent. is quite sufficient for him, seeing that he incurs no risk whatever because the Seanad has decided, in rejecting one of our earlier amendments, that in case of failure he is to get back his deposit. Of course, we accept the decision of the Seanad, and we ask the House to accept this amendment on that basis.
The promoter has no risk. He has a wide field, wholly unrestricted as to the regions that he may explore in the course of his campaign, and I think that five per cent. will leave him a rich man and leave the Minister a wise man. As I have said, I believe that the Minister will get a tremendous lot of information that will be very valuable to him as a result of the holding of the first or second sweepstake under this Bill. I am not discussing this amendment in connection with the sweepstakes contemplated immediately—that is, for the benefit of the Dublin hospitals. I hope that these sweepstakes will be a success. I accept the decision of the Seanad on the Bill, and I hope the sweepstakes for the Dublin hospitals will be a success, but it is well to remember that this Bill is to last for four years. Therefore, it is likely that you will have many imitators of these sweepstakes. Some of them may not be for such worthy objects as those held for the benefit of the hospitals. I hope Senators will not consider that the amendments we have brought forward are in any sense wrecking amendments. They are amendments intended to improve the Bill. I am very sorry that Senator Farren, in the course of his speech and as a result of his enthusiasm, should have suggested that any of those amendments of ours are wrecking amendments. We do not mean to wreck the Bill. We want to see the Bill made as good a Bill as possible, and a credit to the institutions of this country.
I would like to say a word with regard to what has been said by one or two Senators that we are not responsible in any way for the value of the tickets that are to be sold. I have an entirely different view of that. This is more or less a State lottery. It is a lottery to be held under an Act passed by the Oireachtas. Therefore, our honour is at stake in this matter. We should see that when sweepstakes are held such conditions in connection with them are laid down that people who put their money into them by buying tickets will be fairly treated. If they are not fairly treated, then I believe the Free State will be dishonoured. We should take every step possible to see that the man who buys a ticket will get a fair chance. I do not want him to get more than a fair chance, but he ought at least to have a reasonable chance and get a fair show. I think it is quite wrong not to consider that aspect of the question. One or two Senators suggested that it was not worth our while to take so many precautions for the poor man who buys a ticket. I quite disagree with that. Our honour is at stake, and it is our duty to protect that man as much as anybody else.
I propose to vote against this amendment. Before this idea of promoting sweepstakes was adopted by the hospital authorities, I have no doubt they made a more extensive study of the subject than the majority of the members of this House have done. Having made that close study, they came to the conclusion that seven per cent. of the ticket money was necessary to allocate for the purpose of getting promoters to undertake these sweepstakes. I am sure that the hospitals will not want to give as much as seven per cent. to the promoters if they can possibly avoid it. I take it they will make the best terms they can. I am quite satisfied that it was for good reasons this figure of seven per cent. was put in the Bill. Those with the most knowledge on the subject thought that this figure was absolutely necessary for the working of these sweepstakes.
With regard to the remarks made by Senator Moore, I would like to point out that the Senator has entirely failed to grasp the whole spirit of the sweepstake idea which is that people with a very moderate chance of winning may put down a very small sum of money and win a big amount. That is the whole point in connection with sweepstakes. This House need not consider what chance a person has of winning. The whole merit of a sweepstake is that people do not gamble in such a way as to injure themselves. They take one, two or three tickets and hope that by doing so they may win a big sum of money.
I am in favour of the amendment and I decline to believe that there must be good reasons for putting this figure of seven per cent. in the Bill. I have heard no good reasons for that. Senator Farren referred to a big sweepstake that was held in Dublin, and emphasised the responsibility and financial commitments that rested on the shoulders of the promoter. There is no analogy whatever between that sweepstake and the sweepstakes it is proposed to hold under this Bill. The promoter of sweepstakes in the scheme outlined in this Bill has no financial responsibility whatever. He will get his percentage clear and above everything, and I submit that a man placed in that position would be very well paid if he got five per cent. especially in the case of a sweepstake which, though it is for a charitable purpose, has quasi-Government or full Government sanction. Senator Farren stated that this was a wrecking amendment because five per cent. is suggested. He also said that if five per cent. was embodied in the Bill that the hospital committees would not be able to find promoters to work on that basis. What we have to do is to fix what we consider is a fair percentage, and I think that five per cent. is fair to allow.
Senator Bagwell appears to forget that the promoters of this scheme have come to Parliament for certain privileges and have suggested certain conditions to be applied in respect of the privileges they are seeking. We are taking the responsibility in this matter. The Seanad has approved of the Minister having imposed on him certain liabilities and responsibilities. The question of the remuneration of the promoter is surely a matter that we should have some regard for. A figure is stated in the Bill. So long as you are putting a figure in the Bill, if this House has to be responsible for that, we have the right to examine and consider whether it is a fair one or an excessive one. A statement was made in the early part of these proceedings on the assumption that a particular sweepstake was in the mind of the Senator who made it. He mentioned the sum of £60,000 being ready for deposit as cover for prize money. I take it that indicates the expectation of a sale of tickets to the extent of at least £100,000. What does that mean for the promoter? It means almost £7,000, though the Bill says "not exceeding seven per cent." The promoter that is mentioned here knows that he has the market in his possession. He has a monopoly, and if this Bill allows him £7,000 he will say seven per cent. or nothing, so that we are sanctioning £7,000 to the promoter out of the sale of £100,000 worth of tickets.
In the course of the discussion it has been suggested that it is the promoter that is doing all this: that he is responsible for conducting the sweepstake. But the Bill that we are discussing on the responsibility of the promoters of the Bill says "such sweepstakes shall be conducted and managed by the committee." They may appoint a servant, an agent, or somebody with whom they make a contract to do the business, and they are providing that he may receive £7,000, with £20,000 as the hospitals' share out of the £100,000. I think that is quite a disproportionate division of the money. If the hospitals, for whom the charitable public the world over are going to be appealed to, are to receive £20,000 and the servant of the committee is to be paid £7,000 for his work, I think that is quite disproportionate and unreasonably generous.
The proposer of the amendment expressed the wish that the hospitals might run these sweepstakes themselves without employing any promoter. I hope he understands that they are entitled to do so under the Bill. There is no obligation whatever on them to employ promoters. If they can run the sweepstakes themselves they are entitled to do it. The proposer of the amendment and other supporters of it spoke as if this charge of seven per cent. was to be the usual charge. Of course, what the Bill says is that it is to be the maximum charge. There is no reason why, if the committee comes to the conclusion that it cannot run the sweepstake itself, it would not employ a man at one per cent. or at two per cent. if it can get a man to do the work for that. All that the Bill says is that the promoter must not get more than seven per cent. Some Senator suggested that it would always be seven per cent. My reply is that I do not think any member of the House knows whether it will or not. After the first sweepstake has been run the accounts will go before the Minister. When the scheme for the second sweepstake is submitted to him he will have available the accounts relating to the first sweepstake. He will have seen what remuneration the promoter got and will be in a position to judge whether the percentage previously given was too much. If he thinks that it was, then he will have the right to reduce the percentage under the second scheme presented to him. The supporters of this amendment are asking the House to do the work of the hospital committee and to fix the remuneration that is to be given to the promoter. The amendment really suggests that the hospital committees will be prepared to give more money to the promoters than is necessary, thereby taking that money out of the hospital fund. That is the conclusion to be drawn.
Perhaps 10 would be a better figure?
Would the Senator prefer that no figure should be put in? Is that the idea?
Why put in seven per cent?
It was put in by the Dáil and it comes to us here, and if it is too much the Minister can reduce it next time. Senator Johnson speaks of some particular promoter having a monopoly. I wonder is that true? I presume he has some promoter in mind, but I really do not know.
I read the discussion that went on in the Dáil Committee.
Let us assume there is one particular promoter in mind. I refuse to think that if the hospitals cannot get one man to do it for the remuneration that they think is fair, that they would not get somebody else. We do not know the details of these things, and our job is to leave it to the people whose responsibility it is to find out, to leave it to the people who are the trustees of the hospitals that will benefit under the scheme.
Senator Johnson wants to know why the figure seven should be put in. I find in the Bill there is a fixed percentage. Senator Comyn is prepared to give five per cent. in the interests of efficiency and economy, but the promoters say that the figure shall not exceed seven. Surely as Senator Hooper says, it is not our business to do their work, and there should be sufficient elasticity to leave the different bodies to hammer out a percentage between themselves. There will be enough common sense and capacity among the promoters to see that no extravagant percentage will be permitted.
Senator Fanning tells us that seven per cent. was fixed by the promoters.
No, I said the Bill says it is not to exceed seven per cent.
The promoters of the Bill said originally that it would not be less than 10 per cent. They accept seven per cent. now. Senator Farren spoke of the risk that the promoters take, and Senator O'Doherty pointed out that there was no analogy between the two instances quoted. Senator Farren mentioned the individual who ran the sweep. The hospital got about £10,000 and the money turned over —I have this on fairly good authority—was somewhere in the region of £280,000. The last sweep the same gentlemen ran was one that was forbidden. In one post that was held up, I am not sure whether it was £60,000 or 60,000 registered letters that were seized, but whichever it was it shows the enormous amount of money that passes through in connection with these sweepstakes. Senator Farren spoke of the necessity for having experts. But why should an expert be brought in and given a salary? Why give him a salary and five or seven per cent. on the turnover as well? There seems to be a disproportion in the allocation of the money coming in. Taking it all round, I am convinced that our figure of five per cent. is a lot better; it makes a difference of only two per cent.
Amendment put and negatived on a show of hands.
I beg to move amendment 14:—
Section 5, sub-section (2). To delete the word "twenty" in line 17 and to substitute therefor the word "forty."
The same question as we have just now discussed is involved in this in respect to the payments to the hospitals. I am suggesting a change from twenty per cent. to forty per cent., and I base my estimates upon the figures that have been presented in evidence to the Committee of the Dáil and published officially of the results of a sweepstake in respect of which there were three million tickets issued and £80,000 worth sold. In that case there was a balance of 63 per cent. available for the hospital. Now I have left the margin of 23 per cent. I think when one is dealing with the Charitable Hospitals Bill it is only reasonable to provide that 40 per cent. of the charity should reach the object for which it is subscribed. The Bill says a minimum of 20 per cent.; I ask the House to say that it should be a minimum of 40 per cent. As I say, I base that estimate upon the one piece of accounting placed before us in regard to such a sweepstake. I have allowed the difference of 23 per cent., that is between the 40 per cent. in my amendment and the 63 per cent. which was the provision in that particular sweepstake. The difference would allow for much larger prize money than offered on that occasion and would still leave a considerable margin for safety.
I am sure we all sympathise with the object of this amendment of Senator Johnson. The object is, of course, to give the hospitals as much as possible; that is what we all want to do. But he said nothing in support of his amendment to prove to me that it is going to effect that purpose at all. Obviously, the question of the difference between 20 per cent. and 40 per cent. depends upon the amount of money that comes in. If a large amount of money comes in, 20 per cent. may mean far more to the hospital than 40 per cent. of the smaller sum. Neither Senator Johnson nor I can be in a position to judge that. What I object to about this amendment and others is that they are putting the hospitals in a strait jacket, and not giving them the freedom that they ought to have under a scheme of this kind. I have said that twenty per cent. of a large sum might be better for the hospitals than forty per cent. of a smaller sum.
I tried to work out a calculation, I do not know whether it will be of any use to the House. Let us suppose people promoted a sweepstake calculated to raise £100,000. According to the Bill thirty per cent. of that will go for expenses, that is £30,000, leaving 70 per cent. to be divided between the hospitals and the prize-winners. Now clearly the larger the percentage we insist on giving to the hospital the smaller will be the prize money. And we may reduce the prize money to such a point that £100,000 will not be reached at all. Now take a scheme of that kind. The promoters say we hope to get £100,000. We are prepared to pay £30,000 for the expenses, and we will give £40,000 for prize money. That would leave the hospital to get £30,000. But it might be that £100,000 would not be reached and we might get only £70,000 or £80,000. Thus we might find ourselves in the position of having spent £30,000, guaranteed £40,000 for prize winners, and under this amendment, we might have allocated £40,000 for the hospitals. That is to say there you would have to get £110,000 to provide the amount Senator Johnson asks for, whereas you have only got £80,000. Obviously that is not a proper thing to do under a scheme of this kind.
This Bill does not say that a hospital should only get 20 per cent.; it says that is the minimum they should get. They may promote a scheme by which they will get 50 per cent. or £50,000 as the case may be. Obviously it is for the people running the scheme to decide themselves in what proportion the moneys shall be allocated, whether large sums will be given in prizes in the hope of getting a very big return and getting twenty or more per cent. for the hospital, or, on the other hand, giving a small sum for prize money and saying that the return for the hospital must be forty per cent. Senator Johnson has made no case to prove that forty per cent. is better than twenty per cent. The proper thing to do is to give the hospitals freedom to fix the figures.
Senator Hooper argued so well for sub-section (2) that he forgets what he said in his argument for sub-section (a). He now tells us that the total expenditure will not exceed 30 per cent. He forgets that in addition to the 30 per cent. they are to have free tickets, and the blessed phrase "other remuneration" occurs in paragraph (a) of sub-section 2 and that they can go as far as 60 per cent. Does Senator Hooper believe for a moment that these sweepstakes will not bring in by sale of tickets more than £100,000?
My friend Senator Hooper purports to be fairly well acquainted with the mind of hospital committees and the promoters. He now says he has no idea as to whether it is contemplated or hoped that the amount of money received will be £100,000 more or less. I do not know so much about these promoters but I am willing to hazard a guess——
I know nothing about the promoters.
I quite accept what my friend Senator Hooper says. I am willing to hazard a guess that the amount of money received will be nearer to £1,000,000 than to £500,000. I hope now that I am not crabbing the sweepstake.
I certainly will vote against this amendment and with more reason than I voted against the previous one. It seems to me that this amendment would seem to indicate that the hospital committees are either stupid or insufficiently informed people. I see no reason to believe either of these things. On the contrary I am sure they would never have undertaken this promotion and would never risk the expense except at the figure that they thought was necessary. This amendment is much more drastic than the previous one. The previous amendment was to reduce the promoter's percentage from seven to five. This is an amendment to substitute a percentage of forty as against twenty. It seems to me a most arbitrary way of looking at it. From my experience of sweepstakes I am prepared to say that people were 100 per cent. wrong. But I could not agree to support the big change suggested in the amendment unless I felt myself to be a real expert on the subject.
Senator Bagwell spoke of the figure in my amendment as an arbitrary figure. I agree, but I again ask the House to bear in mind that we are legislating for a certain class of event, and we have been placed in possession of a Bill from the Dáil which contains certain figures, thirty per cent., seven per cent. and twenty per cent., and I ask are they arbitrary figures or not? Why accept 30 per cent. or 7 per cent or 20? Is it merely a guess? What is the meaning of it? My figure of 40 per cent. is not as arbitrary as any of those. So far as this House is concerned, all we know is that there has been presented to the Oireachtas certain evidence relating to sweepstakes of a kind similar to those contemplated in this Bill, and that one single piece of evidence shows that in a sweepstake concerned the sum of 63 per cent. went to the hospital; that gives one a lead. It is the only piece of evidence to enable anyone to act upon. Therefore, I have made a figure which allows, as I stated earlier, a considerable margin. Sixty-three per cent. was received by the hospital upon that previous occasion. I am suggesting there may be something rather extraordinary in the amount, and I have left that margin of twenty-three per cent. and, therefore, the figure is much less arbitrary in the case of my amendment than in the figure presented with the Bill as drafted, because there is evidence for my figure and no evidence whatever for the other figure. From my point of view any figure of this kind is quite wrong.
May I point out to Senator Johnson that it is very unlikely that the hospital committee, which knows that over 60 per cent. was given under a former scheme, is going to agree to 20 per cent. under a future scheme without knowing the reason why.
Senator Johnson's figure in this amendment is based upon returns placed before a Committee that heard evidence upon this particular matter. I do not think it is fair for Senator Johnson to put that forward as a fair average of what is going to take place. The sweep he referred to was not for a hospital, but was organised for the purpose of building a church. A large percentage of the work in connection with that was voluntary work. It was altogether different to the case that I referred to where you had a staff of two hundred people who will have to be engaged and paid.
£3,600 is a small thing in the way of expenses. If you are going to make comparisons let them be fair. Let them be on average things. I will produce a balance-sheet showing a considerable loss on sweeps.
Certainly. I will produce particulars of a sweep that was held on the Lincoln Handicap.
Cathaoirleach
Run by the promoters for profit?
Yes. The sale of tickets realised £56,000; £5,000 was given in prize money and £10,000 to the hospital. The actual expenses worked out at £25,000, without taking the prize money into consideration.
The promoter got £10,000 out of it.
He might have made it up in expenses.
A balance-sheet was asked for, and when I produce it Senators are not satisfied to accept it. I was challenged to produce a balance-sheet, and I have it here. We must be fair in these things. There is no use in humbugging. I was challenged to produce a balance-sheet, and now some Senators are not satisfied with the result. That is not my fault. You must take figures on the average if you take them at all. Senator Johnson picked a figure that suited him, so that he cannot deny my right to pick the best one for my case. Senators cannot have it both ways.
We want to try and arrive at a medium. We are all anxious to get as much money as possible for the hospitals, but there is no use stating in the Bill that a certain sum must be given if that sum will not be forthcoming. If it is stated in the Bill that an hospital must get 40 per cent. of the total receipts, and if the expenses of management do not allow that, the Bill will be wrecked. I hope the hospitals will get 60 per cent. or 70 per cent. of the total receipts, but there is no use putting a proposal into the Bill to the effect that they must get an amount which may not be available. We put in a figure which we believe can be given. The amendment is to put in an impossible figure, an amount that cannot be given, and on which the sweep could not be run. That is the difference between us. The Bill proposes to give 20 per cent. to the hospitals. The promoters believe that it is quite possible to give 20 per cent. Senator Johnson's amendment proposes that the hospital should get 40 per cent., but the promoters of the Bill consider that impossible. If the amendment is passed the scheme will be wrecked. We are all as anxious as the proposer of the amendment—and I know he is sincere in the matter—to give as much money as possible to the hospital. We are all of the same mind, but we want to do it properly, so as to help the hospitals and not to put any obstacles in the way. If the amendment is passed I believe these schemes will not be promoted at all. That is the reason I am opposed to it. We want the hospitals to get every penny that it is possible to get for them.
I will vote against the amendment for the simple reason that I consider it is not in the interests of the hospitals, but purely an obstructive amendment, in order to waste time. It appears to me that the opponents of the Bill realise that it will pass, and that their only desire now is to obstruct it as much as they can.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Question—"That Section 5 stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.
Section 6 agreed to.
SECTION 7.
(1) Every book of tickets in a sweepstake held under this Act shall have clearly printed thereon—
(a) where such sweepstake is held by the governing body of one hospital only, the name of such hospital, or where such sweepstake is held by the governing bodies of two or more hospitals, the names of such hospitals and the proportions in which the funds raised by means of such sweepstake will be divided amongst such hospitals, and
(b) a statement to the effect that such sweepstake is held under this Act.
(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.
(3) If any book of tickets in a sweepstake held under this Act does not comply with the provisions of sub-section (1) of this section or if any advertisement, memorandum, circular, ticket or other document issued by a committee in relation to such a sweepstake contravenes the provisions of sub-section (2) of this section, each member of the committee managing such sweepstake shall be guilty of an offence under this section and shall be liable on summary conviction thereof to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds.
I move:—
Section 7, sub-section (1). To delete paragraph (b).
Sub-section (1) seems to be contradicted by the provision in sub-section (2) which prohibits the statement that a sweepstake is held under the auspices or patronage of the Government. There is a slight difference between the two things, but if anyone tells the public that a sweepstake is held under the Act there is Government approval implied to the average, non-discriminating reader, and that seems to conflict diametrically with the prohibition in the next sub-section, and I therefore ask that sub-section (1) should be deleted.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move:—
Section 7, sub-section (1). To add at the end of paragraph (b) the words "and that the Act provides that not less than twenty per cent. of the face value of the tickets shall be paid to the governing body of the hospital or hospitals named thereon."
In anticipation of the decision on the last amendment, I put down this amendment, so that the public will know that the hospitals are guaranteed to receive not less than 20 per cent. That may be said to be an assurance to the public that at least 20 per cent. of the money they subscribe is going to the hospital. I hope the promoters of the Bill will not oppose that.
The difficulty I see about the matter is this: if such a statement has to be put on the sweep ticket it will be the size of a newspaper. That is one objection to the amendment. Tickets must be of a size suitable for carrying about and disposing of. On the cover of the book of tickets it will be stated that the sweep is run in the interests of certain hospitals, and run under the authority of the Act of Parliament. I think that is sufficient. If every regulation is to be put on the tickets they will not be tickets at all, they will be placards. We all know what is intended, but if you put in anything about 20 per cent. on the ticket people who do not understand the circumstances will say: "Oh, someone else is getting the other 80 per cent.," and the tickets may not be purchased. If the scheme is going to be legalised, let us do the best we can and not prevent people subscribing. For that reason I am opposed to the amendment.
I suggest to the Senators that they should vote against this amendment because it is unnecessary. Senator Johnson seems to think that the bulk of the people who buy sweep tickets do so because they are actuated by charitable motives. They are not going to do anything of the kind. They are going to take tickets because they think it a good investment.
I appreciate the effect of what Senator Bagwell has said, that the public will not buy tickets for a charitable object, but I think the pretence is that they will. That is one reason for my attitude to this Bill, that in the main it is a Bill to aid the professional charity monger to proceed with his business in the sacred name of charity—for the hospitals. That accounts for my attitude to the Bill.
The statement made by Senator Farren was tremendously interesting. He said that they should not put on the face of a ticket the fact that the man who bought it had the one-fifth chance. The Senator said not to put that in because the tickets would not be bought. From the figures before us the fact is that the purchaser has not a twenty per cent. chance but a five per cent. chance.
We are honest about it anyway.
I rise merely to protest against the implication in Senator Johnson's statement that the Bill is promoted in the interests of professional charity mongers. That was the implication, and that means that the committee of the hospitals are parties, knowingly or because of their ignorance, to the promotion of a sweepstake in the interests of professional charity mongers.
If I stated that the Bill was being promoted in the interests of professional charity mongers I withdraw that entirely. I do not for a moment believe that is the case, but I must say that that is the effect of the Bill as drawn.
Cathaoirleach
I am glad Senator Johnson has withdrawn that statement.
I accept the Senator's statement and I will not pursue the matter.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move:—
Section 7, sub-section (2). To add at the end of the sub-section the words "and no such advertisement, memorandum, circular, ticket or other document shall be issued by or under the authority of the Committee for transmission to or sale in any State in which by the laws of such State the sale of such ticket is illegal."
When the Second Reading of the Bill was before the House I said a few things in relation to the sale of tickets in countries where such sale is forbidden. I think the words I used were very reasonable and very true. However, they seem to have disturbed some members of the Seanad. I am not surprised, because when this Bill has gone through Committee we will know that a sweepstake really is not a gamble at all, but merely a polite way of begging. Whatever the object a man has only one chance in sixteen. I said enough on that aspect of the case on the last occasion, and I do not propose to repeat it now.
This seems to me to be a most extraordinary amendment, that hospital sweepstakes should be put in an inferior position with regard to English investors as compared with lotteries in France, Holland, Spain, Denmark and other countries. Why should we put such a proviso in this Bill? On the contrary, they should put people in a position to compete on favourable terms with other schemes, because it is much more in our interests for them to do so.
I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On behalf of Senator Connolly I move:—
Section 7, sub-section (3). To add at the end of the sub-section the words "and if the members of the Committee are so convicted the Minister shall withdraw his sanction to the scheme and thereupon the funds in the hands of the Committee and the moneys or securities comprising the deposit shall be distributed as nearly as may be in accordance with the provisions of section 4 of this Act."
I feel with Senator Connolly that it is not for the good government of sweepstakes to have the infliction of a fine in such a case as is indicated in the sub-section. I do not want to be told that I wish to wreck the Bill. I voted for the Second Reading, and I am trying to add a little influence to make the Bill such that it can be applied in all instances. If at any time a group of individuals come together to procure the sanction of the Minister to promote a sweepstake, and if they decide that it would be in their interests to contravene the sub-section, and run the risk of paying £50 each, it might be a good investment. I suggest that in the event of such contravention the Minister should withdraw his sanction to the scheme, and upon doing so the funds in the hands of the committee should be distributed, as nearly as may be, in accordance with the provisions of Section 4.
Cathaoirleach
Yes. I do not think the promoters of the scheme should be permitted to carry on if they violate any section of the Act. I put forward the amendment with a view to trying to make the Act under which a scheme is to be operated above suspicion in the minds of those who might subscribe to the sweepstake.
It seems to me that to provide for this particular penalty, which amounts to a fine on each member plus the revocation of the sanction, applies only to what is printed on the book of tickets, and it is too heavy, for it might be a nominal offence and not committed with criminal intent. According to the provisions of the amendment the sanction of the Minister must be withdrawn, even though the offence was not of major importance. I think the Bill ought to provide penalties for a breach and for the withdrawal of sanction, but I think that should be in respect of major offences against a scheme, and not merely as regards what is printed on the book of tickets. I think it will be seen that if sanction has to be withdrawn once a conviction is obtained in respect of a nominal offence, the penalty would be too great. I am opposed to the amendment.
Fines of £50 in such a case would be a great temptation to continue the offence. What is intended to be provided against is a promoter representing that he was acting under the auspices or patronage of Government. I can quite easily imagine a case in which a promoter could well afford to pay a fine, and several fines, of £50, in order that he may be able to represent to the world that a sweepstake was under the patronage of the Government, and, therefore, a fine of £50 is not enough. In a case like that the Minister should have the power to withdraw his sanction.
Either of these offences is covered by sub-section (2).
If the book of tickets does not contain a reference to the hospital, but a statement that it is held under the provisions of this Act, or if it purports to contain a statement that the sweepstake is under the direct patronage of the Government, these are offences for which a fine of £50 could be imposed. I think that a fine of £50 is not adequate for an offence of that kind. Where representation is made that a sweepstake is held with the authority or under the patronage of the Minister, and where that representation is persisted in, the Minister should have power to withdraw sanction.
I find myself in entire agreement with Senator Johnson that if the penalty is too severe it would burst up the sweepstake and mean the loss of a good deal of money to the hospitals. I think the penalty already provided for in the Bill is sufficient. The importance of this class of offence may be greatly exaggerated. It would make a difference to a man who is taking a ticket in a sweepstake to know or to be persuaded that it is under the patronage of the Government, but if he knows anything he knows that whether it is under the patronage of the Government or not it is approved of by the Government, and is according to the law of the country, and also that the scheme is approved of by the Minister. If he knows those things, and it is right that he should know them, is it going to make much difference to induce large numbers of people to take tickets because in addition they think the sweepstake is under the patronage of the Government? I do not think anything of the kind. I think the penalty in the Bill is adequate, and the offence would not be repeated with impunity after a fine of £50 as the Minister would not approve of the scheme again.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Sections 7 and 8 put and agreed to.
SECTION 9.
When calculating for the purposes of this Act the amount of moneys received from the sale of tickets in a sweepstake the value of tickets issued free by way of reward to a seller of tickets shall be excluded from the calculation and there shall be deducted from the nominal selling price of all other tickets all commissions, prizes and other remuneration given in relation to the selling of such tickets.
I move:—
Section 9. To delete in line 13, the words "by way of reward to a seller of tickets."
This amendment deals with the calculation of the amount of money received from the sale of tickets. It is provided in Section 5, sub-section (2), that certain calculations were to be made in respect of the percentages we have been discussing. The sub-section provides:
(2) The following limitations shall apply in respect of the application of the moneys received from the sale of tickets in a sweepstake held under this Act, that is to say:—
(a) the amount applied out of such moneys for paying the expenses incurred in holding such sweepstakes (other than tickets, commission, prizes or other remuneration given in relation to the sale of tickets) shall not exceed thirty per cent. of such moneys:
(b) where a payment is made to a person for promoting such sweepstake such payment shall be deemed for the purposes of this Act to be part of the expenses of holding such sweepstake and shall not exceed seven per cent. of the said moneys received from the sale of tickets in such sweepstake.
I think it is unnecessary to say by way of reward to sellers of tickets, because tickets may be issued conceivably for other purposes than by way of reward. If it were possible to issue large numbers of tickets to persons for any other reason than that they were sellers of tickets, then this particular provision regarding a calculation would cover them also. I do not think the deletion of the words proposed in the amendment would affect the intentions of the promoters of the Bill. In fact it merely makes sure that their intentions shall be secured.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move:—
Section 9. To add at the end of the section the words "and no tickets shall be issued free except by way of reward to a seller of tickets and the tickets issued free to such seller shall not represent an amount exceeding five per cent. of the money received from him for the sale of tickets."
I am in absolute agreement with the principle that the seller of the tickets should be rewarded, but I think the amount of the reward should be fixed, and I suggest that five per cent. is a very fair figure.
As I understand, and of course Senator Farren will correct me if I am wrong, in every book of twenty or twenty-one tickets there is one free tickets, that is the seller of these tickets gets one ticket for himself. I won a sweepstake on only one occasion. It was got up on behalf of the St. Vincent de Paul Society in Cork. I won £50 on the ticket and £2 10s. for selling the ticket to myself, but I gave it all back. I always understood there was one free ticket in every book of twenty.
For every one in ten, I think.
There is part of this amendment which I would very strongly recommend to the House, and that is that no tickets should be issued free except by way of reward to a seller of tickets. As the Bill stands, it is open to a promoter to issue 500,000 tickets for sale and to give, say, 20,000 to the vendor of tickets and 200,000 free to friends. It is quite open as the Bill stands to do that.
There is no necessity for this safeguard proposed in the amendment.
Cathaoirleach
Senator Comyn says there is no limitation to the number of tickets a man can issue free, thereby taking from the chances of the bona fide purchased tickets.
This scheme will have to go before the Minister, so that the promoter will not be free to insert an absurd condition of that kind in the scheme. If he does the Minister will strike it out, and the scheme will fall to the ground unless the Minister sanctions such a proposal.
There would be nothing in the scheme in relation to free tickets.
This is the only occasion since I came here that Senator Hooper has contradicted me on a question of importance, but I will not say that he is deceiving the House.
And I do not suggest the Senator is deceiving the House. It is laid down in Section 2 that
"the amount or the maximum amount proposed to be allowed or expended by way of commission, prize, or other remuneration in relation to the sale of tickets in such sweepstake and the proportion of free tickets proposed to be allotted by way of reward to the seller of any particular number of tickets in such sweepstake."
That is quite right. The proportion of free tickets to be awarded to the seller is fixed in the scheme, but not the proportion to be given to others. I say with the greatest confidence that there is no provision in the Bill that the schemes that will be formulated will prohibit the granting of free tickets to personal friends.
Cathaoirleach
That is a very wide statement.
Cathaoirleach
I would be inclined to think that every block of tickets that went out would be accounted for by the committee.
There is to be an accountant for this scheme. Surely an accountant of standing approved of by the Minister is not going to allow a swindle of that kind to be carried out.
What authority has the accountant to question anything that may be done when the statute says it may be done? From my reading of the Bill I am quite satisfied that there is no sort of restriction whatever on the issue of free tickets to personal friends.
May I call the Senator's attention to paragraph (f), sub-section (4), of Section 2, which provides for "the amount or the maximum amount proposed to be allowed or expended by way of commission, prize, or other remuneration in relation to the sale of tickets in such sweepstake and the proportion of free tickets proposed to be allotted by way of reward to the seller of any particular number of tickets in such sweepstake?"
That is perfectly clear. It limits the percentage of free tickets to be given to the seller of tickets, but there is no restriction on the percentage of free tickets to be given otherwise. I think it is the sense of the House that what the amendment suggests should be provided for in this Bill.
It is all right for the Senator to say that the sense of the House is on his side when the House has not heard the other side of the argument. The amendment presupposes, we are to assume, that the committees of management of the various hospitals who have given their lives to the management of the hospitals are a pack of fools, or that they are absolutely dishonest people who are going to permit someone to come along and run thousands of tickets that have not been sold into the drum when the draw is taking place.
Did anybody ever hear anything so nonsensical as that question? Remember, there is an accountant to be appointed for these schemes. Is that accountant to pass a corrupt return, and is he not to see that the money will correspond with the tickets put into the drum? If not, why not? Surely nobody is going to have the power of giving tickets to his friends. This amendment, it is plain, means one of two things, first, that everybody connected with these schemes will be absolutely dishonest or that they are a pack of fools. It means one or other of these. It is not a commonsense amendment, because Senators must remember that any Minister in charge of a Department would take the necessary precautions to see that people of such character would not be allowed to run sweepstakes for charitable purposes. It is a charge, then, that the committee of the hospitals are going to permit somebody to do a thoroughly dishonest thing—to issue, wholesale, free tickets that they have not been paid for. Surely there would be no sense in a body of responsible people doing any such thing. The people who will be interested in these sweepstakes and who will be benefited by them will be just as honest as we are. They are going to see that justice and fair-play will be done to the subscribers to the hospital sweepstakes, and they are not the class of people who would do what the amendment suggests. For that reason I am opposed to the amendment.
Am I to take it from Senator Farren that his case is that no free tickets are to be issued except the usual free tickets that are given as remuneration for the sale of a book of tickets?
Then in that case why does the Senator object to this amendment?
Because it is an offensive amendment, and it suggests that the people in charge of the voluntary and charitable hospitals in Dublin, people who have given their life service to the cause of the hospitals and the work of the hospitals, are so thoroughly dishonest that they will allow a thing like this suggested in the amendment to take place.
I think it would be in favour of the scheme if everybody knew that the only free tickets to be given away were the tickets to the sellers of books of tickets. Numbers of people who read about these things will say what Senator Comyn was saying that there is no prohibition in the Bill against giving free tickets. It appears to me that if the committees and the promoters do not intend to allow anything to be given away in the way of free tickets except the usual one or two tickets per book, it would, in fact, help the sweepstakes. In reading the Bill I agreed with Senator Comyn's interpretation of it. Tickets, commission, prizes or other remuneration might be taken into consideration in this 30 per cent. The danger is that there might be a great lot of free tickets. I would suggest to Senator Farren that he would consider this on Report Stage. It seems to me that if really no free tickets are to be given except such as the Senator suggests— that is as a reward for selling tickets—then it would really help the scheme to have that put into the Bill.
It reflects on the integrity and the honour of the promoters of a scheme. If, as Senator Comyn says, thousands of tickets were to be given away freely by the promoters of these sweepstakes then these people would be guilty of a greater crime than that for which Hatry has got fourteen years.
On a point of explanation I wish to say that if this Bill passes it will govern very many sweepstakes.
Sweepstakes for hospitals only.
I wish my friend Senator Fanning would not argue this case as if it only referred to the Dublin hospitals alone.
Cathaoirleach
If as Senator Comyn suggests there could be a division of money "not subscribed" then I think that would vitiate the sweepstake entirely.
If I might say so, this very Bill provides that parties who are not subscribing will be participators because the sellers of tickets are getting free tickets.
Cathaoirleach
The seller of a ticket is made a subscriber by law. To make the suggestion that endless numbers of tickets are to be given away by the promoters free, to the detriment of the genuine subscribers, is a very serious matter and it is an allegation that cannot be allowed to pass without thorough repudiation.
I agree that the statement that there might be endless supplies of tickets distributed that might vitiate the chances of subscribers is one that defeats the ends that the proposer and seconder of the amendment set out to achieve. I think the first part of the amendment is really a desire to improve the Bill. My view of it is that those supporting the Bill ought to agree that on Report Stage a paragraph might be inserted which would provide that the scheme which is to be submitted to the Minister will indicate the maximum number of free tickets to be distributed no matter what purpose, either for the sale of the tickets or otherwise. If that were in the scheme proposed to the Minister he would have a right to say whether the number were excessive. That would ensure that there was a limitation to the number of free tickets to be issued. I think it would be better there in fact than to couple it with this reference to five per cent.
When I moved the amendment I did so in the shortest terms possible. I thought the amendment spoke for itself. In proposing the amendment I was actuated by a close survey of the Bill. I cannot see anything in the Bill which prohibits the distribution of free tickets. That is definite. Being a supporter of the Bill, I endeavoured to fix the distribution of free tickets and to confine them merely to those who sell the tickets and to curtail that number. I do not suggest that the figure I put forward is the best, but the principle cannot be attacked or fall to the ground by such arguments as fell from Senator Fanning. The suggestion that those amendments put down by me are casting any reflection on the organisers of the sweepstakes is very absurd.
Senator Fanning did not say it.
It was said, and I think the House ought ask the Senator who said it to withdraw the statement. We are trying to put amendments into the Bill to improve it and we do not want to cast any reflection upon any group or individual who may be carrying out schemes under this Bill. I have no idea as to the personality of any groups who are to run those sweepstakes but it is our duty to safeguard the public and to see after the interest of the public at large.
And I might also say that I have no knowledge of any person who is to run those sweeps. I am talking quite impersonally.
I am not prepared to accept the principle that the people connected with the charitable institutions of this country are above and beyond all reproach.
Cathaoirleach
Would Senator O'Doherty limit the amendment to this: "No ticket shall be issued free except by way of reward to the seller of tickets?" Would the Senator accept that?
I wish to support the amendment that anyone who has charge of selling tickets will be limited to the extent of one or two free tickets in a book of tickets. I do not think it is fair at all that any privilege should be given to people to issue free tickets; no matter how well disposed or honourable people are a provision should be made to guard against the issuing of free tickets. The necessity of having some limit upon the matter is quite justifiable. No power to give free tickets should be allowed to anybody no matter how high class he may be, or no matter how high principled he might be. Personally I am sorry that sweepstakes have been introduced at all. I am not in favour of them but it is the best thing that can be done under the circumstances. As charity covers a multitude of sins this Bill ought be allowed with less criticism than one would ordinarily use. I will certainly support the amendment that no one be allowed the privilege of issuing free tickets and no one be allowed the privilege of hawking around and presenting free tickets to his friends.
Cathaoirleach
The amendment, as amended, now reads: "That no tickets shall be issued free except by way of reward to the seller of tickets."
Before you put that I want to explain to the House that though I am piloting this Bill I am only acting as a stopgap. Sir E. Coey Bigger has been in charge of this Bill and he is ill. At the last moment I was requested to do the best I could. In connection with this Bill I would suggest that if Senator O'Doherty would withdraw this amendment he would be free to bring it forward on Report Stage. In the meantime the promoters of the Bill—I am not one—could be consulted and the matter could be decided on.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 9 put and agreed to.
SECTION 10.
So far as may be practicable, all printing for or in connection with a sweepstake held under this Act shall be done in Saorstát Eireann and all paper and other materials used for the purpose of such sweepstakes shall be of Saorstát Eireann manufacture.
I am moving Amendment 23, which stands in the name of Senator Connolly. It reads:—
New Section. Before Section 10 to insert a new section as follows:—
Each ticket shall be in duplicate, shall contain the name and address of the Committee and shall have attached thereto a counterfoil. The counterfoil shall be retained by the seller for transmission to the Committee and the ticket in duplicate shall be delivered to the buyer.
It might be argued with some reason that this belongs more or less to the scheme.
If there was any guarantee that the principle involved in the section would be met by those in charge of the Bill and by the Minister, I would be prepared to accept it. But as there is nothing in the Bill to provide for the issue of tickets which will guarantee the purchaser against fraud, this section is framed to meet that matter. It simply means that each ticket shall be issued in triplicate—that is in duplicate with the counterfoil, and would contain the name and address of the committee. The counterfoil would be retained by the seller for transmission to the committee, and the ticket in duplicate would be delivered to the buyer. The buyer would send one copy to the headquarters of the sweepstake. This would be a great check against fraud. It would ensure, as far as was humanly possible to ensure, that every ticket sold would be represented in the ballot box, and it would give confidence to the purchaser of the tickets that his ticket would figure in the sweepstake box when the prizes were being drawn.
This, of course, is an attempt to grapple with the great difficulty of sweepstakes. The difficulty is that a number of tickets will be sold by people who will never return the counterfoils. It was only yesterday that we read a report of a case in the Press which was headed, "At it again," and the person who was "at it again" was a person who got a suspended sentence some time ago for selling tickets and keeping the money. While the suspended sentence was hanging over him, he got two books of tickets from a very confiding lady, and he proceeded to sell them also. He was caught, and he received three months' imprisonment in addition to the nine months which had been suspended. That is an example of what may occur under this Bill. Human nature being what it is, there is a great danger that the tickets will be sold and the money retained by the vendors for their own use. That danger is greatly aggravated by the fact that these tickets will be sent to foreign countries for sale, some sent to countries in which that sale is forbidden.
It is very difficult to devise a remedy, but I think this amendment does make the best provision which can reasonably be made, because it provides that the documents shall contain a counterfoil which shall go into the drum, and that a ticket in duplicate has to be given to the purchaser of the ticket, and that the name and the address of the committee has to be on each ticket. In all human probability a certain number of the people who buy the tickets will send one of the duplicate tickets to the addresses mentioned in the tickets. Therefore, the committee and the auditor will have an opportunity of detecting here and there where frauds on an extensive scale are being perpretrated by persons in foreign countries to whom consignments of tickets have been sent. I think that is the most reasonable and the most workable arrangement to check the great faults associated with all sweepstakes. I support the amendment for that reason.
I also desire to support the amendment because I think it is desirable to prevent abuse in the sale of tickets. It is quite possible that a large number of tickets will be sold in different parts of the country where these abuses might arise. I think the amendment deserves to be supported on the ground that it increases public confidence in this matter. Nothing tends to make a success of such sweeps more than public opinion. Public opinion is the greatest critic and if the public once form the idea that the person who purchases these tickets, be he a humble person or a person who is well off, has a 100 to 1 chance or a 16 to 1 chance, the success of these sweepstakes will be assured. They can live in a fool's paradise by accepting that everybody is right. If, however, any great number of tickets are retained by the sellers, the number who win will be very small in proportion to the amount subscribed. The greatest possible element of success in a sweepstake is assured by having the name of the sender attached to the tickets.
I rise to oppose the amendment. I wonder if Senator Connolly has thought of the effect which this amendment, if passed, might have. It is a very common proceeding—I suppose we are all familiar with it—in foreign sweepstakes to issue tickets with two or three portions attached. We may sell a book of tickets or one or two tickets of the whole book, as the case may be. I think this would give rise to grave dangers of tickets being duplicated and finding their way into the box. This amendment would have a most undesirable effect if passed.
I have an objection to this amendment from two points of view. The first is on the point of expense. If this amendment is carried the cost will be enormous because, to commence with, it will be necessary to have a second perforation on the ticket. The cost of printing will be heavy in that respect. In the second place, we want to save expenses, and if, when the blocks of tickets come in, they are entered up and checked by the accountant before they go into the drum, there has to be a second check to see if any of the duplicates have come in. I see a great danger in the application of this amendment and I suggest that it might be withdrawn, because I understand that a much better precaution is about to be taken by the promoters of the Bill. That precaution will mean that on the face of every ticket there will be printed a statement to the effect that a receipt will be sent to the person who buys it direct from the head office. That, I think, is a better safeguard.
I understand that that is done in the case of the London Stock Exchange Sweepstake. I am not very familiar with these matters, but I understand that that is the method adopted by the London Stock Exchange Sweepstake Committee. I understand it is the intention of the system, under which it is proposed to run these sweeps that on the face of each ticket it will be stated that a receipt will be sent to the purchaser of each ticket. I think that is the best safeguard that one can have. For that reason I am opposed to the amendment.
I am in entire sympathy with the object aimed at by the amendment, and I am rather disposed to vote for it, but after hearing what Senator Farren has stated in regard to the question of expense and in reference to the superiority of the other system, I shall not vote for the amendment if put now. I would suggest to the mover of the amendment that he might withdraw it and put it down again for Report Stage. Possibly before that time we may be able to devise a better and a less expensive system of safeguarding the purchaser. The Senator will also have more time to consider the amendmend, and he will be in a position to move it on the Report Stage if no better alternative is provided.
I would like to see provided by some means that moneys paid for tickets shall reach the charity or promoters of the scheme for a charity. I quite appreciate the point which Senator Farren has made regarding the scheme he has in mind, but neither that scheme nor the proposal in the amendment would meet what seems to me to be the real difficulty in this whole system of sweepstakes. The promoters of sweepstakes selling tickets at a shilling or two shillings would probably say that neither of the proposals would be practicable owing to these difficulties, and because of the personal objection of sending out duplicates or of getting receipts.
I think it is pretty well the general experience that a very large number of tickets at one shilling or sixpence are being sold for various purposes, and the instance given by Senator Comyn, I think, would be repeated dozens of times if detection were not sure. The very large number of tickets that are distributed to everybody—coming in shoals from all kinds of organisations in the hope that you will sell the tickets or send the money for them—makes one believe—and I have personal evidence of the fact—that many of the tickets are hawked round. Perhaps they may be sold. The money is retained by the seller and never reaches the hospital or the charity which it is supposed to assist. There is no record of the books having been received by the person to whom they were addressed, and there is no guarantee to insure that the books will be returned, sold or unsold. The books are distributed to all kinds and conditions of persons. Very often they may be thrown in the wastepaper basket, and they may be subsequently hawked around amongst people who are disposed to contribute money to these things.
I see nothing in this Bill that will prevent such a thing happening. It is not right to assume under this Bill that it is only a big scheme that will be involved, and that it is only a pound or a ten-shilling ticket that will be sold. I can imagine that there will be proposals under the Bill for running sweeps for hospitals for much smaller prizes and with much cheaper tickets, sweeps with a much more localised appeal. I agree with the suggestion of Senator Bagwell, that we ought to endeavour between now and the Report Stage to find some amendment whereby such frauds as have occurred before will be prevented, and to have it inserted in the Bill on the next Stage.
I understood Senator Farren to state that before the Report Stage he would let us know what is exactly in the minds of the promoters regarding the points raised in the amendment. In the circumstances I am prepared to withdraw my amendment until the Report Stage. I am not yet satisfied that the alternative put forward —it has not actually been put forward yet—is better than the scheme embodied in the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question—"That Section 10 stand part of the Bill"—put.
May I draw attention to the fact that while the purpose of the proposal is quite desirable there is no assurance that it will be given effect to—that is to say, to provide that the printing shall be done in the Saorstát? If it is not done in the Saorstát there is no penalty to be imposed.
Cathaoirleach
The Senator has no amendment to that effect so that we cannot provide anything.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 11, SUB-SECTION (1).
This Act may be cited as the Public Charitable Hospitals (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1930.
I move:—
To delete in lines 23-4 the words "Public Charitable Hospitals" and to substitute therefor the words "Legalisation of Sweepstakes."
I move this with the object of making the purpose of the Bill have some relation to the Title. It would seem to be an obviously desirable amendment to alter the Title, because a "Public Charitable Hospitals (Temporary Provisions) Bill" might deal with the financing of hospitals from State sources whereas the Bill is obviously a Sweepstakes Bill. The word "frankness" has been used and we ought to be more frank in describing the Bill.
The only objection I have to the amendment is that the sweepstakes will be definitely organised for the hospitals. I think we are all agreed that we will oppose the running of sweepstakes for any other purpose than for a hospital. That is the reason why hospitals are mentioned in the Title of the Bill.
Amendment put and negatived.
Section 11 agreed to.
Bill, as amended, ordered to be reported.
The Seanad went out of Committee.
Bill reported with amendments.
Report Stage fixed for Wednesday, 28th May.
Cathaoirleach
I would like to remind Senators that the debate on Senator Sir John Keane's motion in regard to the report and accounts of the Electricity Supply Board will be resumed on next Wednesday. It is also possible that we will have the Local Government (Dublin) Bill on that day.
The Seanad adjourned at 7.30 p.m. until Wednesday, 28th May, 1930.
