We adjourned on the last day in order to give further consideration to an amendment by Deputy Sir James Craig to Section 3. A number of further amendments on the same subject have been submitted since. That is the main point that we have to consider today. There is also an amendment down by Deputy Tubridy—amendment No. 1—dealing with another matter:—

To insert after sub-section (2) of Section 1, a new sub-section as follows:—

Every such scheme shall provide that all tickets shall be printed in Saorstát Eireann, be issued by the Committee and shall bear an embossed stamp and consecutive number on each ticket and on the counterfoil of each ticket.

That amendment cannot be moved to-day because we have already disposed of the section to which it refers. However, it can be moved on the Report Stage. Our business today is to consider amendments on the question of expenses. I suggest that we discuss the amendment by Deputy Sir James Craig adjourned from last day and the other amendments on the Paper, in globo, with a view to seeing whether or not we can arrive at agreement on any one of them. If we fail to come to agreement, we can have one amendment after another put to the meeting without further discussion. We could not have a general discussion first and then a discussion on each amendment afterwards.

Would it not be better to have each amendment moved as we go along?

We can discuss the four amendments and then, perhaps, formulate an agreed amendment.

The following amendments were submitted:

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

" The total amount to be deducted as expenses of any sweepstakes shall not exceed thirty per cent. of the entire receipts from the sale of tickets, which sum may include a commission for conducting or carrying on the sweepstakes of an amount not exceeding eight per cent. of the money resulting form the sale of tickets."—(Deputy Bennett.)

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

" A sum amounting to at least fifty per cent. of the money resulting from the sale of tickets shall be given as prize money in every such sweepstake or drawing of prizes. A sum amounting to at least twenty per cent. of the money resulting from the sale of tickets shall be given to the hospital or sanatorium concerned. The amount to be deducted as expenses for the organising of a sweepstake shall not exceed thirty per cent. of the money resulting from the sale of tickets, which percentage may include charges for the promotion of the sweepstake or drawing of prizes, provided that such charges do not exceed ten per cent. of the total money resulting from the sale of tickets."—(Deputy O'Connell).

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

" The gross receipts of the sweepstake or drawing of prizes shall be allocated as follows:—

(a) Where the gross receipts do not exceed £100,000

(i) to the promoting hospitals or sanatoria not less than 20 per cent. thereof.

(ii) As expenses including all sums paid by way of fee profit or commission to the operator, manager or other person supervising or conducting a sweepstake on behalf of the promoting hospitals not more than 30 per cent. thereof.

(b) Where the gross receipts exceed £100,000 the allocation for expenses shall not be more than 30 per centum on the first £100,000 thereof and 10 per centum on the next £100,000 thereof and on all sums in excess of £200,000 not more than 5 per centum thereof."—(Deputy Dr. Tubridy.)

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

" The amount to be deducted as expenses for the conducting of any sweepstake or drawing of prizes under this Act shall not exceed the following proportions of the total receipts resulting from the sale of tickets:—

(1) Where such total receipts do not exceed £50,000 thirty pounds per centum thereof.

(2) Where such total receipts exceed £50,000 and do not exceed £100,000 twenty-five pounds pounds per centum on the first £50,000 and twenty pounds per centum on the excess over £50,000.

(3) Where such total receipts exceed £100,000 twenty pounds per centum on the first £50,000 fifteen pounds per centum on the second £50,000 and five pounds per centum on any excess over £100,000.

Such expenses may include the payment of a sum to be specified in the said scheme to any person for his services as an organiser, promoter or otherwise but such sum shall not be by way of a percentage of nor shall it be dependent upon the said total receipts."—(Deputy S. T. O. Ceallaigh).

Amendment 10 (Adjourned from last sitting).

To Section (3) to 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. —(Deputy Sir James Craig).

The object of the Bill is to provide that under certain conditions moneys will be made available for the hospitals. I cannot see anything in Deputy O'Kelly's amendment (No. 5) which would guarantee any percentage of the sums received from the sale of tickets to the hospitals. I cannot see anything in the Deputy's amendment which would give any guarantee to the prospective purchaser of a ticket as to the percentage of the receipts which would go to ticket holders as prizes.

I was confining myself specifically to the amount to be obtained by the promoter. I had Deputy Tubridy's amendment before me. He dealt with that aspect of it and also with the amount to go to the promoter. I had a different way of dealing with that part of his amendment.

I suggest that we should first decide what percentage of the proceeds shall be available for the hospitals interested in this Bill and, secondly, that we should decide what percentage should go to the purchasers of tickets. Having decided those points, we would come to the question of the percentage to be given to the promoter.

You have that question embodied in the various amendments—50 per cent. prizes, 30 per cent. expenses and so on.

That is not contained in amendment No. 5 to be moved by Deputy O'Kelly. That appears to me to be the weakness of his amendment.

I agree that it does not come into my amendment. I deal specifically with the amounts to be given by way of expenses.

To the promoter?

Yes.

That arose in connection with my amendment on the last day—that the amount to be deducted by way of expenses for the conducting of the sweepstake should not exceed 30 per cent. of the money resulting from the sale of tickets. That was the only question we did not agree upon. We left it over to see if we could agree upon any change. Deputy O'Kelly has now suggested an amendment to that.

Our previous discussion was based on a proposal of 50 per cent. for prize money. I think it is advisable that a provision dealing with that should be inserted in the Bill, because in discussing the available surplus it would be necessary to take into consideration the amount awarded by way of prizes. For that reason, I suggest that we agree upon the first portion of amendment No. 3—that at least 50 per cent. of the money from the sale of tickets be given as prizes and that at least 20 per cent. be given to the hospital or sanatorium concerned—

Better consider those two items before going further.

How can we settle the amount of the prize money without knowing what the proceeds will be?

We can fix a certain proportion of the proceeds.

But the prizes must be decided upon before there are any proceeds.

A certain fixed amount will be guaranteed as prize money and there will also be a guarantee that a percentage of the whole of the proceeds will be devoted to prizes.

Everybody who gets a horse will get an additional percentage.

The winners will get an additional percentage.

That will involve complications. A question will arise as to whether the additional money should go to increasing the prizes of those who have already won, or whether further prizes should be awarded.

The objection was raised in previous sweepstakes that the object for which they were organised got, by far, the greatest benefit and that the public were not adequately considered. The public are entitled to consideration as well as the hospitals.

Has this plan ever been adopted before?

It has. It is a general rule in this class of sweepstake.

The Hospitals Committee had in mind a scheme where it was proposed to offer guaranteed prize money of £50,000 on a £100,000 sweep, with a guaranteed, minimum £20,000 to the hospital, leaving a maximum for expenses of £30,000, out of which they hoped to get a further sum after the promoter had received what it might be agreed to give him prior to the scheme being sanctioned. In the event of the expenses being more than £30,000, the promoter would suffer the loss. The hospitals would be assured of their £20,000 and the prize winners of their £50,000, both amounts being lodged before the start of the sweep. They say they have no money and they must have a promoter who will put up the money. Consequently, they say they must be allowed to pay him a reasonable and fair amount, taking the risks and his experience and time into account.

In the event of the audited expenses being less than the thirty per cent. maximum which it is proposed to fix in the Bill, will the difference between the actual expenses as audited and submitted to the Minister and the maximum in the Bill go to the hospitals?

According to the terms of the Bill, there is no way out of it. It must go to the hospitals. If we pass this, we will limit the expenses to the eight per cent. or ten per cent.

Are you not allowing him any remuneration for himself apart from expenses?

The Hospitals Committee give their view as follows: " The reduction of amount allowed for expenses as the receipts increase is unnecessary, as if the audit discloses any proportionate reduction, the Minister has power under Clause I, Section 2, to refuse to sanction any scheme that would have what appeared to him an unfair proportion set apart for expenses and the hospitals would have a very keen interest inasmuch as they would stand to benefit by any and every reduction." The lower the expenses, the more the hospitals get.

We have got to provide in the Bill that the surplus shall go to the hospitals. That is not in the Bill.

Suppose the promoter of the sweepstake uses up the 30 per cent. in advertising and other expenses, where does he some in himself.

He would have made a bad contract.

Is the promoter prepared to accept what we are providing in the Bill? If the promoter says that he cannot accept the scheme as set out in the Bill, will the Bill lie on the shelf?

Could we not agree on amendment No. 3 as it stands?

I would not agree to that because I do not believe that a sweepstake can be made any more successful by promising something additional in the future. You must state definitely the amount of the prize money that you propose to give.

Who is going to guarantee under those conditions?

I understand there is a guarantee up to £50,000.

Who will guarantee £50,000 if it is not understood that the sweepstake receipts will reach a certain figure?

If they reach a higher figure, you are going to give the prize winners an extra amount. You do not know what the total amount coming in will be. You suggest that £50,000 be lodged as prize money but if there is £200,000 collected you would give £100,000 in prize money. I do not think that increasing the prize money in that way would improve the sale of tickets.

The public want to know whether they will get £1,000 or £5,000.

It would, I think, be better if the prize money were non-variable.

How are you going to get that?

Fix it in the same way that you are guaranteeing £50,000.

That is only legislating for a particular sweepstake. A small hospital may desire to run a sweepstake for the purpose of raising a sum of, perhaps, only £10,000.

If another hospital desires to run a sweepstake, would they not require to have a special Bill?

No; this is a general Bill.

It deals with all sweepstakes which may be promoted for the next three years.

If we set apart a maximum figure for expenses, apart from what the promoter may get, are we not securing that he will not make an unreasonable profit out of it. The Minister will have the power to approve of the scheme to be submitted, and he is going to approve of excess profits to anybody other than the bodies in whose interest the sweepstake is being promoted.

I think Deputy Dr. Tubridy's point was that the hospitals should get the benefit of any surplus proceeds.

Deputy Dr. Tubridy would like that, say, £50,000 should be set down as prize money and that the hospitals should make £200,000 if they could.

Yes.

There may be sweeps which would not amount to £10,000.

That does not affect the issue. Whatever prize money is to be given should be fixed. You are assuming, in this case, that the prize money will be £50,000. Another body may promote a sweepstake in which the prize money will be only £5,000, but whatever figure it is, it should be fixed. Then the surplus, if any, would go to the hospitals.

My own personal opinion is that if the sweepstake is to be international, as I believe is the intention, it will be necessary to provide that 50 per cent. of the proceeds will go in prizes.

There is no use in putting 50 per cent on the ticket. You must put a definite figure.

If you do not put a definite figure, it will not attract.

Let us assume that the first prize is £10,000. Nobody is going to buy a ticket on the off-chance that he will get another £500 or £1,000.

I am not so sure of that.

How would Deputy Tubridy get over the difficulty as regards the proceeds.

I suggest my own amendment No. 4.

I am quite agreeable to that but Deputy Tubridy does not deal in that amendment with the point he is raising now.

Is not the point that the surplus, if any, shall go to the hospitals.

That is not clear here.

The Hospitals Committee state that under their scheme if the expenses were found to be less than contemplated the hospitals would benefit still further. But that is not in the Bill.

It would be easy to add that to the Bill later but I do not see how you are going to get out of the 50 per cent. If you leave in a stated sum it will be possible for people to run a sweep and offer insignificant prizes. If we put in a limit of 50 per cent., people will know where they are.

Would it meet the difficulty to provide that the scheme to be submitted to the Minister shall state the amount which it is desired to obtain for the purpose in view. The Minister can then see that 50 per cent. of the gross receipts will be appropriated to prizes.

Would you put in a minimum under which prize money could not go?

No, because there are sweeps of different values.

If Deputy Moore's idea were carried out, there would be difficulty in getting a promoter to undertake the responsibility, because if the receipts were expected to realise £200,000 he would have to put down £100,000 for prizes. It is possible he would not get more than £100,000 altogether.

I was only suggesting 50 per cent. In a great many cases they will state the amount they are looking for.

What I understand will be on the tickets will be a fixed sum—a large sum—and then such sum as will make up 50 per cent. of the entire proceeds.

When the scheme is being submitted, will the Minister not require to know how much it is desired to raise?

I do not think that is necessary. I do not think they are going to confine themselves to any specific amount.

They would have a rough idea of what they expected to do and the Minister would want to have some idea, too, in order to come to a proper decision.

To clear off the over-drafts in the banks, the hospitals concerned would want, as I stated on the Second Reading, about £60,000. That would be only 20 per cent. of the gross receipts.

For one sweep ?

Yes.

The total receipts would, therefore, require to be about £300,000.

The Hospitals Committee had in mind four sweeps in the year, but they thought that the first and second might not pay. They state in their memorandum: " Our information is that a promoter is almost certain to incur a loss on the first and, perhaps, on the second sweep, apart entirely from losses through hold-ups, etc. This being so, it will be seen immediately how impossible it would be to get anyone to run a sweepstake if Deputy O'Kelly's amendment becomes part of the Bill, because a loss incurred cannot possibly be made up even though the third or subsequent sweeps might be a huge success as a result of the experience gained in the first two."

I think we should confine ourselves to the question of expenses. The Bill as amended provides for the total net proceeds being paid over to the hospital or sanatorium concerned. Then, guaranteed prizes are to be awarded in these sweepstakes. With these two matters provided for, the problem we have to solve is what percentage should represent expenses.

I think it is fairly generally agreed that the point raised by Deputy Dr. Tubridy is an important one. I think what we have to do is to amend Section 2 of the Bill to make clear that the scheme to be submitted to the Minister shall provide that the tickets to be sold shall state that certain sums of money shall be set aside for prizes.

We are dealing only with Section 3 now.

You must have the prizes stated on the ticket.

That is the job of the promoters. Their method of getting the gross receipts on which the percentage of expenses will be based is a matter for themselves.

We are concerned to see that the maximum benefit should be obtained from the Bill when in operation. It is necessary, therefore, that every inducement should be offered to the prospective purchaser and, for that reason, it is advisable that in any scheme submitted to the Minister it should be provided that the amount of money to be set aside for prizes should be stated.

That is already provided for.

The percentage is but the amount is not.

I thought you ruled, Mr. Chairman, that we could not discuss amendment No. 1.

I have so ruled. We can only discuss Section 3. Under Section 3, the net proceeds are to go to the hospital. I will hand a copy of the Bill, as amended up to the present, to Deputy Davin so that he may satisfy himself. I think we had better now take the amendments in the order in which they appear on the Order Paper.

I move amendment No. 2:—

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

The total amount to be deducted as expenses of any sweepstakes shall not exceed thirty per cent. of the entire receipts from the sale of tickets, which sum may include a commission for conducting or carrying on the sweepstakes of an amount not exceeding eight per cent. of the money resulting from the sale of the tickets.

This amendment has been put down with the object of getting over a difficulty that presented itself to the Committee on the last day. It was proposed to have an allocation of 30 per cent. for expenses, that 20 per cent. of that would be for ordinary expenses and 10 per cent. to meet the organisers' expenses. A difficulty arose as to how this 10 per cent. for organisers' expenses would be calculated. To make the position clear, I am bringing forward this amendment suggesting that the sum so allocated shall not exceed 8 per cent. of the money resulting from the sale of tickets. The object of the amendment is to secure that in no case can an organiser or the conductor of a sweepstake get more than 8 per cent. of the total proceeds. I am not tied to the wording of the amendment, but I am anxious to see this figure of 8 per cent. for organisers' expenses embodied in some one of the amendments before the Committee.

In the case of the sweep that was referred to by Deputy Sir James Craig the promoter, in the event of the full amount of the tickets being disposed of, would under the operation of an amendment like this get a sum of £24,000.

What I am seeking to secure under this amendment is that not more than 30 per cent. can be deducted for expenses. Of that, the very most that the promoter or organiser can get is 8 per cent., leaving twenty-two per cent. to meet the ordinary expenses. According to an amendment already passed by the Committee, there would be a further safeguard in this: that the accounts would have to be audited by a qualified auditor approved of by the Minister.

It is not intended to aim at more than the £100,000 figure in the first sweep.

I am prepared to withdraw my amendment if Deputy O'Connell is agreeable to alter the figure ten per cent. in his amendment to eight per cent. If the Deputy does that his amendment will meet what I have in view.

I am prepared to do that.

I move amendment 3:—

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

A sum amounting to at least fifty per cent. of the money resulting from the sale of tickets shall be given as prize money in every such sweepstake or drawing of prizes. A sum amounting to at least twenty per cent. of the money resulting from the sale of tickets shall be given to the hospital or sanatorium concerned. The amount to be deducted as expenses for the organising of a sweepstake shall not exceed thirty per cent. of the money resulting from the sale of tickets, which percentage may include charges for the promotion of the sweepstake or drawing of prizes, provided that such charges do not exceed eight per cent. of the total money resulting from the sale of tickets.

I would like to know how the Committee is going to get over the difficulty presented by what is laid down in the first sentence of this amendment. It is stated there that at least fifty per cent. of the money resulting from the sale of tickets shall be given as prize money in every such sweepstake or drawing of prizes. That means that the promoters are going to offer fifty per cent. of whatever they get in prize money. I am afraid the only way of getting over the difficulty which that presents is by deleting the sentence from the amendment. The remainder of the amendment may stand, I think.

I would like to know from Deputy O'Connell if he is prepared to fall in with the suggestion of Deputy O'Kelly to delete the first sentence in the amendment.

I am agreeable to do that.

It is agreed, then, to delete from the amendment the first sentence, which reads: " A sum amounting to at least fifty per cent. of the money resulting from the sale of tickets shall be given as prize money in every such sweepstake or drawing of prizes." The remainder of the amendment stands, and is now before the Committee for discussion.

The amendment proposes that a commission of 8 per cent. be allowed to the promoters of sweepstakes. I suggest that the figure be 5 per cent. Take it that three or four sweepstakes of £100,000 each are run in a year, those concerned in their promotion stand to make £20,000 out of them. Take the case of a factory with a capital of thirty, forty or fifty thousand pounds, what business man in Dublin with a factory of that kind in which he has all his capital invested is able to make a profit of £20,000 a year.

I think the figure that Deputy O'Kelly is suggesting is too low. Perhaps he would agree to go up another one or two per cent.

Members of the Committee must remember that there is a law in operation in England which will act adversely against schemes such as those contemplated under this Bill. As a result of that, certain risks will have to be taken in the promotion of these sweepstakes.

I think that the Committee should give due consideration to points such as that just mentioned. We all know what happened in the case of some sweepstakes at least, that the promoters of them were badly let down.

I think that in a matter of this kind power ought to be left to the Minister and to the hospitals promoting a sweep, in the case of the first one at least, to be able to make the best bargain they can. It is necessary, I think, in the case of a first sweep that they should not be tied down too much. In their first effort they may not perhaps be able to do too well, but they will have gained a certain amount of experience. That will stand to them when running their second sweep, when they should be able to make a very much better bargain. As a result of all this experience, they may be able to get down to the figure of three or four per cent. in the case of their third sweep.

Is Deputy O'Connell prepared to make it 6 per cent.?

I suggest as a compromise that it be 7 per cent.

It has to be remembered, in regard to sweepstakes that were run up to the present, that there were certain difficulties to be encountered, one being that the law was hostile. Greater risks had to be taken than will have to be taken when this Bill becomes an Act. The sweepstakes that were run in the past were not the permanent organised things that sweepstakes in the future are going to be. One might almost say that in the future these sweepstakes are going to run automatically after the first year or two.

It has to be remembered that at the start at any rate those running sweepstakes may not have expert knowledge. Therefore, certain risks will have to be taken.

I do not think that the Committee will be taking any great risk in leaving in the figure of 8 per cent. suggested by Deputy Bennett and now adopted by Deputy O'Connell in his amendment. The promoter of the first sweep under the Act will, so to speak, have to start anew. The result of the working of the first sweepstakes under this Act will be a new experience for the promoter. It is not outside the bounds of possibility that the Dáil may amend the law as a result of the experience gained in the working of the first sweepstake. That is a point that, I think, we should take into consideration when considering this matter now.

I should say that when some experience has been gained that a commission of 8 per cent. would not be given.

Supposing that a £200,000 sweepstake was run and that the maximum amount of tickets was sold, the promoter under the amendment would pocket £16,000. If such a thing as that happened it would damn the thing completely.

There is one great safeguard with regard to that: that the accounts must be submitted to the Minister and be certified by a fully qualified auditor. If the Minister found that excess profits had been made by a promoter, naturally the matter would at once engage his attention. At the start at any rate, the Committee I think is not taking any great risk in putting in this figure of 8 per cent.

I suggest 7 per cent.

I think 7 per cent. is too much.

I move:

That " 5 per cent." be substituted for " 8 per cent."

Also, I think the phraseology would want to be tightened up.

On that point, the Bill will be gone over again by the draughtsman after it leaves us.

Amendment to the amendment put. The Committee divided. Tá, 4; Níl, 7.

Tá: Deputies Moore, Dr. O'Dowd, O'Kelly, and Dr. Tubridy.

Níl: Deputies Beckett, Bennett, Sir James Craig, Davin, Doyle, Dr. Myles Keogh, O'Connell.

I move:

That " 7 per cent." be substituted for " 8 per cent."

Amendment to the amendment put. The Committee divided. Tá, 4; Níl, 7.

Tá: Deputies Moore, Dr. O'Dowd, O'Kelly, and Dr. Tubridy.

Níl: Deputies Beckett, Bennett, Sir James Craig, Davin, Doyle, Dr. Myles Keogh, and O'Connell.

I understood that the Chairman was in favour of 7 per cent.

I said as a compromise I would accept 7 per cent. if the Committee agreed, but it did not see its way to do that.

Original amendment as amended put and declared carried.

Question—That Section 3, as amended, stand part of the Bill—put and agreed to.

I have now to lay before the Committee the following Draft Report:—

The Special Committee has gone through the Bill and has made amendments thereunto. The Bill as amended, is reported to the Dáil.

I move that the Report be adopted.

Agreed.

Will we have the opportunity of looking at the Bill in its final form before it goes to the Dáil?

We have now finished our work as a Committee.

I understood that when the draughtsman had put the Bill in its final form we would have the opportunity of seeing it again.

We are going according to Standing Orders. The Committee having considered amendments to the Bill report back to the Dáil.

I suppose any changes desired to be made will have to be made in Committee. What is the Standing Order referred to?

Standing Order 62. which states:

" The rules as to procedure in the Dáil shall apply to procedure in Committee of the whole Dáil, and in Select or Special Committees."

I thought you said here in the course of an informal discussion on the last day that we would have the opportunity of going over the Bill again.

I am sorry if Deputy O'Kelly misinterpreted what I said I did not intend to convey that.

The Committee rose at 5.50 p.m.