I beg to move Section 1. I am sure the Deputies will be quite glad to come, at last, to the serious business on the orders of to-day. My colleague, Deputy White, has asked me to stand the brunt of the conflict that is to ensure. I do not think there is any necessity to labour any point on it. When this present stage is in discussion any point that may be pertinent to the matter will be raised in the amendments, of which notice has been given.
FINANCE BILL. - PUBLIC CHARITABLE HOSPITALS (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) BILL, 1923.—COMMITTEE.
SECTION 1.
It shall be lawful to hold, carry on, and conduct sweepstakes and drawings of prizes in Saorstát Eireann to raise funds for the support of public hospitals and convalescent homes in Saorstát Eireann which afford medical or surgical treatment without charge or reward and which hospitals or convalescent homes are mainly supported by the voluntary subscriptions of the charitable public.
I beg to move: to delete all after the words "Saorstát Eireann" in line 19, and insert:—
"If it is proved to the satisfaction of the Minister for Local Government that the said hospitals or convalescent homes make no charge for the medical or surgical treatment or other assistance rendered by them to the majority of their patients, and that there is no reasonable prospect of sufficient funds being obtained by subscriptions from the charitable public or voluntary organisations, or by payment from the State or local authorities to enable the provision of such gratuitous treatment and assistance to be continued, and if a licence for the purpose is granted in accordance with this Act."
The position as defined by Clause 1 of the Bill would leave it open, so that practically all hospitals would be entitled to benefit by this Bill should it become an Act, and the object of the amendment is to lay down conditions which those hospitals ought to comply with, and give discretion to the proper Ministry to intervene in such cases, and give a certificate to each hospital entitled to the same. There are numerous loop-holes in this Act, and it is desirable that we should be as strict as possible to see that only proper hospitals benefit by it, and to see that no opportunity is left whereby undesirable individuals or institutions which are not entitled to such assistance should benefit by it.
I quite see the soundness of the point of view urged by the Deputy, and undoubtedly, it is essential that the object he has in mind should be secured, that is that a certain definition, which is sufficiently comprehensive to exclude unsuitable institutions or ones that should not come under the benefits of such an Act, is essential. It is essential that such a definition should be made, and if the Deputy will look at the next amendment he will discover that that object is also indicated in that amendment, and I think with more clarity than there is in the amendment of Deputy O'Brien. I do not know whether he has studied the subsequent amendment, but if he has, he will find everything in his amendment is covered by it, and that it would save time if he did not press his amendment, but accepted what follows.
I would like to point out to the Deputy that there is more than one difference in it. One difference in it is that the Minister for Local Government must be satisfied that the hospital concerned is entitled to participate. That is, I think, absolutely essential.
There are other amendments to secure that. If we go on I find every possible loop-hole has been practically stopped: the doors have not only been slammed but bolted, barred, and doubly pad-locked, and, I think, that any misapprehension that this definition is not adequate will be easily allayed by a perusal of the subsequent amendments, most of which I have not the slightest intention of resisting.
Can we take it that it is the intention of the supporters of the Bill to accept all the amendments?
Not quite all.
Deputy O'Brien said that the principal point omitted in the amendment that stands in my name is the provision that the draw should have the sanction of the Minister for Local Government. There are a few amendments which provide for that, which we are willing to accept. It provides specifically for the approval of the Minister for Home Affairs. In fact one of the amendments is put in by the Minister for Home Affairs himself. As the other points are covered, perhaps the Deputy might see his way to withdraw.
I think the Deputies supporting the Bill, as it stands, do not realise the importance of the amendment. The object is to secure that the Minister for Local Government shall be satisfied that the hospitals to be benefited by monies derivable from those sweepstakes shall be such as make no charge for treatment to the majority of their patients, and that there is no reasonable prospect of sufficient funds being obtained by other means to enable provision of such gratuitous treatment to be continued. No. 2 Amendment by no means covers that desire. No. 2 Amendment really is not an amendment, because it speaks of all whose present income is not sufficient for their support. Presumably that is intended to apply to all hospitals so that there is no amendment in No. 2, and while I do not want to discuss No. 2 now, having pointed out that defect in No. 2, I would suggest that the sponsor for the Bill would be well advised to accept the amendment of Deputy O'Brien. I am sure the intention of those who are desirous that this Bill should pass is that it is for the hospitals that are catering for the poor, and for those hospitals which do not make a charge to the majority of their patients.
I think that has been brought out in several of the discussions. That is the contention that is put forward when advocating the need for this Bill, and, consequently, I think, that supporters of the Bill should accept the amendment.
It is not from the point of view of controverting anything that has been said by Deputies Johnson and O'Brien that I suggested that this amendment might not be pressed. I would have no objection to having it embodied in some way, but I do think that the definition in the next amendment is essential to the Bill. Whether or not this amendment would fit in in the exact place suggested requires some consideration. I would be quite prepared to consider the embodying of it somewhere in the Bill on the next stage in order to secure that there should be no grounds for apprehension or abuse. But I think that the next amendment is necessary, and covers a point which is not embodied in the amendment of Deputy O'Brien. I am willing to accept it in the sense of embodying it in the Bill on the next stage if that will meet the view of the Deputy.
I think there is a necessity for some amendment of the nature proposed by Deputy O'Brien. The first Clause as it stands here reads, "the support of public hospitals and convalescent homes in Saorstát Eireann which afford medical or surgical treatment without charge or reward." There must be some definition as to what "charge or reward" means. Does it mean that the hospital authorities are not taking any fees from the patients or from the majority of the patients in the hospitals? Does it mean that the medical and surgical staff attached to the hospitals are doing their work without any fee or reward? It is quite true that in the general run of hospitals the senior members of the staff —if I might so call them—receive no remuneration whatsoever. But there is a junior staff of assistants, and the House Surgeon and others of that nature must necessarily receive some remuneration for the work they do. In addition to the fact that certain patients pay a certain amount of money there are also those who receive absolutely free treatment. But there are dispensary or out-patient departments in connection with the hospitals, and in the case of those departments a certain amount is charged, say, for medicine. The doctor who is attending and giving advice does not necessarily receive any remuneration, but the patients pay a certain small sum, it may be 6d. or 1s. each, for the medicines they receive. Then there are other departments that are more or less under Government and County Council control. I need not go into the details of what these are, but these departments require the attendance of medical men in the evening, and are generally run by young men who receive a certain proportion of the money paid by the Government and the County Councils for attending upon these patients.
I say that this is an extremely loose statement in the first Clause here. What is the meaning of "afford medical or surgical treatment without charge or reward?" We want to know is it that the authorities in the hospitals are not charging anything to the patients, or is it that the staff are receiving no money for the treatment of them, or what is it? Deputy O'Brien's amendment covers, to some extent the objection that I have to the Clause. The amendment reads "if it is proved to the satisfaction of the Minister for Local Government that the said hospitals or convalescent homes make no charge for the medical or surgical treatment or other assistance rendered by them to the majority of their patients." Does that mean the majority of the patients who are treated indoor, or the majority who are treated outdoor? As I pointed out, these outdoor patients pay, in the majority of hospitals, a certain small sum for their medicine, or for their dressings, if they require to be surgically dressed, and then for these particular special dispensaries the Government or the County Councils are paying a certain amount. Deputy Milroy has stated that the next amendment is important. But the next amendment does not cover the point I have raised—namely, defining what is meant by "afford medical or surgical treatment without charge or reward." We want to know who is not charging, and who is not receiving any reward? There is a great necessity for something in the nature of Deputy O'Brien's amendment.
It is very difficult to discuss the second amendment and be in order, but I think if the second amendment were agreed to that Deputy O'Brien's amendment might be added to it. There is no conflict between the two.
Perhaps I should make myself a little more clear. I voted for the introduction of this Bill because, in the ordinary course of events, the introduction of a Bill is not voted against. Subsequently, I both spoke and voted against the Bill as it stood. The chief reason that I voted against it was because of the statement made by the Minister for Home Affairs, that from the experience he had with those who made application to run sweepstakes he could not say that they could be run without fraud. One of the great objections I had to this measure was that it was possible for a private individual to say that he was going to support a charity, that he was going to give say, £5,000 towards a charity, but that by running a sweepstake a man might be able to pocket, perhaps, £30,000 or £40,000, and I object to it entirely if there is anything of that nature going to be done. I see amendments put down by the Minister for Home Affairs, and if he is prepared to assure me that by the carrying of those amendments he is satisfied no fraud can be involved in the running of sweepstakes I am satisfied to support the measure.
I may say that I am not only Visiting Physician to one hospital, but Consulting Physician to at least three or four other hospitals, and I know the parlous condition in which the hospitals stand for want of money, and it would be an extraordinary thing for me in my position if I refused to give my support to anything that would bring money fairly to the hospitals. We heard a good deal yesterday in connection with an almost similar thing from Deputy Magennis. He talked freely about Puritanism, and he stood on a very high platform of experience and of literary knowledge.
I do not stand on any platform of superior virtue, nor do I see the slightest difference between buying a 3d. ticket in a raffle, and subscribing 10s. towards a ticket for a sweepstake. I see no difference whatsoever. At the same time, I could not go so far as a Deputy on the last occasion who drew a most harassing picture of a young man, who, in buying a ticket for 10s. started on a career of crime which ended by his putting his hand into the till of his employer. I could not go to that length. I drew the line at what the Minister for Home Affairs said that this Act could not be carried on under his supervision, or under the supervision of anyone connected with his office, and that he himself is perfectly sure it could not be done without fraud. As I said, if he is willing to assure the Dáil that if the amendments are carried it could be carried on without fraud, I am prepared to support it.
I am still unrepentant of the attitude I took up in relation to this Bill on the last occasion. I am not a Puritan in any shape or sense of the word——
This is the Committee Stage and not the First or Second Reading of the Bill. I think it is waste of time to again go over all the general principles.
The Deputy must confine himself to the amendment.
I merely followed Deputy Sir James Craig's remarks with regard to the measure. However, I will confine myself to the amendment before the Dáil. I am sorry I must oppose it, because I believe the amendment is calculated to lead one to assume that the object is to make the Bill acceptable or possible in some shape or, form. That I decline to lend myself to, as I believe it is derogatory to the National dignity. I therefore, take my stand on that principle, and I will not support any amendment that will draw any sort of cloak around what I do not believe is in keeping with the dignified position of this Assembly.
On a point of order I would like your ruling. Do you rule that it is out of order to discuss the opening words of Section 1, "It shall be lawful to hold?" Deputy McGoldrick, as I understand the matter is prepared to argue against the proposition, "it shall be lawful."
The Deputy must confine himself to the amendment before the Dáil.
I take it a discussion of the Clause, as it stands, is quite in order after amendments have been discussed.
Deputy Milroy has spoken of the possibility of accepting Deputy O'Brien's amendment, provided Amendment No. 2 can be still embodied in the first Section. I think that is not impossible, but Amendment No. 1 should be first accepted by the Dáil. Then we could discuss amendment No. 2, and find out where it will fit in. I think the object of the mover of the amendment and of Deputy Milroy could be achieved.
I agree to that.
Do I take it that amendment No. 1 is agreed to?
No.
Amendment put and declared carried.
I move: To delete all the words after "reward," line 20, and to substitute the following:—"Or which hospitals or convalescent homes have been, and are, in great part dependant on voluntary subscriptions for their maintenance, or whose present income is not sufficient for their support."
These words have already been deleted by the other amendment.
I would like to say that after I had agreed to the suggestion of Deputy Johnson I saw the pit-fall I had led myself into, and that this amendment would not fit in anywhere, as it stands at the moment. I think it would hardly show any high degree of common sense to proceed with it.
I think it quite possible to fit it in, although I do not think it is necessary.
We will consider it on the next Stage.
What does Deputy Milroy wish to gain by this amendment, that is not contained in the amendment that has been accepted? The amendment that has been accepted states: "And that there is no reasonable prospect of sufficient funds being obtained by subscriptions from the charitable public or voluntary organisations by payment from the State or local authorities to enable the provision of such gratuitous treatment and assistance to be continued." The other amendment is that these hospitals are dependent on voluntary subscriptions for their maintenance. I think the amendment is practically included in the previous one.
It amounts to this generally that most people prefer their own phraseology to that of other individuals, and it may be that I thought this amendment would so appeal to Deputy O'Brien.
You cannot discuss Amendment No. 2.
I am not discussing it. It seems inadvisable to do so. We could consider this at the next stage.
Amendment by leave withdrawn.
I move: In line 22, to add at the end:—"Provided always that such sweepstakes or drawings of prizes are so conducted that the money obtained by the sale of tickets for any such sweepstake or drawing of prizes shall be distributed amongst these hospitals or convalescent homes, subject to a deduction of no more than 10 per cent. of the money offered in prizes for the necessary expenses incurred in the management of such sweepstake or drawing of prizes."
The point I am trying to secure is one that I think the promoters of the Bill have at heart—namely, that the proceeds of the sweepstake, or whatever you like to call it, shall go to the benefit of the institutions concerned, and not to the benefit of anyone else. That is all that the amendment really tries to secure.
It prevents anything but the deduction of a certain proportionate part of the money proceeds from the total receipts, and prevents anything more than that deduction being made before handing over the proceeds to the particular institution concerned. I think that is largely what the promoters of the Bill wish to secure, and, if secured, it would remove one of the many objections made to this Bill, and on account of which I, for one, voted against the Bill. I sympathise with Deputy McGoldrick. I still disapprove of the Bill, but it has passed the Second Reading, and I think it is for us to see that the objectionable features of it are removed. Therefore, I suggest this amendment, and I hope it will commend itself to the Dáil, and to the promoters of the Bill. Until I see what attitude they propose to take up on this matter, I will not say anything further.
Mr. O'HIGGINS
I support this amendment of Deputy Thrift. With characteristic ferocity he hits the nail on the head. If the object aimed at in that amendment could be secured, if I thought it had any chance of being secured, it would go a long way to meet my objection to these sweepstakes. There are, of course, many possible objections, and I am conscious in my own mind of having many objections to the scheme. But not the least of them is this—that it puts it out of the power of the individual simply by reason of having a monopoly of addresses or agencies scattered here and there through the world to make a very large sum indeed entirely out of proportion to anything that he puts into the scheme, whether it be actual personal work or organising ability, or anything else. He takes far more than he gives, and by one of those undertakings he probably handles more, and makes more money than a hardworking professional man or business man, or men in any other walk of life, who work strenuously and honestly day in and day out, week in and week out. It is known that no chance-comer, that no Deputy here or anybody else, could take it into his head to run a sweepstake. There is a carefully guarded monopoly necessary in the organisation for the running of a sweepstake that would bring in any considerable sum of money. People are living upon that monopoly.
Not the least objection to a proposal of this kind is that it tends to perpetuate it and cater for it. It is not a thing to encourage in a new State, this idea of the fruits of labour without labour; it is not a thing to encourage either amongst the rank and file of the people, or in the minds of the types that gravitate round an enterprise of this kind.
I have acquired a rather intimate knowledge of the types, because in the process of this Bill they gravitated towards my office and towards my department. Yet, you cannot well have discrimination. It would not be true, and it would not be fair, to say that all men associated with the Turf or with sport are shady, but it is a notoriously admitted fact that it has a peculiar attraction for shady characters. I hope I have hurt no one's feelings.
You are on thin ice now.
Mr. O'HIGGINS
Yet you cannot have one law for one person, and another law for another. If you legalise this kind of thing, no Minister can afford, for physical and other considerations, personally to insult an applicant by saying: "So and so who was here yesterday is a decent man, but you are a bit of a crook." If you legalise this kind of thing you cannot set up a barrier against certain individuals. If it is a law, it becomes a law alike for all people. I am convinced that if Deputy Thrift's amendment is carried, then in fact there is very little use in going on with the Bill, because these people have a monopoly, a monopoly by which they make huge sums of money, and the 10 per cent. mentioned here, only 10 per cent. of the money offered in prizes, will not satisfy their ambitions in that line. I support the amendment because I am entirely opposed to the Bill, and I will support any amendment which, I think, is likely to make the Bill inoperative.
The cat is out of the bag again. The Minister for Home Affairs, who has already put down a very sensible amendment on this point, and one which he is prepared to accept, has made an announcement to the effect that he is prepared to accept any amendment that will kill the Bill.
Mr. O'HIGGINS
Hear, hear.
I think that that ejaculation of the Minister should convince every Deputy here that his vote is not going to be given on the merits of this amendment, but through a desire to strangle the Bill. The Minister spoke as if those who were promoting this Bill were promoting it in order to enable certain people to scoop in large amounts of money. I do not know how many people share that impression, and I do not know what those who have supported the Bill have done to give any ground for that impression; but, if that impression exists in the minds of people, I think the sooner they get rid of it the better, and satisfy themselves whether or not we are doing something that would help certain institutions to live, institutions which are in danger of serious limitations to their value on account of the present financial distress with which they are affected. This amendment obviously is one which from the view-point that the Minister has taken up, he is exceedingly glad to welcome. I do not believe that the intention of the mover of the amendment was inspired by the same motive as the intention of the Minister to vote for it. I do not know whether Deputy Thrift has that long and intimate acquaintance with the running of sweepstakes to enable him to know what is the exact amount spent in that way. I am informed that the Mater Hospital Sweep resulted in a contribution of £10,000 to that institution. Ten per cent. of that sum would be £1,000. I venture to say it would defy the ingenious brain of even the Minister for Finance, aided by Professor Thrift's knowledge of how to run sweepstakes, to get in a sum of £10,000 at the cost of £1,000 in expenses. That sum would not even pay for the printing expenses. Again, we are confronted with the fact that another subsequent amendment hinges on this. The language, if you will allow me to allude to it, clears up the matter, and indicates what might be done to meet this objection, or to meet any apprehension that there would be danger of fraud. The subsequent amendment to which I want to call attention, is the amendment of the Minister himself which states that the licence shall not be issued for a sweepstake until and unless he is satisfied——
Mr. O'HIGGINS
Is it in order to discuss my amendment now?
No, it is not in order.
The decision of the Minister is a declaration that he is going to vote for this amendment of Deputy Thrift's, and at the same time an indication that he is rejecting his own amendment. I say his amendment, I do not want to discuss it, meets the situation fully.
Mr. O'HIGGINS
On a point of explanation, may I say that I put down my amendment in the event of Deputy Thrift's amendment not being carried
In that event, and in order to equalise matters—I know the Minister's amendment does meet Deputy Thrift's point of view—I hope Deputy Thrift will vote against his own amendment, and vote in favour of the Minister's amendment. I certainly could not accept this amendment, and I say there is another way of providing against the danger alluded to in it. This is simply an amendment which will have the effect of making it impossible to carry out of making it impossible to carry out this Bill, and there will be very little use in proceeding to get assistance for these institutions through the medium of this Bill, if this particular rigid limitation without regard to circumstances is embodied in the Bill.
Mr. O'HIGGINS
As a matter of information, would the Deputy fathering the Bill be prepared to accept any other figure there instead of ten? Would he mention what figure he would be prepared to accept?
That is exactly the question.
I have not the experience of sweepstakes that some Deputies have, who indicate what they think are the expenses. I do not know what the figure is, but I suggest such words as "the expenses shall not be excessive," and that the decision on that point be left to the Minister who issues the licence, and who has auditors to investigate how the expenses are being incurred. I say that is quite adequate, because it is certainly impossible for me to indicate any figure. It might be 5, 10, 15, 20 or 25. I am not in a position to mention the figure.
Mr. O'HIGGINS
It seems to me that when a Deputy takes the responsibility of fostering a Bill of this kind, that he should also take the responsibility of giving fairly reliable information to the Dáil with regard to it. He comes to the Dáil with a request that they pass a Bill legalising sweepstakes, and is not in a position, even remotely, to inform us what would be a fair percentage to allow for the expenses of a particular sweep.
When Deputy Milroy mentioned about letting cats out of the bag, or, I think, a particular cat, I thought it would be wise, at this stage, to let all the cats out of the bag. The method on which these sweeps are worked is that they get out a lot of tickets here, and pass them over to certain sections of Jewmen in England, to be distributed all over the country, and for every £100 worth they give out they want only £60 back.
On a point of order, is the Deputy speaking to the amendment?
You were looking for information. You are talking about percentages, and if you want to get at that you must——
The Deputy must address the Chair.
Am I out of order?
You are in order in discussing the question of expense.
Very well. That is the method; that is the way the thing is run. Of every £1,000 worth of tickets sent out £400 goes to the Jewman and £600 comes back to the fellow who posted them from here. Ten thousand pounds is given in prizes, and we are told that anything from £30,000 to £90,000 is made by the men who run the scheme. I call that a public scandal and a swindle in every form. I will oppose it tooth and and nail, and I will oppose the Jewmen and what they are getting out of it. You cannot go into any city or race-course in England but you will have these fellows chasing round after you to buy these tickets. They would not do it unless they were getting £40 out of every £100. You are keeping swindlers and loafers supported all over the country by this method, and I do not wonder at the Minister for Home Affairs, who, probably, knows more about it than I do, opposing it, although I happen to know a few little things which, perhaps, he does not.
I am so utterly opposed to this Bill that I do not wish to help any so-called amendments to it. At the same time, my instinct for trying to understand propositions is so strong that, I would like to ask the Deputy who proposes this amendment what exactly it means? I have read it down 14 times.
A DEPUTY
You should read it backwards.
Possibly. "Provided always that such sweepstakes or drawings of prizes are so conducted that the money obtained by the sale of tickets for any such sweepstake or drawing of prizes shall be distributed amongst these hospitals or convalescent homes, subject to a deduction of no more than ten per cent. of the money offered in prizes for the necessary expenses incurred in the management of such sweepstake or drawing of prizes."
No provision is made for the prizes. If Deputy Thrift will read his own amendment again he will see that what he proposes is this: Let us assume the total amount raised by those who are promoting the sweepstake is £40,000. Then his amendment provides that £40,000, minus 10 per cent. of the money offered in prizes, is to go to the hospital, but where the money offered in prizes is to come from has not been considered.
Might I explain? Perhaps it would save time if I did. Deputy Magennis assumes such acumen in finding a flaw, or in looking for a flaw in the amendment, that I think he failed to notice what was the main object sought by the amendment. The money obtained by the sale of tickets goes to the hospital. The hospital offers the prizes. That is my reading of the Clause. The hospital is liable to pay the prizes. It gets the total money, less 10 per cent. of whatever sum has been offered in prizes. Supposing £10,000 were offered in prizes, and that £40,000 were obtained by the sale of tickets, the Committee running the sweepstake is allowed to take £1,000 for necessary expenses, and it hands over £39,000 to the hospital. The hospital gets £29,000.
Excellent, sir; that was the amendment which Deputy Thrift intended, but this is the amendment that he has moved. He has saved time, because I was about to point out two operations that are made possible within the limits of his amendment. One is to offer such an amount of prizes as would make practically every citizen in the Free State sell all his assets to buy tickets, so that 10 per cent. of the total offered in prizes would be a gigantic sum to distribute amongst the promoters. But there is this also. There are suspicions, because there are always suspicious people, that those who win the prizes are fictitious people, or, if not, people who, for a valuable consideration, consent to their names and addresses being used as prize-winners so that the remainder of the money goes to the promoter. All this business of sweepstakes is so honeycombed with fraud and sharp practice and a variety of vicious proceedings that I agree with the Minister for Home Affairs that it would defy the wit of man so to define the measure as to preclude the possibility of fraud or other practices of that nature. An amendment lower down to which Deputy Milroy alluded——
You cannot go into that.
I am not proposing to go into it. I am merely repeating, after Deputy Milroy, that there is such an amendment. I am at liberty to use the idea of that amendment by way of criticism upon this.
If the 10 per cent. were calculated, as Deputy Thrift suggests, as 10 per cent. of the money offered in prizes, and if the money offered in prizes were to be no more than 10 per cent. of the takings, and then the expenses allowed to be only 10 per cent. of the prizes, we should have cut it down to such narrow dimensions that it would not be worth while for the swindler or exploiter of public charities to run one of these sweepstakes. Now, those of us who oppose the Bill are made to appear as if we were trying to sap the streams of charity from flowing to the relief of the needy poor. That is not so, but we are determined to offer all the opposition we can, even though it be ineffectual, to prevent the country being brought back to those proceedings which had to be stopped by Act of Parliament in the 18th century. Everything that can be done to prevent that ought to be done. I object to this amendment because it does not go far enough. If we could restrict the amount that is available for expenditure on promoting a sweepstake, so that it would pay no one who wanted to help himself out of the proceeds to undertake the troublesome task of working the sweepstake, then the hospitals would be helped, but the Section to which these are amendments declares it shall be lawful to carry on sweepstakes to raise funds. That is the professed object—to raise funds—and then the Deputy to whom this is the professed object objects to the amendment of Deputy Thrift, even as Deputy Thrift explains it. I wonder does he refuse the amendment of Deputy Thrift as Deputy Thrift explains it? If he does, with all respect I suggest that he has made clear that the machinery by which it is intended to raise these funds is a machinery by which hitherto such funds have been raised; in other words that this Committee set out in the Schedule, a Committee of honourable citizens for whom we all entertain the highest respect, would be there to gild the whole proceedings, and that the set or body of men to whom the whole mechanism of the thing is passed over would be left to their own resources and their knowledge of how to make the thing profitable. I say nothing except that in this provision, and in one to which I am not at liberty to refer, I see no means whatever for checking the abuses that we all know are incidental to these proceedings. After all, it is a question of measuring gain against loss. Are we to come to the relief of the ailing and the sick by promoting measures against which so much can be said in the name of public morals?
I was rather astonished at the scorpiac attacks that were made by some of my colleagues, and by one who was very handsomely treated by one of the hospitals, and who made such a slashing attack on the Bill.
Question about being handsomely treated?
I admit that it is practically impossible to give a bedrock percentage as regards the amount of money that is spent in running one of these sweepstakes, but I was thinking that if 10 per cent. of the total sale of the tickets were payable on receipts it would meet the case. It must be appreciated if you have an office and current expenses that you must give elasticity. If you have offices in other countries than Ireland it will be apparent at once, of course, that you will want more money. I suggest that the 10 per cent. of the total sale of the tickets might meet the case.
I will ask the Dáil to accept this amendment as amended further by Deputy Dr. White.
It is not amended yet.
As suggested. I cannot understand some of the indignation to which expression has been given with regard to this suggested measure. One Deputy said that our country would be disgraced if we were to allow money to go to the relief of the poor and the hospitals through means of this kind. Well, a very large portion of the revenue of this country is taken from whiskey and beer, which has a far more debasing effect. I never heard the Minister for Finance complain of the degrading effect of that. Now, we talk about the great revenues made by these people. I grant you that these people make large revenues out of sweeps of this kind, but let us not discriminate against one class of the professional man in this particular kind of business in favour of another. These men make more than a professional man. If you go to Baldoyle, Punchestown or Fairyhouse you will find hundreds of them that make a great deal more than the ordinary professional man. If the argument applies to one man it applies to all of them. If you allow gambling to go on, why not allow this? The only difference between that and this is that the poor, unfortunate hospitals are going to benefit instead of the bookmakers. That is the only difference I see in it.
Now, Deputy Magennis also expressed great astonishment at the support given to this. I say gambling is going on under the protection of the law; it is going on before our very eyes, and the same protest, if made at all, should be made against both. I admit, with regard to the amendment to which I now address myself, that at first I was not prepared to accept it. I do not agree with the Minister for Home Affairs that men like the promoters of this Bill, when they come and ask that this help should be given to the hospitals, should be able to state what proportion of the proceeds should go to the hospitals and what proportion should be allowed for expenses. There is not a Deputy here who has not heard in the public street what recent sweeps have realised. One of my objects in supporting this is to get at facts and figures, to have accounts audited, and so find out what money has been received and what money has been spent. The Minister for Home Affairs moves an amendment to get that information; we welcome that and want it. Deputy Gorey talks about the disgraceful characters that are to be seen at race meetings and coursing meetings. To my mind, one kind of betting is just as discreditable and disgraceful as another. It is all a gamble. Deputy Sir James Craig introduced hard commonsense when he said he did not see the difference between one kind of betting and another; no white man could either.
You never made a bet in your life.
Deputy Thrift, in proposing the amendment, gives us credit for not wanting to swell any gambler's pockets. This is purely in the interest of struggling hospitals, where there are people suffering and dying. By this Bill we want to give them money, and nothing more. We hear all this talk about betting. Why does it not apply to race meetings and other forms of sport? We merely want to give the hospitals money.
Mr. O'HIGGINS
Give whom money?
The hospitals; we specify that in the Bill. All we seek is to help the hospitals; we do not want to encourage gambling. This Bill will not encourage gambling. The man who would give ten shillings hoping that it will reach the hospital would not, perhaps, give that amount in connection with the Grand National or any other race. The Bill will not affect betting, and I do not believe a single objection could lie against it.
Will Deputy Sears inform us, as one of the supporters of the Bill, if it is proposed to put a limit to the number of ten shillings that can be expended on tickets by any single individual? We are being appealed to here in speeches that assume that all that is in question is that A.B. spends 10s. on a ticket, that the position is that he is quite willing to give that 10s. for the benefit of the hospital, but incidentally he has a flutter which gives him a thrill of pleasurable excitement.
An Ceann Comhairle resumed the Chair at this stage.
We have the history of those transactions in the past to guide us, and we know that men have been known to sell their farms and their business in order to raise money to buy a sufficiently large number of tickets in their calculation to make sure of winning a prize. The Deputy compares that with betting. He calls this inducement and is putting the thing on a pari passu with betting. It is a very different thing. Here you have again the abominable doctrine of the end justifying the means, and it is brought forward in the most plausible guise. All Deputy Sears wants is to secure money for the poor, struggling hospitals. That is all he seeks, and he so concentrates on it that he blinds his eyes to the fact that he wants to enter a partnership with anyone whatsoever, pirate, shark, Stock Exchange swindler or any other kind of public fraud, provided that that kind of public fraud will secure him a surplus for his poor, struggling hospitals. I never heard this doctrine, in its naked crude form, so blatantly displayed as it is by Deputy Sears. He does not say, of course, that he does not care by what means these funds are raised. He does not say that in positive terms, but negatively he invites us to forget it. When we ask how, by what means, through what instrumentality, and at what charge upon the total subscribed by the charitable, all this surplus is to be secured, he answers in effect with the American phrase: “Ah, forget it. It is not to enter into our considerations.” But we will not forget it. It is a very curious thing that the second private Bill promoted in the new Parliament of the Free State should be such a tainted thing —I do not hesitate to say tainted—as this proposal to raise funds by sending out broadcast, through whatever post will allow it to go broadcast, sums of money over which there is no effective control except to the amount that certain moneys are to go in prizes. I am yet waiting for Deputy Milroy to say that he accepts Deputy Thrift's amendment in the sense in which he explained it. If he will not accept it in the sense in which Deputy Thrift explained it, then he confesses that his object is to secure the aid of such bodies of men as shall make this thing a success, without too meticulously inquiring into what was the nature of their occupations, what commissions, as Deputy Gorey spoke of, have been paid to sub-agents, or what has been spent under the heading of advertising and postage expenses. It would satisfy me to a great extent that the promoters of this Bill have taken into account the possible dangers attendant upon the machinery they are setting in motion if they would accept the amended amendment of Deputy Thrift. I think the Dáil will put its own construction upon their attitude if they refuse to accept that amended amendment.
Has leave been obtained to amend this amendment? I want to be clear as to what we are discussing. Is the amendment on the Paper before the Committee now?
The suggestion was made by Deputy White that if I would agree to accept as an amendment to my amendment to insert, instead of ten per cent. of the prizes, ten per cent. of the receipts, that the promoters of the Bill would be prepared to accept it. I am prepared to accept that. Despite Deputy Milroy crediting me with having an extensive and intensive knowledge of sweepstakes, I pose here as an innocent. I have no knowledge of the actual expenses of running sweepstakes. I am prepared to accept their suggestion, and if that is agreed to, if those words are substituted for the words of my amendment, we shall have done much to remove one very objectionable feature of the Bill.
On a point of order, might I explain to you that Deputy Thrift, in order to save time, interrupted my criticism of the amendment as it appeared on the Paper, and explained that what he meant was something far better, and it was upon that account by the author of the amendment that I was speaking in this my second speech in Committee. The Deputy explained that what he intended is——
May I say that I heard the Deputy's explanation.
I was not aware of that.
I want to know this very clearly—are we discussing the amendment on the Paper or has leave been given to alter that amendment?
Leave has not been given.
The amendment before the Committee is therefore the amendment on the Paper.
Cuidighinn leis an leas-rún seo gidh na bhfuil puinn gradh agam ar an Bhille in aon chor. With regard to this amendment of Deputy Thrift, as it now has to be taken literally as it appears on the Paper, I intend to support it. If it had been amended as was stipulated I would have opposed it. I am going to support it for the reason that I believe it will make this Bill utterly unacceptable and impracticable. For that reason I am going to support it. I think that the question of commercialism is the all important question here. The question of the hospital or the needs of the hospital is largely an accident. The designs here are, rather through the agency of the hospitals, to secure certain commercial advantages on the part of agencies that are interested. If the needs of the hospitals were put before us we would be prepared to deal with them. They have not been submitted to the Dáil, and we do not know what they are. We all admire the services they have rendered; we are all prepared to regard them as the highest standard of charity, and their national claim here would undoubtedly be one that any nation with any self-respect would have to consider. But we must understand that there are hospitals outside the Saorstát, and for a great part of my life I have been conversant with the methods that have been employed to sustain, equip and support those establishments. They have been maintained, equipped and supported on a high standard. Incidentally I might say that the standard here is a very high one.
On a point of order, are we discussing the general question of sweepstakes for the benefit of hospitals, or whether or not ten per cent. should be the limit allowed for expenses?
The Deputy is certainly not in order in going into the general principle of sweepstakes. We are dealing with the question of expenses.
Then I am going to support that. We have had some experience of sweepstakes here, and we know that a great deal more than 10 per cent. was expended but not expended in the interests of the hospitals. Besides, I have grave doubts that they are going to wait on us here at all. I hold in my hand a ticket for a sweepstake for the 30th May. I do not know whether that particular sweepstake has got any licence or authority.
Whether it has licence or authority or not, it has no connection with this amendment.
I was sorry to find on it the name of a respected Deputy of this Dáil and a Senator.
That is another matter.
I am going to support this amendment of Deputy Thrift's, and I hope the Dáil will pass it. If they do we will have very little more to say here with regard to sweepstakes.
On a point of order, would it be in order to move that Deputy Thrift's amendment would be amended in the sense indicated by Deputy White?
If I ask the leave of the Dáil to make a change in the wording which I have suggested will meet the wishes of the promoters of the Bill, and which would be acceptable to them, would that be the proper procedure? Would that be a proper way out of it?
It would.
If that is to be put as a motion, whether the Dáil would grant leave, then I propose the motion.
Leave will have to be granted without dissent; otherwise we will have to take the amendment on the Paper.
On a point of order, would not the proper procedure in that case be as follows:—That those in favour of the suggested change in the amendment should vote for my amendment as it stands, and when it becomes a substantive motion that the change, which I am intending to propose, should be proposed by me in accordance with their wishes?
That would lead to the putting of this amendment as it stands first.
The discussion on this amendment has led to this amount of knowledge, that the promoters of the Bill and the supporters of the clause and the acceptors of the amendment agreed to the alteration promised, and it is quite clear from the discussion that it is intended that the sweepstakes authorised in this Bill are to be the same kind of sweepstakes that have been and are now in operation, having their home in a small town in Switzerland, but having their domicile within the Saorstát. I take it that the intention of Deputy Thrift was to ensure that this should be a charitable purpose, that the sweepstakes henceforward which might be authorised under this Bill, would really be for charitable purposes, and it would be the charitable public that would be appealed to. Hence I assume the desire of Deputy Thrift to ensure that the cost of running these sweepstakes would be kept down to a very low level, so that he fixed ten per cent. of the prize money. One can imagine that being done quite satisfactorily and appealing to a very large section of the people who respond to the cause of charity. We know that there have been many appeals for big public purposes within the last few years where the cost of administration and collection has been very small. The purpose of the Bill as originally proposed was to give the charitable public an opportunity to subscribe to the maintenance of hospitals. I assume that Deputy Thrift had that object in view in proposing this amendment, and I am prepared to support the amendment as printed, believing that it is even better than the later amendment in my name, which would, as a matter of fact, enforce the 10 per cent. of the gross receipts. In putting down that amendment I was not as wise as Deputy Thrift, but I desired to ensure that this would be an appeal to the charitable public, and it would be people having the hospitals' interests at heart that would be making this appeal, and would be canvassing for support, and would do that out of charitable impulse, and that they would not be charging for their work. By such means you could get the expenses down to the mere office expenses, so that people running the business would do it out of really charitable intentions. That is quite an understandable and legitimate deduction to make out of the amendment as printed; therefore I intend to support it as it is printed. If it is not acceptable, then I suggest that in its present form it is not at all satisfactory to ensure what he would desire, that it would require to be amended to ensure that it is not the money obtained by the sale of tickets, but that there should be some closer definition of gross receipts from the sale of tickets. Money obtained by whom? Less what? We want to ensure if we pass this amendment that it is the gross receipts from the sale of tickets, and we want to say that it is not the money offered in prizes, but the money distributed in prizes. You cannot be too careful in dealing with this thing, and I suggest even if this amendment be passed in its present form it will require further amendment. I do not think that there is any need to assure Deputy Sears, Deputy Milroy and Deputy White, who are enthusiastic supporters of this Bill, that in opposing it we have any thought that they have any purpose other than to assist the hospitals. We are quite satisfied that that is their sole intention, but to do evil that good may come is a bad principle to put in legislation, and the amendment would save Deputies from being brought into that evil. I notice that the Speaker thinks that I am wandering from the amendment, so I will pull myself back.
It is the word "principle," that seems to be redolent of another stage.
I think you will admit that this amendment to Clause 1 deals with the lawfulness of these proposals and makes conditions under which that legal principle will be applied. I think it is very desirable that the Dáil should have an opportunity to decide upon the merits of this proposal of Deputy Thrift, that the limit of expenses in running sweepstakes shall be 10 per cent. of the money offered in prizes. I think the Dáil should not be deprived of an opportunity to declare itself on that question.
I hope the Dáil will vote for the amendment. If it is lost, then there will be other opportunities to vote for or against the further suggestion that Deputy Thrift has made. But the original thought of Deputy Thrift was more worthy of support than his second thought in this matter. It would give the opportunity to those charitable impulses to have a full fling, and a full opportunity to exploit the charitable people of the country. It may be said that it will not be possible to exploit the charitable public of other countries if this amendment is adopted, but I would like the Dáil to be informed by those who are supporting the Bill whether it is the intention that this international business of running sweeps shall be conducted on behalf of Irish hospitals, whether it is intended to run a risk of having the business hindered or obstructed by people outside the jurisdiction of the Saorstát. If that is the intention, then I imagine that the ten per cent. suggested here will not suffice. Let us understand where we are. Is it the intention of the promoters of the Bill to continue at least as long as this Bill remains in force the business of running sweepstakes from Switzerland on behalf of Irish hospitals? Is it intended that we should remain subject to the limitations that the British Postmaster-General puts upon the business? If that is intended the ten per cent. will not suffice, but I am going to ask the Dáil to assume that the intention is to appeal to the charitable public in Ireland to buy tickets as a means of subscribing small or large amounts to assist hospitals, and that the people who run that business will be doing it out of charity and out of enthusiasm for the hospitals. If they do that it can be done on the ten per cent. of the prize money, and the Dáil should have an opportunity of deciding that question.
I intend to vote against the amendment as it stands on the Paper. I agree with Deputy Johnson that in these things you have got to be very careful indeed, and that the amendment as it stands would require some further safeguard, but it seems to be assumed in many parts of the Dáil—and even the Minister for Home Affairs assumes it—that it is not possible to have those things run except through the payment of large sums to what are described as professional gamblers. I am not interested in sweeps except as an ordinary citizen reading the newspaper, but the promoters of the Bill are gravely at fault in not coming with facts and figures to the Dáil to prove their case. Those Deputies should ask them for something like an estimate of the cost of running a sweep as compared with the amount going to private or charitable institutions concerned, and to have got from promoters of the Bill those estimates. There was some time ago run from Dublin here a sweep. It was run, managed and organised by a reverend clergyman, who, so far as I know, and I have some occasion to know his record and career for a considerable number of years past, is no professional gambler or anything of that kind. While in bulk the cost of running the sweep was pretty high, comparatively speaking the sweep was run very cheaply. There were not the big sums going into private persons' pockets out of that particular sweep run for that particular object. Very large sums went to the object for which the sweep was held. I voted for the Bill on the Second Reading because I thought it was capable of amendment in such a way as would satisfy everyone except the most rigid Puritan. This amendment, I think, cuts too fine. I think a larger allowance should be made, because, as the Minister for Home Affairs said, this would utterly kill the Bill. The cost of printing, clerical assistance, postage and other things would not be met by the sum provided by the 10 per cent. It is all very well for Deputy Johnson to say that those interested in the charity might give their services free. That is true. If any of the professional gamesters who have been referred to in general terms are really and genuinely interested not in their pockets but in those concerns they could very well afford to give their services free. But there are other people and other things which cannot be got free. The Post Office cannot be expected to give stamps free; stationers cannot be expected to give stationery free. The 100 or 200 clerks who are employed at pretty hard work for a number of hours each day for two or three months cannot be expected to give their services free. All these things eat up a fair share of the expenses. For that reason I think that the margin allowed in the amendment is too small. But there should be certainly some arrangement of the kind contemplated by Deputy Thrift, and the promoters of the Bill are very gravely at fault when they do not themselves make any suggestion such as is proposed. I will vote against this particular amendment.
What the last Deputy says is quite true. To propose 10 per cent. is a sheer mockery of these institutions. It is provisionally giving a sort of assent to the idea that some assistance will be forthcoming for these institutions. It has already been stated here by the responsible Minister that this merely means to knife the Bill.
Mr. O'HIGGINS
Pardon me; no.
To kill the Bill then Deputy Johnson wished to elicit some information as to whether or not the operation of these sweepstakes would be confined to the Saorstát. He has himself put down an amendment which raises the whole matter, and, having regard to the decorum of this Assembly, which is so rigidly adhered to, I decline to discuss his amendment at this stage. If the Bill survives until we reach that amendment I shall have a few things to say about it. The point at issue between the proposer of the amendment and those of us who are supporting the Bill is simply one as to the difficulty of ascertaining what is the legitimate figure to put down to curtail the expenses. I do not know. I never attempted to find out.
You ought to.
If this Dáil commissions me to approach these unholy people, the promoters of such sweeps, I may.
Have you not seen any of them yet?
Only at a distance. If this Assembly suggests that I should get into the contaminating atmosphere of their presence I might be able to ascertain some approximate figure. It has been alleged that gigantic sums have been reaped from these sweepstakes. That may be. But there must have been a corresponding gigantic expenditure and the object of this Bill is not to continue the ways and means by which people can acquire large amounts of wealth in this undesirable fashion, but to see that the money raised shall go to some institution that will benefit by it. Therefore, if that point is conceded, that it is desirable some provision of the kind should be permitted, you must in fairness concede those who are carrying on the operations of such an enterprise the means by which they will be able to carry it through successfully. What the figure may be I am not at the moment able to say, but if Deputy Thrift will withdraw his amendment at this stage I will endeavour to satisfy the curiosity of such as Deputy Gorey, who never, of course, countenanced such an immoral procedure as the purchase of a sweepstake ticket. I will endeavour to inform him, if I can, what it costs to run one of these infernal enterprises.
In view of the offer of Deputy Milroy, would it be acceptable, and in order to enable him to obtain the information before we decide this question, that we should report progress?
So as to leave the amendment in abeyance until such time as the matter can be decided.
Very well.