I move:—

To Section 3 add a new sub-section as follows:—

" (c) the amount to be deducted as expenses for the conducting of a sweepstake shall not exceed thirty per cent. of the money resulting from the sale of tickets."

This is the point that caused the greatest amount of discussion from all sides in the Dáil—what was actually to be the amount expended in expenses. I would like to remind the Committee that in 1923, when a former Bill was proposed, it was referred to a Select Committee which was empowered to take evidence. They took evidence, among other things, on two points—as to the needs of the hospitals and as to the expenditure necessary to run the sweeps—I think you have a copy of their report, Mr. Chairman—and they came to the conclusion that forty per cent. might be assumed to be the normal amount required for such a sweep.

I will read it: " Provided always that such sweepstakes or drawings of prizes are so conducted that the money obtained by the sale of tickets for any such sweepstakes or drawing of prizes shall be distributed amongst those hospitals and convalescent homes subject to a deduction for necessary expenses of not more than forty per cent. of the money secured by the sale of tickets, always provided that an authorised audit of the accounts of the sweepstake or drawing of prizes shall satisfy the Minister for Home Affairs that the amount so deducted is not an excessive amount to be expended."

I am proposing ten per cent. less for actual expenses than was proposed in 1923. I do not know if I stated the particulars during the Second Reading, but I had before me Canon Nolan's accounts. These showed that 37 per cent. went in expenses. This evidence was given before the Committee that the Chairman referred to, dealing with the Toome sweeps. Only £5,000 was given in prizes, while postage cost £31,000; printing and stationery, £6,000; wages, £3,600 advertisements, £205. The total expenses came to £31,171. That included the £5,000 spent on prizes. The tickets sold realised £84,863, so that the expenses came to 37 per cent. of the tickets sold, the profits being £52,999, or 63 per cent. Where we are rather upset is that the prize money was so small and was included in the actual expenses. It is suggested by the Sweepstake Committee of the Hospitals that 50 per cent. should be expended in prizes; 30 per cent. allocated to expenses, and 20 per cent. to the hospitals.

The 37 per cent. you mentioned included the prize money.

Yes; the prize money was only £5,000.

We can easily work out the expenses.

It was pointed out that in that sweep they had a great many private workers who got no pay. Canon Nolan's brother, for instance, gave figures before the last Committee. He lived in Rathmines and practically ran the sweep.

He had 32 per cent. actual expenses outside the prize money.

Another thing I noted was that for every ten books of tickets sent out only one book was returned paid for. That was Canon Nolan's statement.

Have we any guarantee if we send out tickets that the English postal authorities will not destroy them as they did in the past? When some books were sent back they were seized at Holyhead. They deliberately stopped the train and seized the tickets. I do not know whether the money was returned or not.

The promoters, I presume, are aware of that, and the Bill provides that they take all the risks.

As to defining the percentage of expenses, when books of tickets are sent out, in all probability, gifts will be given to the sellers of quantities. A percentage is deducted from the amount to be returned. If you sent £10 worth of tickets to be sold you do not get £10 back. A percentage is given to the seller as an encouragement.

One complimentary ticket is given in a book of tickets.

Special prizes are also given or commission in order to encourage sales.

As a rule in Dublin a complimentary ticket is sent with each book.

But as an encouragement they may give commission sometimes.

Where there may be an undertaking that a firm will dispose of tickets value £1,000.

Deputy O'Dowd was speaking to me about this matter. There is a difficulty about it. Supposing the promoter gets ten per cent., if the amount is very large, he will make a lot of money. I have been trying to devise a scheme by which we could prevent a promoter from drawing more than thirty per cent. for expenses, when the amount had reached a certain figure. Supposing £50,000 was spent in prizes, and that there was thirty per cent, allowed for expenses, he would get £10,000 for himself and £10,000 for expenses, and say £20,000 for the hospitals. If the amount of the sweep ran up to £150,000 then the promoter is going to make money, and I cannot devise any scheme to deal with that.

The expenses of running an ordinary sweep—nothing like the magnitude of this one—are well over thirty per cent., without allowing the promoter anything. As far as I understand it the promoter is taking the risk. The amendment suggests that the expenses shall not exceed thirty per cent.

Supposing £125,000 was realised on a sweep, is not thirty per cent. too much to give any promoter?

But supposing a sweep did not reach that amount what is the position? When the Committee were discussing this question before, I understand there was general agreement between thirty-two per cent. and thirty-seven per cent. All the points were fully gone into. They agreed that thirty per cent., which is below that figure, was reasonable. Otherwise I do not think you would get anyone to take the risk.

I do not want anyone to make money out of the hospitals. What appeals to me is this; if the Committee got evidence, and if they agreed on thirty-seven per cent. or forty per cent. as being reasonable for expenses in an ordinary sweep, is there likely to be less expenses on a mammoth sweep?

In proportion there would be. I do not see my way to allow any man to make himself rich quickly out of a charitable object. The amount might run to £30,000 or £40,000 out of one of these sweeps. I have no objection to a reasonable payment being made to any individual for expert services, but I think it is not good enough to allow anyone to make £40,000 or £50,000 out of a sweep in which the prize money would be £50,000. I think we ought to try to devise some way of preventing that. I have not been able to give as much time to consideration of the matter as I would like.

I have given a tremendous amount of thought to the matter. In the first place the Committee of the hospitals are not able to run the sweep. There is no question about that. If the Committee tried to run it it would be a failure. They cannot run a sweep without having someone of experience.

That is all right.

They have definitely concluded that 30 per cent. is a fair amount to allow for expenses.

Would you consider it fair if any one would make £40,000?

I would not.

What was the amount realised by the hospitals on the last big sweep?

The Meath sweep realised £25,000 but the Mater only got £10,000.

Who ran the sweeps for them.

Mr. Duggan. He ran the sweep for the Meath Hospital and paid £25,000.

I am trying to devise a scheme, where when the amount realised did not exceed £100,000, the promoter would not get more than 30 per cent.

I suggest that the amount to be paid to the promoter after deduction of expenses should in no case exceed ten per cent. of the receipts from the sale of tickets, and also that the amount to be devoted to the hospitals should be not less than 25 per cent. of the gross receipts. I think 20 per cent. is too small.

I agree with Deputy O'Kelly that precautions should be taken that the proceeds would not go to any person, only to the object for which the sweep was organised. Yet, I have in mind the fact that this matter has been dealt with by people who had a thorough knowledge of running sweeps. The Committee went fully into the question and there was a general feeling that 37 per cent., 35 per cent. or 32 per cent. was not an excessive margin to allow.

And there were people who opposed sweepstakes on that Committee. They had the same view as many of us, that sweeps should be run for nothing except the charitable object. I think 30 per cent. is a reasonable figure, having regard to the work involved and the risk.

And I am not prepared to give away any more than Deputy O'Kelly would in that respect.

I would like the hospitals to get 25 per cent. I have been discussing the matter with people who, although they have money enough of their own, were largely instrumental in selling tickets for sweeps, and they were clearly of opinion that no promoter will accept the risk—and I say risk advisably—at a margin less than 30 per cent. If we insist on 25 per cent., as I would like to do, going to the hospitals it will mean possibly that the amount will have to come off the prize money. If we leave an option to give 40 per cent. the promoter could pay himself.

He has to name his prize before he gets out the tickets.

The prize money has to be mentioned in advance. It may be £50,000 or it may be £60,000. You have no idea of what money will be got in.

No, but the promoter is taking the risk.

I do not see my way to give 30, 40 or 50 per cent. or a great deal more out of a sweep in the name of charity. A man might run the chance of making a huge sum out of this, and I object to that. The surplus above a certain amount should be given to the hospitals.

If you had a sliding scale?

Supposing you said that the amount to be deducted for expenses should not exceed 30 per cent. of the amount realised from the sale of tickets, where such sale does not exceed a certain figure. If it was in excess of that it could be reduced to 25 per cent.

Is it possible for us to determine what will be the approximate receipts of any undertaking of the kind? You are going to kill the proposal in that way, because you do not know that the amount will be reached. You are also up against competition that may arise on a particular race on which a sweep may be run.

The promoter in guaranteeing the prize money at a certain sum gambles on selling a certain number of tickets.

Anyone who undertakes the promotion of a sweep of this kind knows that his expenses will be relatively less than when he first organised sweepstakes, because the machinery has been built up. I think 30 per cent. is too high, because it would not be anything extraordinary to raise £150,000 on a sweep for the hospitals. I would rather see the hospitals taking a bit of a risk and getting a percentage of the gross receipts.

Supposing you got £150,000, and that 50 per cent. went to the hospitals.

I would like the promoter to get £10,000 for the risk and trouble involved, because the hospitals would get the benefit of his services.

A sweep is to be run for the hospitals, but they are not getting the profit that they ought to get.

The only thing I see is that you are going to deprive the hospitals of something that they would otherwise get, because you are taking an approximate figure.

I would sooner stop the thing altogether rather than use the name of the hospitals in order to enrich any individual.

We are agreed on that.

If you limit a promoter you do not encourage him to get in as much money as he can. He will try to dispose of more tickets if he is to make more out of it. If you limit a man to a small amount he will not bother about going above that.

But it does not matter if the hospitals get a guaranteed amount at the start, such as the Mater got.

I suggest that the amount to be deducted for expenses shall not exceed 30 per cent., and that in no case shall any promoter or committee receive more than ten per cent. of the net receipts. We know of a sweep for £150,000, where the expenses were £20,000. The promoter might make £30,000. If you limit him to ten per cent. he could not make more than £15,000.

It seems reasonable that a man should get ten per cent. after paying all accounts.

No man will start a sweep if he has to start on the basis that he is to give 40 per cent. or 50 per cent. in prizes. If you go on the basis of £50,000 you would have £20,000 going begging that the promoter would take.

We will give say, 30 per cent. for expenses, and I think Deputy O'Dowd agrees that in no case should the expenses of the promoter or the committee running the sweep be more than ten per cent.

I would put it down definitely that in no case would the amount paid to the promoter be more than ten per cent. of the net takings.

The point is that you are getting someone to run this sweep, to guarantee a figure and lodge the money. If you have all these provisions laid down will they not react by making the proposal so unattractive that no one will touch it?

So far as my information goes a certain promoter is willing to take ten per cent. as a fair profit.

He is willing to do so.

And guarantee the money?

We are trying to guard against him taking more than ten per cent. of the proceeds. If the sales were on a mammoth scale we are trying to guard that in no case will the profit of the promoter exceed ten per cent.

There might be a sliding scale on which they might be reduced.

They will be cut down in case of a mammoth sale of tickets.

If you make it ten per cent. net you will not get it done. I do not think there is any use talking about that.

Would you not say ten per cent. if the amount exceeded £100,000?

No one is in a position to state the figure that might be realised.

We are in a position to mention a figure for prize money, say the £50,000.

But you must remember that a man will have to lodge the money in the bank before he gets a shilling for a ticket.

If you double the prize money you could arrange that on anything above that a certain amount would be on a ten per cent. basis.

Taking a sliding scale we agreed that the expenses were about £20,000. If the promoter gets in £100,000 we were allowing him to take £30,000 for expenses and for his remuneration. If he gets £150,000 allow £30,000 for expenses.

Will they not be greater than that sometimes?

I would not say that they would be greater. The tickets would be sent out whether they come back or not. That would leave £130,000 to be divided between prize money, the hospitals and the promoter. If he is allowed ten per cent. that will leave him £13,000. If the sweep is bigger he will be allowed more. What I suggest is that the amount to be paid to the promoter after deducting the necessary amount for expenses be not more than ten per cent. of the receipts from the sale of tickets.

That would meet the case.

Could you not put the other case? If you did not realise anything like the figure what is the position? He is quite willing to take the risk for thirty per cent.

As expenses.

He is willing to take that risk. What we are guarding against is if the sweep turns out to be a phenomenal success that the hospitals may not get the benefit of it.

On anything above that figure, he is only to net ten per cent. If that will work, it is all right.

It is up to him to make sweepstakes successful.

Two or three years ago printers were idle here and I guaranteed £30 in a sweep. We sent out £2,000 worth of tickets. We got in £300 and £700 was held up at Holyhead. If this sweepstake is run with a head office in the Saorstát you will not get in £2,000. If you give Mr. Duggan power to hold that in a little canton in Switzerland every country will send money. He has agents in Switzerland. It is legalised there. The money coming into Ireland through Great Britain would be held up, whereas it would be sent from America to Switzerland. There is no difficulty in getting the tickets into Switzerland.

A certain definite sum will be set down for prize money. What I have in mind is if the amount of money received from the sale of tickets exceeds that by fifty per cent. that should go to the hospitals.

I believe this would cover it. The amount to be deducted shall not exceed thirty per cent. of the money resulting from the sale of tickets provided always that in no case shall the profits of the promoter exceed fifty per cent.

Is there any agreement on the amendment as it stands?

We agree on the thirty per cent. but we see the possibility that the profits might be abnormal.

I agree provided there is an addendum something on the lines that: " In any case the amount to be paid to the promoters after the deduction of expenses shall not be more than ten per cent. of the receipts resulting from the sale of tickets."

We ought to put no obstacle in the way of running these sweeps but all the work ought to be done here. We do not want to be doing a thing here that is going to give employment in another country. If you tie anyone up they are going to be embarrassed in that respect.

The Hospitals Committee have given me authority to propose what I have proposed. If that addendum is added I would like to be able to confer with the Committee and see whether they would agree.

We will let it go as it stands and let the point with regard to the profits arise again. Is it agreed to accept the amendment and Deputy Sir James Craig is to make inquiries? The amendment can come up again.

If there are a million tickets, if possible print them in the Saorstát. We do not want these tickets printed in Holland and sent to Switzerland. Any printing must be done in the Saorstát.

You had better put in an amendment to that effect.

We will take it on the next amendment.

We all get tickets for sweeps and all the tickets are printed in Holland. If we can get the money spent here we can ship the tickets over.

We are agreeing to Deputy Sir James Craig's amendment—No. 10—subject to an addendum about which Sir James Craig is to make inquiries.

We will have to meet again.

Yes. Amendment postponed.

I move:—

To add to Section 3 a new sub-section as follows:—

" The Committee of any sweepstake organised under this Act shall submit to the Minister for Justice within three months after the date fixed for the holding of such sweepstake or drawing of prizes a statement of account of each such sweepstake or drawing of prizes audited by a person, firm or corporation duly qualified in the profession of accountancy and approved for this purpose by the Minister, and the Minister shall as soon as may be cause such statement to be laid on the Table of the Oireachtas."

You would need to strike out " and the Minister shall as soon as may be cause such statement to be laid on the Table of the Oireachtas."

Do you object to that?

I do.

What is the objection to the Minister laying it on the Table?

Putting it on the Minister would mean a matter of expense.

Then we have no way of getting publicity for these.

I think we have.

In what way?

Later there is something to be put into the daily Press.

This would be an expensive item.

We do not want to put heavy expenses on anybody. Advertising in the daily Press would cost ten shillings a line. How could you otherwise publish these things unless the Minister laid them on the Table? Then anybody could see them.

The fact that you lay the statement on the Table means that it has got to be printed.

Other things have been laid on the Table that have not been printed.

Well, even typed. It has been pointed out to me that that is the difficulty.

How else can we get this?

I am not able to answer that at the moment.

Could we put it on to the Committee to issue an audited statement?

You might make the Committee do something about it.

" Shall publish."

And leave it at that.

Say that the Committee shall as soon as may be publish an audited statement.

You would need to specify a period—" within three months after the holding of such sweepstake publish." We need not say " in the daily Press."

It could be circulated.

They could publish the audit already mentioned.

" Shall cause to be published such audited accounts."

What does that mean?

Publish it in the daily papers.

We do not want that.

We could let them publish it in any way they liked.

Would it not do if they got 500 copies of it typed and circulated?

I suggest " that the Committee furnish to each member of the Oireachtas."

Or " furnish to the Minister."

It would already have been furnished to the Minister.

Deputy Moore's idea might not be a bad one. They would only need to get 200 copies printed.

Would that not cost as much as publishing it in the papers?

No; they would charge five shillings a line in a local paper.

The papers would probably publish it free if it was circulated.

They would probably publish a summary. In local papers it would cost five shillings a line and in the daily Press ten shillings.

If a couple of hundred copies were printed the Press would be very pleased to use it as news.

Would this do: " and the Committee shall within three months after the holding of such sweepstake or drawing of prizes issue to each member of the Oireachtas such audited statement"?

That would do, I think.

All you want to do is to say that the Committee shall present such audited accounts to each member of the Oireachtas.

" The Committee shall at the same time send a copy of such statement to each member of the Oireachtas."

I would suggest the Clerks of the Seanad and the Dáil should also be supplied with copies, because there might be a new member of the Oireachtas who might complain that he did not get a copy.

He would be a member of the Oireachtas.

It might prevent somebody from complaining.

You could not have the Clerk included.

It is very unlikely that a serious mistake like that would be made. Supposing we said " and the Committee shall at the same time furnish a copy of such statement to each member of the Oireachtas."

" And the Committee shall at the same time cause to be furnished to each member of the Oireachtas a copy of such audited statement."

I think that would do.

I move amendment 9:—

To add a new section before Section 4, as follows:—

" Each ticket issued in connection with a sweepstake or drawing of prizes conducted under this Act shall have clearly printed thereon the following particulars, that is to say:—

(a) the name of the hospital or hospitals participating in such sweepstake and the proportion of the nett proceeds to be allocated to each;

(b) the number of beds in in each of the hospitals participating in the sweepstake allocated to paying and non-paying patients respectively;

(c) the number of beds in each hospital which are subsidised from Government funds or the funds of local authorities or trade unions and the total income derived in this way as well as the income received from all such sources for general purposes."

The idea is quite obvious. The difficulty may arise about the question of paying and non-paying patients but I think that is settled by the first amendment.

In connection with the printing of that matter on a ticket I have got some copies of tickets which I will submit. You are going considerably to increase printing expenses and postal difficulties by increasing the size of the ticket. The size of a ticket must be taken into consideration (facsimile handed in). If you put all the material in that paragraph you will see that it would develop into something like a goose club ticket. There is an alternative, if the Committee desire to accept an amendment that if these things are to be printed at all, they are to be printed on the back of the manilla cover instead of being printed on the ticket itself.

I am quite willing to accept A., but I think the other two are unnecessary and impracticable. I think it would be all right to put the names of the hospitals participating. The Committee informed me that this is the size of the ticket they would send to foreign countries and there would be no room on this for all the details that are here because the tickets are to contain the prize money and all the rest of the regulations. To print larger tickets would cost twice the amount, and the postage would be twice the amount. I do not know whether it would be possible to put upon each ticket No. A, or whether it would be satisfactory to put, as you stated, the proportion of money allotted. The other thing would be impossible.

In view of the fact that over ninety per cent. of the tickets would probably be sold out of the country the information in B. and C. would not help the sale.

If your Committee insists on it we would be willing to put upon the tickets sent cut in the Saorstát any of these details, but ninety-five per cent. of the people would not care in the least about all the details.

I think all these points will get plenty of publicity.

If it were printed on the back of the cover I would agree. If you delete B. and C. you can print on the main body of the ticket the names of the hospitals.

Would you leave it optional that each ticket or book of tickets shall contain the names of the hospitals participating in such sweepstakes?

I think it will encourage the sale of them to print on each individual ticket the details. I think people will buy a ticket if they see it is for the Mater or Sir Patrick Dun's Hospital.

I will second Sir James Craig's motion that we accept the amendment, deleting paragraphs B and C.

I move amendment:—

To add a new section before Section 4 as follows:—

" Every hospital proposing to participate in the holding of a sweepstake or drawing of prizes shall furnish to the Minister an audited statement of accounts for the year ended the 31st December prior to the date of the application for approval of the holding of such sweepstakes and such statement of accounts shall after examination by the Minister be laid on the Table of the Oireachtas."

I suppose you have the same objection to this?

The last part of it. It would be a big thing to reprint all the balance sheets.

If you put a full stop after " sweepstakes," and delete " and such statement of accounts, etc."

I think that is quite admirable.

We can always get it from the Minister.

Agreed: That " and such statement of accounts shall after examination by the Minister be laid on the Table of the Oireachtas " be deleted.

Suppose the organiser has an office in Switzerland it might be necessary to print tickets in a language that people of other countries could read.

There is a possibility too that in one or two countries printed matter relating to sweepstakes will not be allowed in.

How will he get printing material over to Switzerland?

He will have an office in Switzerland.

Probably it will mean printing tickets in French in Saorstát Eireann.

There is another point that the President has made over and over again—that is, that the prizes should be given in Irish material, silver or furniture.

If you are going into the question of prizes, you will queer the whole pitch.