I move amendment 5:

Section 2, line 39, to delete all after the word " amount " and substitute:—

" of the guaranteed prize money to be awarded in each sweepstake shall be deposited in a public bank is Saorstát Eireann in the name of at least three trustees appointed by the Committee; and where a scheme embodying a series of sweepstakes is submitted to the Minister for Justice he shall on giving his approval name a definite period before each drawing in which the amount of the guaranteed prize money must be deposited."

The amendment means that the entire amount that will be given in prizes over a lengthened period will not have to be lodged in the bank—that only the amount involved in the particular sweepstake that is going to take place will have to be lodged. I think it would scarcely be fair to ask the Committee to lodge more than the amount that is going to be expended on a particular sweep. Supposing that a Committee was running three or four sweepstakes in the year it would be very difficult for the Committee if it had to lodge at once all the prize money given in connection with this series of sweepstakes.

I move amendment 7:—

Section 2, to add at the end:—" and it shall be the duty of the Committee to furnish to the Minister satisfactory evidence that the necessary sum has been so deposited."

I think this amendment is all right.

Perhaps it might be well to add to amendment 5. moved by Deputy Sir J. Craig and already passed, something to this effect: that it shall be the duty of the Minister to obtain evidence that such a sum has been so deposited.

I would rather throw that duty on the Committee.

If the Minister is merely to get a statement that the money has been deposited, without any proof being given that it has been so deposited, then what good is the amendment going to do?

I think Deputy O'Dowd's amendment covers that—" and it shall be the duty of the Committee to furnish to the Minister satisfactory evidence that the necessary sum has been so deposited." Of course, that might be added to my amendment if the Committee likes.

In any case, if Deputy Moore has any point to make about that he will be able to do so when the whole thing is before him in general form after to-day's meeting, and we will be able to deal with it then.

Would not that be a way of dealing with Deputy O'Dowd's amendment No. 7—to add it to the end of Deputy Sir James Craig's amendment?

Yes. I do not object at all.

I would like to have it the duty of the Minister to see.

Then you would be putting the onus on the Minister. I think that " satisfactory evidence that the necessary sum has been deposited " covers that point.

Yes, I suppose the Minister would be responsible under " satisfactory evidence." He would be responsible for the evidence.