Vol. 16 No. 28
I move amendment 1:—
Section 1. To add at the end of the section the following:—"the word ‘nurse' means a person registered by the General Nursing Council of Saorstát Eireann or certified as a midwife by the Central Midwives Board of Sáorstat Eireann."
I think it is important that in the definition section the word "nurse" should be defined. Trained nurses, as we know them, are those who are certified by the two organisations that I have mentioned in the amendment.
I think amendments 1, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 11 might be taken together. They all deal with the same matter.
No.
The same principle governs them.
Perhaps some, but not all. This amendment is quite independent of the others, and its acceptance does not commit Senators to any of the amendments further down. If it be thought that the definition that I propose is redundant, even though it be accepted on this Stage, then it can be deleted on Report.
This amendment will be unnecessary unless some of the subsequent amendments be accepted by the House. I think that it would be much more satisfactory if we were to discuss together all these amendments relating to pension schemes for nurses which are to be financed out of the hospitals sweepstakes. I think that it would be very unsatisfactory to waste a lot of time discussing whether or not we should define a nurse if we were to decide subsequently that we would not make the money available for pension purposes.
I think that it would be more satisfactory to take the amendments as they are on the Order Paper. The amendments do not necessarily hang together. If the Parliamentary Secretary is insistent or if the House does not agree with me I shall not, of course, object to the course proposed.
It would be more satisfactory to defer the consideration of amendment I until we see whether the other amendments will be carried or not.
Agreed to defer consideration of amendment 1.
SECTION 2.
I should like to have some information on Section 2. This section follows very closely, up to a certain point, the wording of Section 9 of the Act of 1930, which was the first Act under which sweepstakes were established. The words in the two sections—the section in the Act now repealed and the section in this Bill— are identical down to the word "free" in line 3 of the Bill. Then, two words "of charge" are inserted in the Bill which were not in the principal Act. The same wording continues right to the end of the section and there then comes a change which puzzles me. The following words, which were in the first Act, are omitted from this Bill, "and no tickets shall be issued free except by way of reward to a seller of tickets." I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to explain why these words have been omitted. If there is no special reason for their omission, perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary would say whether he would have any objection to their being re-inserted on the Report Stage.
I do not think that there is anything in the point the Senator has put forward. The change in the wording of the section is purely a drafting change. There was no other intention in the minds of the Ministry in relation to it. If the Senator can satisfy me between now and the Report Stage that the original wording would be more acceptable, I cannot see any objection to going back to the original wording. The wording in the section, I was advised by the draftsman, is more suitable than the original wording.
It comes to this— that, in the opinion of the draftsman, the words omitted are redundant. I take it that, if I press the matter, the Parliamentary Secretary will have no objection to the words being reinserted.
I did not say that. I have no objection to considering very carefully any arguments the Senator may put forward as to why the words should be reinserted but I should have to check up those arguments with any opinion that the draftsman may have.
Meantime, will the Parliamentary Secretary consult with the draftsman and satisfy himself that these words are omitted for no reasons other than reasons of redundancy or clarity?
Yes.
Would the Parliamentary Secretary say whether the intention of the words now deleted is secured in any other section of the Bill or was it the intention that the purpose of these words should be eliminated altogether? I think that this provision was introduced as an amendment to the original Bill but I have not looked up the matter. It is, however, a positive enactment that no tickets shall be issued free except by way of reward to a seller of tickets. Unless there is a provision in some other part of the Bill, tickets may conceivably be issued free to anybody that the committee choose. That was guarded against in the original Act.
There is nothing to add at this stage. I think that the draftsman's opinion was that the words were redundant. If the draftsman can be satisfied that they are not redundant, there will be no objection to re-inserting them.
Is it understood that we shall have an opportunity of reconsidering the matter?
Yes.
I move amendment 3:
Section 7. To add at the end of the section a new sub-section as follows:—
(4) When a scheme submitted to the Minister for Justice under this Act has been sanctioned (whether with or without modification) by the said Minister, he shall forthwith lay a copy of the scheme upon the Table of each House of the Oireachtas.
This amendment relates to the logic of the scheme. It seems to me essential to the scheme of the Bill that some provision of this kind should be inserted. It is provided that the promoters of a sweepstake shall present a scheme to the Minister for Justice, that the scheme shall state the name or names of the hospital or hospitals of which the organisers are the governing body or governing bodies; the names of the members of the committee; particulars of the prizes intended to be distributed, including the money value of any prize which is not a sum of money; the number of drawings of prizes intended to be made; the date on which, the place at which and the manner in which such drawings are intended to be made; the price intended to be charged for tickets; 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 and some other matters. It is provided later that there shall be an audit and that the members of the Oireachtas shall receive a copy of the auditor's report. There is no provision for informing members of the Oireachtas, who are to receive this copy of the report, as to the scheme submitted to the Minister and approved of by him—the scheme under which the whole thing is run. It seems to me that the provision by which members of the Oireachtas are to receive a copy of the auditor's report is faulty, inasmuch as those members cannot test the value of the accounts in relation to anything submitted to them in the way of a scheme. There seems to be a distinct lack there. I seek to have it remedied, so that the scheme which has been submitted to the Minister and approved of, with or without modification, by him shall be laid upon the Table. Members of the Oireachtas and the public will then know what the scheme is under which the sweepstake has been permitted. That seems to be an obvious requirement and it seems to be necessary if the general plan of operations is to be complete.
I consider that a very important principle is involved in this amendment. The audit purports to show all the expenses incurred in the operation of the scheme. The expenses are divided into two categories: the expenses actually paid in wages—we might call them out-of-pocket expenses—and expenses paid to the promoters. In fact, as we all know, that information is largely illusory or, at any rate, incomplete, because it does not show the hidden expenses, and hidden expenses may be of any magnitude. Hidden expenses take the form of commissions paid for the sale of tickets. We know that there is a reward in the form of two free tickets for the sale of each book. If you purchase a book of tickets for £5, and if you retail all the tickets, you will receive £6. We know nothing more from the Act, but it is general knowledge that further commissions are given. The extent of those commissions is a matter of surmise. I consider that it is wrong that there should be even this element of hidden, undisclosed expenses, which may be of any magnitude. In a scheme which, if it is not sponsored is, at all events, approved by the State, it is wrong that, indirectly, free tickets over and above these two tickets should be given by way of reward. That is the effect. If you give a further 10/- per book to agents who buy books in large quantities, that is equivalent to another free ticket. There may be other commissions. I consider that it is only fair that those who buy tickets should be able to calculate their odds more or less closely, which they cannot do unless all the expenses are revealed. I think it is also due to the reputation of the State that nobody should be able to say that a very large volume of expenses can be concealed through this form of undisclosed commissions. I do not make any suggestion as to the magnitude of those commissions, but I do suggest that the figure of expenses has a bearing upon them. The increased ratio of expenses can be justified by the argument that these hidden commissions have been increasing. If we take the figures, we find that, for the Derby of 1931, the total receipts were £2,700,000, and that the ratio of expenses, including promoters' expenses, was 7 per cent. We move on to the Grand National of 1933 and we find that a little over £3,000,000 was received and that the expenses came to 10.9 per cent—very nearly an increase of four per cent. in expenses, representing roughly a figure of £120,000.
I think these figures leave one uneasy, and should be explained. Personally I should expect that increasing experience would enable the ratio of expenses to be reduced. I cannot see how merely the issue of receipts, and work of that kind, would involve so large a ratio of expenses. I can see, if less money is received for tickets, and if the volume of tickets to be dealt with is very much larger, that the ratio of expenses would go up. In the absence of any explanation I put that forward as a possible explanation. It is up to the Government to be frank. If the Government is not satisfied it is their duty to get from the promoters such information as will ensure that they know all the facts, and that there is nothing concealed. I do not know that there is anything more I can usefully say on this subject. I have been told that if the information I ask for is made public it will be the ruin of the sweeps. I say if the sweeps are only to be sustained by this element, by withholding this information, and by this possibly large element of undisclosed expenses, involving a considerable lengthening of the odds for those who participate, if it is only on these conditions they can proceed the sooner they are stopped the better. It has been argued that what has gone on for three years might be continued. Now is the time, if we are not satisfied with what has gone on for three years, to make a break. Let us start under new conditions and with full information on what is happening.
This amendment is quite commendable in theory, but, I am afraid, that in actual practice its adoption would be very inadvisable. Everyone knows the circumstances under which these sweepstakes have to be run. It is no secret that the overwhelming majority of the proceeds come from countries where sweepstakes are forbidden. That, in itself, is an explanation of the necessity for a certain amount of secrecy being observed in regard to certain aspects of their administration.
The Legislature laid it down that there shall be auditors appointed by the Government to see that the regulations are observed, and carefully to examine and to scrutinise every item of expenditure. That is about as far as one could go if it is the desire that the sweeps are to continue. Tickets have to be placed in foreign countries, frontiers have to be crossed, and all sorts of legislative provisions, supposed to be of an air-tight character, have to be penetrated. That cannot be done by any simple method which would be within the public knowledge of other countries. Is it actually suggested that the way in which the money has got to be expended could legitimately —perhaps in order to make these sweeps a success—be placed on the Table of each House and made public to the world? Sweepstakes could not be carried on if that had to be done. It may be undesirable to have anything in confidence or to have secrets in matters of this kind, but I believe it is a question of having that method, or of having no sweeps. Everyone has welcomed the phenomenal success that attended the sweepstakes, and the wonderful amount of good work they are capable of performing, but it is undesirable that some amendment should be inserted in the Bill which would militate in a very serious way against the future success of these sweeps. I am afraid that of necessity the proceeds will begin to show a decrease. They are showing that already, although the amount realised is still very considerable. The difficulty of making them a success is going to grow in any case, because Governments that desire to prohibit their operations within their States are becoming more astute in their methods. They have discovered some of the rather simple methods by which the tickets were successfully circulated previously and, to that extent, new methods have to be devised and new expenditure embarked upon. The nature of that expenditure is not a matter for discussion here. It is very easy to visualise ways in which expense has to be incurred if sweepstakes are to be continued. I suggest that it would be very undesirable on the part of this House, unless we are prepared to run the risk of sabotaging the Bill, and the prospects of the future sweepstakes, to accept the amendment. In theory I admit that the case for the amendment is irrefutable but, in actual practice—because of the peculiar circumstances under which the promoters have to work—it would be exceedingly inadvisable and ruinous from the point of view of the sweepstakes to accept it.
I draw the attention of Senator Sir John Keane to Section 7 (3) (d). The words he found missing from Section 2 will be found re-enacted there. I stated on the Second Reading of this Bill that it does not propose to make any substantial alteration in existing legislation relating to the actual holding of sweepstakes. Neither the Oireachtas nor the Minister for Justice are given any further responsibility under the Bill than they have under existing legislation. The Hospitals Committee will, as heretofore, draw up the scheme for each sweepstake, and make their own arrangements with the people whom they select to run it. It will be the scheme of the Hospitals Committee, not the scheme of the Minister, or of the Government. If the Hospitals Committee do not choose to draft a scheme, and get some one to run it, nobody else can do it. It must be agreed, then, that the entire responsibility for the drafting of the scheme, and the conditions governing it, must rest on the shoulders of the Committee promoting it, subject to Section 6, to which I shall refer later. That scheme will specify the maximum commission which will be given to sellers of tickets. The Minister will have that before he sanctions the scheme. Section 6 (f) says:—
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
must be set out in the scheme. With these details before the Minister for Justice, I think we can safely leave it in the hands of the Minister to approve or disapprove of the scheme as he thinks fit. It would be undesirable to accept this amendment and, as Senator O'Farrell stated, I think it would be likely to have very damaging effects. The whole question was discussed in considerable detail when previous sweepstakes legislation was before the House. The then Minister for Justice, Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney, had apparently to deal with Senator Sir John Keane and Senator Johnson on this particular issue. I will quote Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney, who was then Minister for Justice, in support of my opposition to this amendment. In the Official Debates of the Seanad, Volume 14, Column 1283, he said:—
"Senator Johnson says that the scheme should be laid upon the Table of the House. For what purpose? For the purpose of seeing whether that scheme is a legal scheme. That would be the sole result of placing this scheme upon the Table. The House would have no further function than seeing that the scheme was within the four corners of the Act. I object to this because, in spite of what Senator Sir John Keane has said, this is not a State lottery and it must not be taken as such. Because it is not a State lottery I say most specifically that neither I nor the Dáil, nor the Seanad, have any responsibility with reference to this—no direct responsibility."
That is a fairly strong case against it.
Does the Parliamentary Secretary agree with it?
I need scarcely tell the Senator that I do not agree with everything Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney says, but on this particular issue I find myself in agreement with the ex-Minister for Justice. He put a sound case and I think he put it in as forcible and as convincing language as anyone else could put it. Having quoted the ex-Minister for Justice in this matter, I feel that the overwhelming majority of the members of the House must be now convinced that acceptance of the amendment would be wrong. If they do not accept my plea, at least they ought to accept the plea of the ex-Minister for Justice. We have reduced the enthusiasm for this amendment to the very minimum. We have even a certain amount of support from the Labour Party. The results of the sweepstakes have exceeded the most optimistic expectations of those who were enthusiastic about sweepstakes as a means of raising money. In order to achieve that success certain machinery had to be set up. The details of that machinery cannot be exposed to the prying eyes of the public, not because there is anything wrong, but because there must be a certain amount of secrecy about the scheme of organisation. I think it is a most wonderful scheme of organisation, whether we agree with sweepstakes as a means of raising money or not. Is it not in the interests of the hospitals themselves, the committee of the associated hospitals, and the promoters of the sweepstakes, to secure that the sweepstake will be run with the minimum possible expense and that the maximum amount of money that can be provided will be available for the hospitals. The people who are running the sweepstakes and going to benefit as a result of them are satisfied with the existing machine and I think we should be slow to interfere. It is a very perfect machine; it has produced wonderful results and if we should do anything that would be likely to interfere with those good results, I think it would be a bad day's work.
I should like to say that I had some responsibility for the first Sweepstakes Bill which came before the House, because I was placed in the extraordinary position of acting as Minister in charge of the Bill here. It was a Private Member's Bill and, unfortunately, one of the leading lights in support of the Bill, a member of this House, was ill at the time, and I was placed in the unenviable position of piloting the Bill through the House. On that occasion, we had a series of amendments for the protection of the public and efforts were made by the people responsible for the promotion of the Bill to meet the views of everybody who was anxious for the protection of the public and I think it is true to say that, so far as the purchasing public are concerned, they are very well protected. Every individual who subscribes to this sweep gets a separate receipt and I think it has been admitted by the leading authorities all over the world who were invited here that, in the history of sweepstakes, there never was anything as fairly run as the Irish Hospitals' Sweeps. Great tributes have been paid by well-known people from every part of the world to the fair manner in which the sweeps have been run and I must say that I think we are entitled to be a little proud of the results of these sweeps. They have been wonderfully organised and, although some of us may not agree with the principle of sweepstakes, we must, nevertheless, admit that all the evidence goes to prove that these hospitals' sweepstakes have been run in a manner worthy of the best traditions of this country. We ought to be proud of the wonderful success of the sweeps. I agree with the Parliamentary Secretary that the people who promote these sweeps are not the actual promoters, as they are known and defined in the Bill, but the representative committee of well-known responsible people, people in the medical and other professions and people of great repute and standing in this country. These are the people who, as the Hospitals' Sweep Committee, submit the scheme to the Minister for Justice. It is their scheme and not the promoters' scheme. They are the people who run the sweep, but the scheme is the scheme of the Irish Hospitals' Trust Committee, the scheme of well-known gentlemen of great standing and great repute, and I think that is sufficient guarantee in itself that everything will be done in a satisfactory manner so far as these people are concerned.
The Minister has rightly said that it would be impossible to comply with the terms of this amendment. It would be impossible to lay on the Table of the House, for the inspection of the public and for the inspection of all the opponents of the sweep, all the details in connection with its promotion. That would be an impossible position and it would tend to prevent any future sweepstakes being made the success we all hope they will be. There is a difference of opinion, a legitimate difference of opinion, amongst some people as to the propriety of running sweepstakes to assist our hospitals, but that is not the question at issue in this amendment. This amendment attempts to make the promoters of the sweepstakes disclose all the details in connection with the manner in which the sweepstakes are run——
Not at all.
It says:
"When a scheme submitted to the Minister for Justice under this Act has been sanctioned (whether with or without modification) by the said Minister, he shall forthwith lay a copy of the scheme upon the Table of each House of the Oireachtas."
When the Irish Hospitals' Trust lay a scheme before the Minister, the Minister may ask very important questions, and it will be his duty to ask them and to analyse very carefully the proposals in each scheme. He may make alterations in the scheme and, when he sanctions it, it must be laid on the Table of the House to become public property for everybody who desires to scan it. I think that is placing them in an impossible position. We have bound the people responsible for running the sweeps very tightly by our legislation. The Minister has pointed out that there is a definite subsection in the Bill with regard to the issue of free tickets, and I think that, on the whole, we have tied them up as much as one could reasonably expect them to be tied up. Either we have to allow these people to run the sweeps as they have been run, or we have to say that we do not approve of the sweeps and make an end of them. We must have it one way or the other. Either we are going to approve of the continuance of these sweeps or we are going to put in a clause that will hamper them in carrying out future schemes.
I am afraid I shall have to speak a little more plainly. The debate, up to now, has followed the very natural line of evading or not dealing directly with the points which Senator Johnson and I made. A lot of time has been taken up in dealing with the success of the sweeps. Nobody denies that success. £10,000,000 or £15,000,000— I have not the figures by me—is a big sum. The integrity of the draw— no one has questioned that; the integrity of the auditors—no one has questioned that. On the question of the audit, however, let me say now straightly that the purview of the information laid before the auditors or the facts to which the auditors have access are totally inadequate and would never satisfy any business firm that the whole conduct of affairs comes under the scrutiny of the auditors. For instance, there is nothing to prevent the promoters saying to certain people: "Your commission for the sale of books will be so much," and saying to others: "Your commission for the sale of books will be so much more or less." Do we consider that a satisfactory state of affairs? If there are to be commissions, should they not be on a uniform scale and should it not be out of the power of the promoters to differentiate or to allow even the most light-hearted person to say: "You have scope for favouritism and we want to be sure that you do not exercise it?" Is not the only possible way to ensure that, if you are going to have these secret commissions, that the auditors will see them all and that there shall be some system under which these commissions are given.
On a point of order, can Senator Sir John Keane assure us— and he is talking from inside knowledge now—that these things are not submitted to the auditors? If he cannot do that, he has no right to make such an allegation.
I am afraid that, as that is not a point of order, I cannot decide it.
The Parliamentary Secretary has it in his power to answer me as to whether the auditors have cognisance of all these secret commissions—whether they are all the same, whether they are on a schedule and whether there is any means of differentiation. I am not saying that it is done. I am saying that it is possible to be done.
You made the allegation a moment ago.
It is provided in the Act itself.
No. It is within the power and outside the purview of the audit for those things to be done. Let Senator Foran be perfectly clear that that is all I have said. I have not said that anybody does it, but I said that we were being a party to a practice which puts those things within the power of the promoters. That is all I have said. It is our responsibility and, if Senator Foran feels that it is not his, I cannot help it.
The Senator is assuming that these things are done and he has no evidence that they are.
I have not said that they are done. The system allows this possible means of leakage. I will put it that way.
What I am not clear about is whether the scheme which is dealt with in the amendment includes all the arrangements the Senator speaks of?
I imagine so.
I would think not. I think that the question of auditors and all that is outside the scope of the amendment.
The scheme sets out commissions. It sets out a maximum amount of commission and I suggest that it is in order when we are asking for publication of that scheme.
Auditing is not in the section or in the amendment. We must keep as close as we can to the work because it is a very broad question.
I will deal with it in this way. According to the information before this House, it is quite possible—I do not for a moment say that it is done and let that be perfectly clear—for the promoters to differentiate between individuals, groups of individuals or countries in the amount of commission given. There is a responsibility on this House—I feel it, anyhow; Senator Foran may not—to ensure that this sort of thing is not possible and I suggest that one of the best means of ensuring that is to have publication of the scheme in whole or in part. I am quite prepared to agree, if the Minister would consider it on those lines, that portion should be published. It is very unpleasant to have to say these things, but some of us feel a conscience in this matter. The Minister, no doubt, will remember—I certainly do—one of the objections to these charitable lotteries was that there was no knowledge of the number of tickets sold. It was almost scandalous. Small prizes were offered and unlimited numbers of tickets sold. I suggest that it is only a question of degree and you might have enormous prizes and enormously increased numbers of tickets sold but the objection still remains. I do suggest that there is a certain obligation to show the backer his odds. In every other class of gambling the backer knows his odds——
Not at all.
What about the tote?
The backer knows his odds——
How does he know?
He knows what he gets paid on. The Senator has chosen a singularly favourable example, from my point of view, in the tote. On the tote, you know the total number of tickets, the amounts backed and the amount in the fund.
Not when you take your ticket, Senator.
You can see the whole thing put up in plain daylight.
At the end, yes.
He would never know it here. He would never know it until doomsday. It is all buried away in the dark. That is my point. Thank you, Senator, for helping me. Let it be clear again that I am not saying that the draw is not perfectly straight or that the auditing is not perfectly straight. I have every reason to believe that it is, but I say there are these possibilities and it is our duty to have regard to them.
My case in this matter is not by any means the same as Senator Sir John Keane's. The auditors are bound by the Act itself only to deal with the moneys that come into the funds of the Committee. Section 2 states that "when calculating for the purpose of this Act the amount of the moneys received from the sale of tickets in a sweepstake, the value of tickets free of charge, by way or reward, to a seller of tickets shall be excluded from the calculation," so that the auditors are definitely precluded by statute from dealing with that portion of the money which the public contribute and which goes by way of reward to the seller of tickets. That is not my case in moving this amendment. The Parliamentary Secretary quoted Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney, as he now is. I wish he had quoted Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney on another occasion on the same Bill, and Deputy Cosgrave who was then President, both of whom opposed this scheme in toto in its origin. When the House turned them down, they of course defended the scheme which was eventually submitted.
The Parliamentary Secretary quoted Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney and repeats what the then Minister said, that they approved of the scheme, but as to its legality they had no responsibility and it was definitely not a State lottery. But this Bill and the previous Bill make the scheme very much nearer a State lottery, though not actually in the category of a State lottery, than it was under the 1930 Bill. There are public institutions deriving benefits now that did not derive benefits under the original scheme. Under this Bill the Minister is taking power to decide how the funds shall be distributed, so that it is very nearly a State lottery now whatever it was when Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney was speaking on the matter.
I think there is some misunderstanding about the effect of this amendment. It is said that it is not right or reasonable to divulge the scheme, the organisation or the details of how the machinery for distribution is to be arranged. Of course it is not. I do not desire that that should be done. All that I desire is that the items specified in Section 6 in relation to a sweepstake shall be submitted to the Oireachtas. What are these items? The name or names of the hospital or hospitals—any objection to that? The names of the members of such committee—any objection to that? Other items are particulars of the prizes intended to be distributed, the number of drawings of prizes intended to be made, the price intended to be charged for tickets—and then I skip one—the names of not less than three trustees, the name of the public bank in which the deposit or deposits required by this Act will be made; if the deposit or deposits required by this Act is or are intended to be made wholly or partly by the deposit of securities, a general description of such securities; the date on which the sale of tickets in such sweepstake is to commence, and the name of the qualified auditor who shall audit the accounts. That is the total proposal of this scheme except one item. Is there any one of these items that ought not to be published and submitted to the Oireachtas?
One item I have omitted—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. Presumably that is what the Minister objects to. There is no suggestion there that the method of distribution is to be divulged. There is no suggestion as to how many intermediaries are to be allowed—simply the amount or the maximum amount proposed to be allowed or expended by way of commission, and the proportion of free tickets proposed to be allotted by way of reward. Surely that is a simple matter. It is a simple matter to ask that that item with the rest should be submitted. The Act professes to make everything open and above board, so much so that a scheme has to be submitted to the Minister, the Minister has to approve, Committees have to act in certain ways, deposits have to be made in certain banks and then, after all that is done, the auditors are to be appointed and the members of the Oireachtas are to receive copies of the auditors' report— all the pretences of showing that everything is perfectly open and above board, that the Minister approves and that everything is satisfactory. I do not suggest for a moment that everything is not perfectly above board but I say that when that information is excluded from us any person would be justified in saying that it is not perfectly above board.
That is my whole point.
This is the scheme that the statute requires shall be put before the Minister. These are the only items that are required to be put before the Minister by the statute. The promotor may put a lot of other information before the Minister, but that information is not required by statute and we do not ask that that other information shall be made public to the members of the Oireachtas. If these requirements are made by statute, I suggest that the scheme is not complete unless what the Minister approves of is made known to members of the Oireachtas and the public. The success of the scheme hitherto has depended, I believe, in a very large measure on the fact that it had the backing of the Minister and the appearance of a State controlled and State checked lottery or sweepstake. My objection lies, as it did in the beginning, to the pretence or rather to the keeping back the essential thing that the public do not appreciate. I do not want all the details of the organisation, all the details of who gets this and who gets that, or how the tickets are distributed over the various parts of the world. That is quite aside from this proposal.
The statute requires that a certain limited number of items of information shall be put before the Minister. If he approves of these then the scheme may go on. Once he has approved it seems to me that it is only reasonable that he should make known to the public what the scheme is he has approved. That is not done now. In fact it really seems to me that the argument of some Senators here would lead to the conclusion that this whole thing should be run out of the Secret Service Fund and not in accordance with public statute. I do not want to labour the question of the number of tickets. I thought that might be discussed on the next amendment, but if those who are opposing it, lest the consequences would be the divulging to the people of the number of tickets put into the drum and that people may compare the total number of tickets put into the drum, the nominal value of these tickets, and the amount that actually goes to the hospitals, that is a thing which is not intended by their amendment. This proposal is to ensure that what the Minister approves of can be stood over, and that the members of the Oireachtas and the public can be informed. As the Minister is a responsible Minister, it is an act of Ministerial responsibility and it seems to be the simplest possible proposition that in a public matter of this kind he should lay on the Table the scheme he approves of.
A good man with good intentions may do a lot of harm. I remember when the original Bill was before the House, Senator Johnson used all his ability and eloquence to destroy and decry the attempt to set up these hospital sweepstakes. He made a very eloquent and very able effort, and I am sure that he is not at all happy in his own mind seeing the results which that Sweepstakes Bill has had. A Puritan is all right in his own place.
This is his place.
He has hardly any real existence in ordinary, everyday life. If Senator Johnson thinks that this is a place for Puritans I leave it with him. Senator Sir John Keane attacks this Hospitals Sweepstakes Bill with another object in view. He went as near libelling a very eminent firm of chartered accountants in this city as he possibly could when he made the allegation that they may be signing a balance sheet——
I ask the protection of the Chair. I never made a suggestion that would remotely justify the statement that they were signing a false balance sheet. What I said was that the question of commissions does not come within the purview of the auditor.
I submit, sir, that the Senator gets a copy of the balance sheet signed by these people and if they are not supervising the audits of the accounts properly, then they are not complying with the Bill. If they are failing to take notice of commissions paid and any payments made in connection with the sweepstakes, they are not doing their duty. To suggest that they may be doing this, that these things may be going on, and that these auditors are not taking cognisance of them, is to suggest that they are not competent and are not doing their job properly. It was not until I questioned the statement that the Senator got up to clear the air. What object is to be achieved by this amendment? Every member of the House gets a certified copy of the audited accounts of the funds. If Senator Johnson knew a little more about gambling he would know that every £5 subscribed represents 12 tickets in the drum. Every man in the street knows that. It is a simple calculation that any person can make to satisfy himself. Each book represents £5. There are 12 tickets in each book.
Does every book of 12 represent £5?
Yes, of course. If Senator Johnson took a little more interest in it he would know that.
There is nothing more to be said in that case.
Everybody knows that. As regards the comparison that was made between the sweep and the tote, I often had the misfortune to have my stake returned on the tote. Surely if I knew the odds I was not going to have the wager and have my money returned on the tote. As to knowing what the total amount is in the tote, it is a matter of calculation. I think I have said enough already to convince the House that it is desirable to negative the amendment.
I move that the Question be now put.
That is not fair.
This amendment, I think, might be put. I will now put amendment No. 3.
The Senator's proposal is tantamount to moving the closure, and I want to say something more on this amendment.
It is more or less a closure motion, but it is for me to accept or reject it.
I want a division on the motion: That the Question be now put.
I think it is better not to put that motion, and therefore I adjourn the House until Wednesday next at 3 o'clock. The House arranged earlier to adjourn at a quarter to eight o'clock to-night and it is now past that hour. The House now stands adjourned until 3 o'clock on Wednesday when the Committee Stage of this Bill will be resumed.
The Seanad adjourned at 7.47 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Wednesday, the 5th July.
