Senator Sir John Keane was speaking on this amendment when we adjourned last day.
Private Business. - Public Hospitals Bill, 1933—Committee Stage (Resumed).
Debate resumed on the following amendment:—
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.— (Senator Johnson.)
Cathaoirleach
I should like to hear what the Parliamentary Secretary has to say. He has not spoken on this amendment yet.
Cathaoirleach
If the Senator has not spoken three times he can, of course, speak again on the amendment.
There is not much to add to what I said in relation to these amendments. Amendments 2, 3 and 4 differ only as to the method of attaining the same purpose —that the total amount to be paid by way of commission to-sellers should be disclosed. I understood from Senator Sir John Keane that he was withdrawing amendment No. 2. Amendment No. 4 is merely another way of achieving the purpose of amendment 3. I should like to feel that we were approaching finality in this matter. If Senator Sir John Keane intends to move amendment 2 on Report Stage we shall have to cover all this ground again.
I have withdrawn amendment 3.
Amendment 2.
My object is to get this information and I am entitled to use my own methods. I may tell the Parliamentary Secretary that I intend to raise the matter from a different angle on the next amendment, which is rather more restrictive in character than the amendment now before the House. I cannot give any undertaking as to my action on Report Stage but I rather feel that this Stage will finish the matter.
Cathaoirleach
We are dealing with amendment 3. If we confine ourselves to that amendment, we will get somewhere.
The point I was trying to make was that Senator Sir John Keane had availed of amendment 3 to advance all the arguments that could be advanced in support of amendment 2.
Cathaoirleach
So far as I remember, I tried to point out that the Senator was out of order.
He did not pay much attention to you.
Cathaoirleach
I should like to point out now that we are dealing with amendment 3.
It has been suggested by Senator Sir John Keane and Senator Johnson that this sweepstake has become, for all practical purposes, a State lottery and, consequently, that the Government and the Minister have responsibilities in relation to it which they had not under the earlier sweepstake legislation. In that connection, I should like to draw the attention of the House to Section 10 (3) where it is laid down that it is an offence to issue any statement or document even remotely suggesting that this is a State lottery.
Senators are well aware, though they are not quite prepared to admit it, that there has been specific exemption from the operation of the Lotteries Acts to enable the Committee of the Associated Hospitals to avail of this particular method of raising money to take the voluntary hospitals out of their financial difficulties. No other person or group of persons than the Committee of the Associated Hospitals can promote a sweepstake. The money must be devoted to the purposes set out, for the benefit of the hospitals, and for no other purpose, and the only function of the Minister for Local Government and Public Health in relation to the money is to see that it is devoted to the purpose for which it is intended. The promoting committee entered into an agreement with the Hospitals Trust to carry out the sweepstakes, and in order to do so certain expenses had to be incurred. I stated when this matter was last under discussion in the Seanad that it is in the direct interest of the Committee of the Associated Hospitals to secure that a sweepstake will be run with the minimum expense. The less money expended on commissions and on salaries the more money will be available for the voluntary hospitals. As everybody knows, the Committee of the Associated Hospitals consists of men of high standing. Surely they will not be a consenting party to anything in the nature of abuse of the opportunities of giving a little extra commission to certain people, if that is the suggestion. It is in their own immediate interest to ensure that the expenses will be cut down to the minimum. The Bill provides in Section 6 that the maximum amount of commission must be incorporated in the scheme submitted to the Minister for his approval. If the Minister is satisfied that the maximum amount of commission is a reasonable amount he will sanction the scheme. If he is not satisfied, or if he thinks the amount of commission unreasonable, he will refuse to sanction the scheme. Consequently, the scheme will be modified, or, if the Committee of the Associated Hospitals fail to secure such modification as would satisfy the Minister, the scheme would not go on and there would be no sweepstake.
Does the scheme necessarily show the commission?
In Section 6.
The entire commission?
The maximum amount proposed to be allowed:—
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 all in the scheme.
Cathaoirleach
Senator Johnson simply asks that a copy of the scheme be placed on the Table of both Houses.
And in the course of the amendment we have wandered over the entire field of the commission.
Cathaoirleach
We should not have done so.
I presumed that I would be allowed to reply to some of the points raised by Senators.
Cathaoirleach
I will not allow that. The Parliamentary Secretary will have to stick to the particular scheme before the House in Section 6.
I presume I have been in order in anything I said so far.
Cathaoirleach
I cannot remember what the Parliamentary Secretary said previously. The issue is a perfectly simple one. Senator Johnson asks that the scheme laid down in Section 6, as amended, or otherwise, be laid on the Tables of both Houses. That is the simple request in the amendment.
If it is not in order to reply to arguments advanced in support of this amendment I have nothing further to say.
I desire to support the amendment. I cannot understand the other arguments, when this scheme has to be submitted to the Minister and approved by him. Senator Johnson's request is a reasonable one, that the scheme should be laid on the Table of both Houses.
In other words that it should be broadcast to the world.
At least the Government have cognisance of this, and surely one is entitled to advance arguments in this House as to the desirability of the two Houses, as the sovereign body, having cognisance of the scheme. The Parliamentary Secretary, I hope by inadvertence, definitely failed to meet the very plain questions put to him, to give some explanation of the increased expenditure. On a larger turnover the expenses have gone up by three per cent.——
Cathaoirleach
We are discussing a particular scheme now. Does the House appreciate the difficulties that are there?
With respect——
Cathaoirleach
Sit down, please, Senator. You must not remain standing while I am addressing the House. The scheme is prepared under specified conditions, and Senator Johnson asks that it be laid on the Table of both Houses. That is in the amendment in black and white. It is for the House to decide if the expenses should be more or less, or if the facilities should be more or less, and to decide the scope of the amendment. I rule accordingly.
I oppose the amendment for the simple reason that I think Senator Dowdall hit the nail on the head when he interjected, that by laying the scheme on the Table of both Houses the details would be broadcast to the world. As a result the success of the sweepstake would probably be jeopardised.
Nothing that has been said seems to me to touch the conclusive arguments that have been made in favour of the amendment. The Minister denies that there is any approach to a State lottery. If Senators refer to Section 24 they will see that it gives the Minister power to take the moneys obtained by the fund and to apply them to any hospital, even a public hospital run by a board of health. That is very near. Even that point does not affect the case for the amendment.
The case for it is a simple one. There is a departure from the Lotteries Acts. As the Parliamentary Secretary pointed out, a committee proposes to run a sweepstake and the law requires that the committee shall submit its proposals to the Minister. The Act indicates that these proposals shall conform to a certain set of conditions which are laid down in the clauses laid down in paragraphs (a) to (k) of the section. The Minister approves of that scheme whether as originally proposed or amended. Once he approves nothing more is heard of it. But the same Act directs that auditors shall be appointed and that their report regarding the finances of every lottery shall be made to members of the Oireachtas. It seems to me to have been the obvious requirement that a scheme, which is approved by the Minister, upon which the auditors are going to make a report must be made known to the members of the Oireachtas to whom the auditors' report has to be sent. If that is not done then there is a gap in the scheme which ought to be filled. We are told that this will mean divulging information which ought not to be divulged. We were told that it would broadcast all over the world what is done with this and with that, as well as the machinery for distribution. I deny that absolutely. All that is required is that the maximum amount proposed to be allowed for commission shall be included in the scheme; not the details of the distribution, not the machinery of the Hospitals' Trust or of the agents, but simply the maximum amount of the commission. If that is not done what is the use of putting it forward in the conditions, that the price intended to be charged in each sweepstake shall be stated in the scheme? What is the use of giving us a report after the sweep is over, indicating that so much money has been received and that a certain percentage has been paid? All that is useless unless the scheme itself, which is the basis of the whole transaction, is presented. It is like asking auditors to make a report upon something about which they have not got the foundation upon which to work before them. Without that in the scheme the auditors' report is almost useless.
As so many people are out of order, might I intimate that the number on the board showing the Order of Business is out of order?
Cathaoirleach
I am sorry. I think the best thing to do is to put the amendment to the House.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Sections 7 to 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill.