Menu
-HOME
Baile
-DEBATES
Díospóireachtaí
-DÁIL DEBATES
Díospóireachtaí Dála
-SEANAD DEBATES
Díospóireachtaí Seanaid
-SEARCH
Cuardach
-ABOUT THIS SITE
Faoin Suíomh Seo
-LINKS
Nascanna
Previous - Lch. Roimhe Seo Up - Suas

Dáil Éireann - Volume 38 - 29 May, 1931

Public Charitable Hospitals (Amendment) Bill, 1931—Committee Stage.

The Dáil, according to Order, went into Committee.

Ordered: “That Section 1 stand part of the Bill.”

SECTION 2.

Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (2) of Section 1 of the Principal Act, that Act shall extend and apply to the following hospitals, that is to say:—

(i) Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital, The Cedars, Rochestown Avenue, Dun Laoghaire, County Dublin;

(ii) Peamount Sanatorium, Hazelhatch, County Dublin,

(iii) Royal Victoria Eye and Ear Hospital, Adelaide Road, Dublin;

(iv) St. Anne's Hospital, Northbrook Road, Rathmines, Dublin;

(v) St. Mary's Open Air Hospital, Cappagh, Finglas, County Dublin.

Mr. Dolan (for Mr. Shaw): I move amendment 1:—

To add at the end of the section the following words:—“(vi) St. Joseph's Orthopaedic Hospital, Coole, Co. Westmeath.”

Minister for Justice (Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney): As far as I can gather, this is a very worthy hospital, and I think it should be included. It seems to be doing very good work. It made some inquiries into it. It is an hospital that deals with sick children very much as Cappagh does. It is run on very much the same lines.

Mr. S.T. O'Kelly: I know very little about the hospital, but one of my colleagues, Deputy Kennedy, spoke to me yesterday about it, and said just in similar words to those used by the Minister for Justice that this is an hospital [2150] that is doing particularly good work for tubercular children. I do not know the exact lines on which it is run. Is it run by the same people who run the Cappagh hospital?

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney: It is run by a community of Nuns, the Sisters of Charity.

Mr. O'Kelly: The only thing I would ask the Minister is if he knows anything about the circumstances of admissions to the hospital. Is he satisfied that, so far as it can, it complies, as Cappagh does, with the provisions of Section 1, sub-section (2), of the Principal Act?

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney: The question of their financial scheme—how they take in children and how deserving they are—will, I hope, be gone into by the Committee of Reference which will decide what share, if any, of the proceeds of the sweepstake this hospital will receive.

Mr. H. Broderick: I support this amendment. I know this institution in County Westmeath very well. It is a credit to the people who are running it. It caters for the poorer children who are suffering from tuberculosis, and it deserves all the support which can be given it.

Mr. MacEntee: The only point that arises in connection with this amendment or, in fact, with the section, is: whether the Minister, if he received an adverse report from the Committee of Reference, or if he satisfied himself, on examination, that the proposed hospital did not comply with the spirit of this Act, or with the letter of the Principal Act, would have power to prevent them coming into the scheme. Section 2 says: “Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (2) of Section 1 of the Principal Act, that Act shall extend and apply to the following hospitals ...”

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney: Under an amendment which I will move later, a participating hospital need not get a single sixpence if the Committee of Reference thinks it is not deserving.

[2151] Sir James Craig: Am I to understand that the cases of these hospitals will go before the Committee in the same way as the cases of the other hospitals?

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney: Yes.

An Ceann Comhairle: I am accepting this amendment, but I do so with some misgivings. Five names were mentioned in the Bill as read a second time. It is proposed to add another name. If there were fifteen or twenty amendments down, the matter would present some difficulty. I am allowing this amendment to be moved, as, in the course of the Second Reading, it was mentioned that consideration would be given to other names, if put forward. When names are mentioned specifically in a Bill—not mentioned as a class of persons or things—the addition of other names presents considerable difficulty from the point of view of order. However, I am accepting this amendment.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Section 2, as amended, agreed to.

SECTION 3.

(1) When a scheme is submitted to the Minister under the Principal Act the Minister shall forthwith appoint a committee consisting of three members (in this Act referred to as a Committee of Reference) for the purposes of such scheme and the sweepstakes to which it relates, and shall nominate one of such members to be chairman of such committee.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney: I move amendment 2:

In sub-section (1), page 2, line 42, to delete the words “submitted to” and substitute the words “sanctioned by.”

As I explained on Second Reading, in the Bill as drafted in the first instance the Committee of Reference were, to a large extent, to be responsible for the running of the scheme. By an arrangement which has been come to [2152] the Hospitals Committee will still continue to run the scheme, and, in consequence, the appointment of a Committee of Reference only becomes necessary when the scheme has been actually sanctioned.

Mr. S.T. O'Kelly: This, I presume, is in the nature of a consequential amendment upon an amendment to be proposed by the Minister.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney: It depends on the deletion of Section 4, which I will propose later.

Mr. O'Kelly: I would prefer to see Section 4, which was the Minister's original thought, included in this Bill. I think that there is a strong case for the inclusion in this amending Bill of all the items in Section 4. However, we will be discussing that later. It is difficult to keep it out of consideration when discussing an amendment that is really consequential upon it. I wonder would it be a better arrangement if we discussed Section 4 and then went back to Section 3.

An Ceann Comhairle: It would not be possible to go back to Section 3. There is this amendment and also the amendment to Section 4; then three amendments, 5, 11 and 20, all relevant. If we do not decide to delete Section 4, then we will have on another stage to reinstate the words proposed to be deleted here. That is the position. The best place to discuss this matter would be on Section 4.

Mr. O'Kelly: If the House decides to accept the Minister's amendment to delete the section then this will naturally follow. It will be necessary for the purpose of working the Bill that this amendment should pass. I would be strongly of opinion—and I would urge this with all the force I can on the Minister—that he should stick to his original thought on this matter and insist on withdrawing his amendment. However, we will discuss that later.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney: I would like to point out this, that I am quite satisfied that in actual working it would [2153] not be practicable for this reason—that in order to have continuity of the Sweepstakes and so that there will not be any breaking off or throwing the employees out of work for a fortnight or three weeks it is necessary that when one Sweep is finished another should be ready there and then. If they had to spend a month or two examining into these hospitals before the Sweepstakes could be sanctioned then you would have a break between one scheme and another. That would be unsatisfactory. On the whole I am satisfied that when the Committee of Reference goes into the question of the sanctioning of the scheme it will take some months' examination into the affairs of the hospitals before it will be able to form an opinion as to whether the hospitals are eligible and if they are not eligible they will not get any money.

Mr. O'Kelly: The Committee of Reference will not, I take it, have the powers that the Minister proposes to give them under the section if these sub-sections are taken out?

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney: They will come in under Section 6. I agree with the Deputy who has an amendment down to Section 6 that specific power of inspection of hospital buildings, the bank account, and everything of that kind should be gone into. I would be willing to have an amendment more or less on the lines of the Deputy's amendment to Section 6. I will meet the Deputy there.

Mr. MacEntee: I find very great difficulty in accepting the position which the Minister has taken up. It seems an absolute perversion of the original intention of the Bill. The reason he puts before the House now for deleting this section is because of the exigencies of those managing the Sweeps and not because of the necessities of the hospitals. These powers of supervision, inspection and investigation which at one time the Minister thought necessary and which we think are very necessary if the original in-tion of the Act is to be preserved, are now to be thrown overboard.

[2154] Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney: The powers in the original Act will remain.

Mr. MacEntee: They will, but why does the Minister include this section in the Bill at all? It must be because he found it was impracticable to operate the powers conferred by the original Act. It must be some difficulty which drove him to draft this section and put it into the Bill. We here are speaking in the dark. We are not familiar with the problems, but obviously when the Minister spends time and money in drafting a section like this he has some good reason for drafting it. Now he proposes to throw it overboard; and not to throw it overboard because of the necessities of the hospitals which was the original purpose of the Bill, but because of the difficulties of those who were managing the sweepstakes. We know that when this Bill was going through the Dáil that was the one objectionable feature in it. It is for that reason now that he proposes to delete the section which he must have included in the Bill for good reasons.

An Ceann Comhairle: We are not on Section 4 yet. We had better dispose of amendments 2 and 3, and when we come to Section 4 we can debate this matter.

Amendment 2 put and agreed to.

Mr. O'Kelly: I move:—

In sub-section (1), line 45, to delete all words after the word “scheme” to the end of the sub-section and substitute the words “to enquire into the financial condition, the state of the buildings and equipment and the eligibility of such hospital or hospitals under sub-section (2) of Section 1, of the Principal Act, proposing to participate in such sweepstake scheme and to present a written report thereon to the Minister and the Minister shall nominate one of such members to be Chairman of such Committee.”

This is going over the same ground. The Minister proposes under Section 4 to give the Committee of Reference certain extensive powers, and it is [2155] evident that the Minister would not have asked that those powers should be given them, if something has not arisen in the working of the Act that makes the Minister think that these powers are necessary. I think the powers ought to be given to the Committee of Reference. I would prefer an independent committee like that which the Minister suggested, as a Committee of Reference. So long as some committee does examine it, and so long as these powers are maintained, then power is given to have the fullest possible investigation into these hospitals, and into all the conditions of the hospitals, so as to satisfy the Minister and his Department that the hospitals proposing to participate are hospitals that are properly eligible under the Act. Also, I would like that the Committee should investigate the proportion of the available surplus, as it is called, that is to be allotted to each particular hospital.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney: That is done under Section 6.

Mr. O'Kelly: I would like that full powers in that connection be given.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney: The Deputy is possibly under a misapprehension, and he sees a bigger difference between his point of view and my point of view than there is, in fact. It is merely a question of the time when this is to be done. The Deputy thinks that before the name of the hospital appears in the scheme that its financial position should be investigated. That would take a considerable amount of time. I wish to have some investigations carried on, and to have some powers exercised by the Committee of Reference, but I wish to do it later on. I wish to have the scheme sanctioned first, and then the position of the hospitals will be considered by the Committee of Reference.

Unless the Committee are satisfied that they have needs that require financial assistance and that the hospitals are entitled to participate, then these hospitals will receive no share of the proceeds. It is not a question of difference of principle [2156] between the Deputy and me; it is only a question of the particular moment at which the investigation should take place. I think it would be holding up the scheme if the investigation were to take place first. Deputy MacEntee says that this does not mean advantage to the hospitals and it leads only to the advantage of the persons promoting the scheme—the Hospitals Committee. Surely it is a tremendous advantage to the hospitals. If you have a whole organisation at work and you break up that organisation for three or four weeks or possibly longer, and then start a new organisation, you cannot expect to have the same efficiency. If you have not efficiency you will not have the same large sums in proceeds. Therefore, it is really vital to the hospitals that there should be continuity.

Mr. de Valera: Is the Minister prepared to say that there will be inserted in connection with Section 6 the necessary safeguards before any money will be given to the hospitals that are allowed to participate?

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney: Yes.

Mr. de Valera: Is the Minister prepared to assure us first, that before any hospital is permitted to participate it will be referred to the Committee for investigation and, secondly, that the proportion of money to be allotted to each hospital will be withheld until the investigation is completed?

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney: Certainly; it is already in Section 6, but I will bring in an amendment to Section 6 giving full powers to the Committee of Reference. Deputy O'Kelly has an amendment to insert a new section before Section 6. That gives certain powers to the Minister for Justice. I would prefer if these powers were given, in the first instance, to the Committee of Reference and that they would have even more extended powers—that they would have the right to go into buildings and inspect them, the right to call for bank books and examine the whole financial [2157] position. I will bring in an amendment on the Report Stage giving them such powers.

Mr. MacEntee: Deputy O'Kelly's amendment is not inconsistent with the position the Minister has put before the House. If amendment 2 stands the section will read:—“When the scheme is sanctioned by the Minister....” The investigation can take place after the sanction?

The President: Certainly. The weakness between the Bill as originally introduced and as it now stands is that it would have been impossible for the Committee of Reference to examine the scheme within a period of three months and do it well. Everything would have been held up for three months. Nothing could be done; there would be no activities in connection with the distribution of tickets or anything of that sort. It might possibly be that even a longer period than three months might elapse. Deputies should consider the number of hospitals whose accounts will require to be examined, and they should consider the number of inspections that will require to be made, together with the necessity for having a sort of general scheme of accountancy for all the hospitals instead of the separate schemes that exist at the moment. All that would necessarily involve a delay of at least two or three months. The proposal in the Bill will give what is called a provisional sanction.

Mr. O'Kelly: If that is clear we would be quite satisfied; but that is not in the Bill. The Bill sets out: “The scheme sanctioned by the Minister.”

The President: The Minister is quite prepared to make the position clear. I think Deputy MacEntee completely misunderstands Section 6. There has been what we will call a reconsideration of the scheme. If the point in dispute is that the scheme as sanctioned provisionally by the Minister is not capable of alteration, we can settle that matter in a moment.

[2158] Mr. MacEntee: That is the point. If the President and the Minister will agree to the insertion of the words “provisional sanction,” then the position will be safeguarded. There is nothing in the Bill about this sanction being provisional.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney: Look at amendment 10.

Mr. MacEntee: Even amendment 10 does not cover it.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney: “The proceeds can then be distributed amongst the hospitals or such one or more of them exclusive of the other or others.” If a hospital is not eligible it will not get a single penny. What we are really arguing about is the place in the Bill where this is to occur.

Mr. MacEntee: I think the Minister and the President can understand the difficulties which will arise if we merely use the word “sanction” here without any qualification. Once the scheme has been sanctioned and a hospital is included, in the minds of the general public that hospital will have established a right and a privilege which it will be difficult for the Minister to curtail.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney: No. I am making the matter perfectly plain by this amendment.

Mr. MacEntee: The Minister is not doing so. Section 3 naturally takes precedence and, in the minds of the public, the idea will be created that a certain hospital is going to benefit. Afterwards, if an investigation satisfies the Minister that the hospital is not entitled to benefit to the extent contemplated when the scheme was originally sanctioned, then there will be very great difficulty in dealing with the situation. It will be felt that the money collected through the medium of sweepstakes is being merely used to cover up the hospitals' sins. We are going to be faced with the dilemma that we are faced with now when we find the whole sweepstake idea widening and being amplified to an extent that none of us contemplated when the original scheme was introduced. [2159] We will have the idea created in the public mind that this is easy money and the hospitals will get it and spend it in any way they like. If a particular hospital is not given the amount originally sanctioned, the public will think that the Minister is unnecessarily hard-hearted and the impression will be created that this hospital is not being fairly treated. Our proposal will make the position quite clear. We suggest that before there is any sanction the whole position of the hospitals should be examined. That is the sort of provision I would like to see in the Bill and I am sure Deputy O'Kelly and others would like to see it too. If the word “provisional” is inserted before the word “sanction” in the first line of Section 1, the position will be remedied.

Mr. de Valera: Is there any objection to putting in the word “provisional”?

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney: If the scheme is only provisionally sanctioned a question would arise as to whether the scheme could legally proceed under a provisional sanction. As far as Deputy MacEntee's point is concerned, all the general public will know is that a scheme is organised on behalf of certain Irish hospitals. The statement on the tickets will merely set out that a sweepstake is being held in aid of certain hospitals in the Free State. The names of the participating hospitals will not be published until afterwards.

Mr. de Valera: The Minister has raised the point that in order to have the scheme made legal it must be fully sanctioned. It is then the difficulties that Deputy MacEntee has referred to will, it seems to me, arise. In advertisements we will have certain hospitals mentioned as having been sanctioned. It seems to me that difficulties will arise on that head afterwards if of the hospitals mentioned should later be cut out of the scheme or if the original proportion of money is altered. It seems to me we will have to have some arrangement under which final sanction will not be given in the first instance. It will have to be made [2160] clear to the public that the sanction is only of a provisional character. That should be stated explicitly somewhere in the Bill. It is much easier to proceed on these lines, and to amend the original Act if necessary, rather than allow matters to remain in doubt.

The President: Did the Deputy read Section 6 (4) (a) as amended?

An Ceann Comhairle: The House is not really discussing any particular amendment. The Bill contains a particular scheme and the Minister has indicated that he proposes to take out Section 4. That means that certain changes will take place. Those changes cannot be appreciated until all the Minister's amendments are carried into the Bill. These amendments are all interdependent. I think the committee would better appreciate the whole situation if the Ministerial amendments were carried into the Bill. The Report Stage could be fixed for some suitable date and on that stage when the House is considering the Bill as amended we could have submitted for consideration such amendments as Deputies might think necessary. We would then be in a better position to understand the Bill and to put in the proper amendments. The present discussion, as far as the Chair is concerned, is quite orderly. I cannot prevent Deputies from discussing Section 6 in conjunction with Section 3, or Deputy O'Kelly's amendment with the Ministers' amendment. But it might be more suitable if the amendments having been explained, they were allowed to be put into the Bill. The Bill could then be reprinted on the understanding that the various amendments suggested now could be discussed on the Report Stage. That may mean some delay, but I believe it would lead to more satisfactory results.

Mr. de Valera: I have read Section 6 (a) to which the President referred. May I take it that his point is that the Minister can direct, after the examination that nothing, for instance, might be given to a hospital which was included in the scheme as sanctioned?

The President: Yes.

[2161] Mr. de Valera: That would get over the difficulty. The only objection to that is having the name of the hospital used in an advertisement.

The President: That is an objection, but the Deputy will understand that it is unavoidable. If we are to get over that particular crux, it would possibly take three months.

Mr. de Valera: Except that the word “provisional” could be inserted.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney: I should like to point out that under the existing scheme the names of the hospitals participating and the shares they will get of the proceeds must be published on the books of tickets. That is probably what the Deputy has in mind.

Mr. de Valera: Yes.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney: That is specifically altered by this Bill, which makes it clear that the shares are to be ascertained at the time of the division of the proceeds and, in consequence, the names of the participating hospitals and the way in which they are to partake in the proceeds are not to appear in future on the books of tickets. All that will appear is that the sweepstake is being held in aid of hospitals in the Irish Free State. Section 7 (1) of the Principal Act is repealed.

Mr. MacEntee: Apart from the names on the tickets, they will appear in all the Irish newspapers, with a statement as to the agreed share.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney: No, because there will be no agreed shares now except for the Manchester November Handicap. There probably will be agreed shares for that, but after that as regards the others, it will be simply stated that the hospitals are participating in such shares as shall be subsequently allocated to them.

Mr. MacEntee: Their names will be published in the newspapers as ordinary news as participating hospitals. They have appeared in the case of every sweepstake up to this, not once, but several times.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney: Up to this. I have explained that that is a matter [2162] that we have foreseen and propose to alter by this Bill.

Mr. MacEntee: You cannot prevent an hospital from stating that it is participating in a current sweepstake unless you take special power to do so under the Bill, which is not being done. Therefore, an hospital in order to create a vested interest for itself, or which is doubtful as to whether it is going to get what it considers a fair allocation at the hands of the Minister, is going to get into the newspapers and is going to have a Press agent so as to create an opinion in the minds of the public that it is an hospital which should participate, and that if the Minister prevented it participating to the extent it thinks necessary he is acting unfairly.

The President: The Minister is not doing it. It is the facts compel the Minister.

Mr. MacEntee: We know about the facts.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney: The Deputy must be aware of the fact that I occasionally come in for a little criticism and a little more will not matter. I am rather case-hardened.

Mr. MacEntee: I have not known the Minister to come in for any criticism that he did not deserve.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney: That is a matter of opinion.

Professor Thrift: I think the Minister is right, but the point made by Deputy MacEntee might be met by the insertion at the end of Section 3 (1) of a provision something like this:

Provided always that the sanction given by the Minister is subject to the revision indicated in Section 6.

I do not think that would do the Minister's case any harm, and it would meet Deputy MacEntee's point, if there is anything in it.

Mr. O'Kelly: I think the President suggested something like that might be put in.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney: I think Deputy Thrift will get that suggestion in amendment 19: “The Minister may [2163] after the passing of this Act revise such a scheme in such a manner as he may think desirable, having regard to the provisions of this Act, including this section.” That, of course, is designed really to have effect on a scheme which will be actually current when the Bill becomes law. At the same time, that will be an existing provision.

Professor Thrift: With special reference to Section 6 I had in mind. I should like the Minister to consider it.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney: I am perfectly willing to fall in with the Ceann Comhairle's suggestion to have my amendments passed and the Bill printed with my amendments in it, and afterwards recommitted.

Mr. O'Kelly: May I take it that the Minister accepts the principle of amendment 3?

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney: Yes, that is what I said. I shall bring in a new amendment to Section 6 which, I think, will meet the Deputy. There are, however, other amendments by the Deputy which I must oppose. For instance, the amendments as to how the proceeds are to be divided.

Amendment 3, by leave, withdrawn.

Section 3, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

SECTION 4.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney: I move to delete the section.

Question put, and agreed to.

Section ordered to be deleted.

SECTION 5.

(1) The deposit required by Section 4 of the Principal Act to be made by the committee managing a sweepstake shall, notwithstanding anything contained in that section, be made in the names of the members of the committee of reference appointed under this Act for the purposes of such sweepstake, and the members of that committee shall be the trustees for the purposes of the [2164] said Section 4 in relation to such sweepstake and the said section shall be construed and have effect accordingly.

(2) Where the amount or value of the prizes or of some of the prizes in a sweepstake is dependent on or to be calculated by reference to the amount of the moneys received from the sale of tickets in such sweepstake, the committee of reference appointed under this Act for the purposes of such sweepstake may, notwithstanding anything contained in Section 4 of the Principal Act, allow the committee managing such sweepstake to deposit under the said Section 4 in the first instance a sum equal to the estimated minimum amount or value of such prizes and to increase the amount of such deposit from time to time as may be necessary in order to comply with the next following sub-section of this section.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney: I move amendments 4 and 5:—

To delete sub-section (1).

In sub-section (2), page 3, to delete all words from and including the word “of” where it secondly occurs in line 63 to and including the word “may” in line 65 and substitute the words “managing such sweepstake shall,” and on page 4, line 1, to delete the words “allow the committee managing such sweepstake to” and in line 3 to delete the word “estimated” and substitute the word “guaranteed” and in the same line to delete the word “to.”

The effect of the amendments is that the money will be lodged in the names of the trustees and not in the names of the Committee. The trustees are gentlemen of high position.

Mr. O'Kelly: Is the Minister satisfied that they are people of repute?

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney: I think they are safe.

Amendments agreed to.

Section 5, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

[2165] SECTION 6.

(1) In this section and in the next following section the expression “the available surplus” means the balance of the moneys received from the sale of tickets in the sweepstake in relation to which the expression is used remaining after paying or providing for the prizes distributed in such sweepstake and the expenses incurred in holding such sweepstake.

(2) The available surplus in any sweepstake held under the Principal Act shall not be less than twenty per cent. of the moneys received from the sale of tickets in such sweepstake.

(3) Where a sweepstake held under the Principal Act is so held by the governing body of one hospital only, three-fourths of the available surplus in such sweepstake shall be paid to such governing body.

(4) Where a sweepstake held under the Principal Act is so held by the governing bodies of two or more hospitals the following provisions shall have effect, that is to say:—

(a) three-fourths of the available surplus in such sweepstake shall be divided between and paid to such governing bodies in such proportions as the Minister shall direct having regard to the needs and circumstances of such hospitals respectively;

(b) the committee of reference appointed under this Act for the purposes of such sweepstake shall, when requested by the Minister so to do, report to the Minister as to the proportions in which the said three-fourths of such available surplus should be divided under this sub-section between the governing bodies concerned;

(c) the Minister shall not determine the proportions in which such three-fourths is to be divided until he has received the report of such committee of reference in relation thereto and in determining such proportions the Minister shall have regard to but shall not be bound by such report:

[2166] (d) before determining the said proportions, the Minister shall consult with the Minister for Local Government and Public Health in regard thereto.

Amendment 6 not moved.

Mr. O'Kelly: I move amendment 7.

In sub-section (2), line 22, to delete the word “twenty” and substitute therefor the words “thirty-three and one-third.”

The subject of this amendment has been mentioned more than once before on this Bill and when the Principal Act was under consideration. I have been spoken to by a considerable number of my colleagues and others who suggested that the amount of money available for the hospitals should be more than was agreed upon when the Principal Act was passed. In the Principal Act the figure set down is 20 per cent. of the proceeds. In fact, 25 per cent. was made available in the last sweepstake.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney: Both in the “National” and “Derby” sweepstakes.

Mr. O'Kelly: For the last two sweepstakes 25 per cent. has been set aside for division amongst the hospitals. There is a considerable volume of opinion both inside this House and outside that the amount available for the hospitals should be increased. Sweepstakes have proved a phenomenal success and a tremendous amount of money has come in. Unquestionably that is due to the fact that such valuable prizes were offered. But there is certainly a considerable volume of opinion that the success of the sweepstakes would be just as great if the amount set aside for the hospitals was put at 33 1/3rd per cent.

There is no sweepstake that I know of—and I must say of course I am not very familiar with any of them—that gives such big prizes as are given here. The next biggest that I have heard of is the Calcutta Sweep, but the Hospitals' sweepstakes here give prizes of far greater value. Even if the value of the prizes was not so great and that we increased the amount available for the hospitals to thirty-three and one-third [2167] per cent., the amount of the prize money would still be far in excess of anything ever known before as prizes for sweepstakes. The whole object of the Act was to make money available for charitable purposes. It does seem that 20 or 25 per cent. for charitable purposes out of the sweepstakes is a small proportion. Of course we know the reason, but nevertheless to the mind of the man in the street the fact that the hospitals only received 20 or 25 per cent. requires some explanation. The whole purpose of the Act was to secure money for charitable purposes, and of that money only a small proportion, 25 per cent., is going to charitable purposes. The rest goes in prizes. Our case is that the sweepstakes would not suffer, and their success would not in any way be minimised or diminished even if the prize money was reduced by say another 10 per cent. We believe that as the whole principle of the Bill is to secure money for charitable purposes a greater percentage of the available money ought to be used for such purposes, and our belief is that the whole scheme would not suffer if there was a bigger percentage made available for the real purposes of the Act.

Sir James Craig: I hope Deputy O'Kelly will not press his amendment. I agree with him that in the earliest stages it seemed a small amount to fix on twenty per cent. only for the hospitals. The Hospitals Committees afterwards were able to increase that to twenty-five per cent. The amount of money received by the hospitals from the “National” Sweep was £439,858. The amount they are going to receive from the “Derby” Sweep will be between £700,000 and £750,000. It would be a great mistake for us to jeopardise such a huge success by doing anything that would discourage the sale of tickets. I am told by the Committee that it would be a very serious matter for the success of the scheme if we were to endeavour to get more for the hospitals. In other words, we might kill the goose that laid the golden eggs. For that reason I would like to see no change made [2168] so long as we are assured of the twenty-five per cent. I said on the Second Reading debate that I would like to see the twenty per cent. increased to twenty-five. We had been receiving twenty-five per cent., and I think it is the view of the promoters and the Hospitals Committee that that amount should still be available. When one realises the fact that from this sweep the hospitals are going to get between £700,000 and £750,000, I think it would be a very serious mistake to interfere in any way with it or to jeopardise its success.

Mr. Kennedy: When the Principal Act was being debated here Deputy O'Kelly put down an amendment to the effect that the promoters be paid five per cent. Nobody contemplated at that time that one of these sweeps would bring in over two million of money. I would suggest that one of the economies that could be very well effected would be that the promoters should receive five per cent. going down on a sliding scale to two per cent. The promoters, as I understand, in the last sweep received seven per cent., but it went down to five per cent. after the first £100,000. My suggestion is that for the first £100,000 they should receive five per cent., and that there should be a sliding scale after that of two per cent. On the first million the promoters would reap a reward of £26,000, which would be a very nice sum, and it would be almost double that on two million, and the savings effected there should go to the hospitals. I am sure that in the Derby Sweep and future sweeps the expenses will be less. The bigger the sum involved the less the expense, and apparently they are conducting them in a business way.

The money saved in the way I have suggested should be devoted to the hospitals and not to additional prizes. I see no reason why the hospitals should not get thirty per cent. of the proceeds. No one can convince me that the fact of the hospitals getting an additional five per cent. would prevent one individual from buying a ticket. When they got an additional [2169] five per cent. in the last sweep that did not mean the selling of one ticket less. The inducement to buy a ticket for £30,000 prizes is there, and a person, with that inducement before him, will not bother his head as to whether the hospital is getting twenty, twenty-five or thirty per cent. The Minister should accept this amendment or something which would give an increased amount to the hospitals. Deputy Sir James Craig is in the position of being able to say: “I am well away and to hell with everybody else.”

Deputies: Oh, oh.

Sir James Craig: May I ask what the Deputy means by saying I am well away?

Mr. Kennedy: As I understand it the hospital that is being equipped for the benefit of Trinity College—Sir Patrick's Dun's—has got very well away under this scheme and Deputy Sir James Craig can say it is all right. I am concerned about the county hospitals——

An Ceann Comhairle: It is not fair to attribute personal motives to a Deputy, especially in a debate like this, which has been completely free from personalities.

Professor Thrift: Besides the Deputy is quite wrong in his facts. There is no hospital being equipped for the benefit of Trinity College.

Mr. Kennedy: It may be unfair——

An Ceann Comhairle: The Deputy is basing himself on something that is quite irrelevant to this discussion. Why not take the speech which Deputy Sir James Craig made upon its merits, without attributing motives? Why, in this debate, which has been conducted without any heat at all, attribute personal motives?

Mr. Kennedy: It may be quite wrong. I am very much afraid that I cannot thump my breast and say, “Mea culpa” in the matter.

An Ceann Comhairle: The Deputy is quite out of order in attributing a personal motive to Deputy Sir James Craig. The Deputy ought to withdraw. He must consider what our debates [2170] would be like if every member in the House made the same kind of speech that he has made. He must see that the position would be impossible.

Mr. Kennedy: Allegations more serious than I am making have been made. I made no personal attack on Deputy Sir James Craig. I said that the hospital that he was interested in was getting well away under the Sweep, and that he did not care what the other hospitals would get.

An Ceann Comhairle: The Deputy is not entitled to say that Deputy Sir James Craig intervened in this debate for the benefit of a particular hospital. That ruling has been given on previous occasions. Deputy Sir James Craig speaks as a member of the House on this question. He speaks by virtue of being a member of the House, and not by virtue of his interest in any particular hospital any more than Deputy Kennedy himself does.

Mr. Kennedy: I speak in the interests of certain hospitals.

An Ceann Comhairle: Deputy Sir James Craig made his speech as a member of the House, not because he has a personal interest in a particular hospital, and that motive should not be imputed to him.

Sir James Craig: What I objected to was the statement—I forget the exact words used—that I was getting well away.

Mr. Kennedy: “Well away,” I said.

Sir James Craig: I object to that entirely.

An Ceann Comhairle: Surely Deputy Kennedy must realise that his statement has no foundation, that it should not have been made, and should be withdrawn? The statement made was that Deputy Sir James Craig was well away, and that his position was “To hell with everybody else.” The Deputy ought to withdraw that statement.

Deputies: Withdraw, withdraw!

An Ceann Comhairle: Order, give the Deputy a chance.

[2171] Mr. Kennedy: If you, sir, put any personal interpretation on my statement I will withdraw it.

An Ceann Comhairle: When the Chair asks the Deputy to withdraw the statement he must withdraw it simpliciter. That ruling has been given before.

Mr. Kennedy: Well, I will not withdraw the statement.

An Ceann Comhairle: Then I must ask the Deputy to withdraw from the House for the remainder of this day's sitting.

[Deputy Kennedy retired from the House.]

Mr. de Valera: Would I be in order in explaining that I think there has been a misunderstanding in the case of Deputy Kennedy?

An Ceann Comhairle: The position is that the Deputy made a statement to which exception was taken, and in all the circumstances the Chair must be allowed to be the judge of what happened. Every patience has been displayed and every opportunity given. When a point is reached when the Chair says a statement must be withdrawn, then I am afraid the statement must be withdrawn, and there can be no more explanation. When the Deputy has refused to withdraw and the Chair has taken certain action we cannot go back. Deputy de Valera will agree, from the practical point of view, that our debates must be conducted in that way.

Mr. de Valera: I accept that.

An Ceann Comhairle: If Deputy Kennedy, when the returns to the House, has any explanation to make, then nobody will be more pleased than the Ceann Comhairle, but I do not think that we can go into it now or allow any other Deputy to make a statement.

Mr. de Valera: The only point is that Deputy Kennedy's statement afterwards may be misunderstood. I do not think he meant anything like what Deputy Sir James Craig took it to mean.

[2172] An Ceann Comhairle: The Deputy himself will have an opportunity of explaining. He has already had a good opportunity, and will have a further opportunity if he so desires. I do not think that we can have anyone's explanation except the Deputy's own of what he said. That is the position.

Mr. Connolly: I am very pleased to have this opportunity of according the best thanks of the House and of the community in general to Deputy Sir James Craig for his efforts on behalf of the hospitals throughout Ireland.

An Ceann Comhairle: That does not arise now.

Mr. Connolly: I am also very pleased at the inclusion of the Coole Hospital.

An Ceann Comhairle: That does not arise either. If the Deputy does not come to the amendment he may find himself withdrawing from the House too.

Mr. Connolly: The position so far as the county hospitals are concerned——

An Ceann Comhairle: That does not arise now. The House is dealing with amendment 7 to Section 6.

Mr. Connolly: The question is whether it should be 20 per cent., 25 per cent., or 33 one-third per cent. I think that would be a reasonable contribution to the hospitals.

Mr. T.J. O'Connell: Which?

Mr. Connolly: I am supporting the amendment in respect of the thirty three and one-third per cent. as against the twenty per cent. in the Bill. If the amendment is accepted I am certain that the effect of it will be to give relief to a great many hospitals throughout the country that are in a bad way at present. I agree, of course, that twenty per cent. is a good deal in one respect, but when that has to be distributed over a number of hospitals the amount that each will receive will be small. The hospitals that came in under the original scheme have benefited considerably. I think that with regard to the new scheme the thirty-three and one-third per cent. would be a fair and equitable allocation, and certainly if this amendment [2173] is accepted it will be very pleasing to every member of the House and to the country generally. The country has subscribed generously to these sweepstakes and we are all proud of the great success they have achieved. If an allocation of thirty-three and one-third per cent. is placed at the disposal of the hospitals concerned it will do much to relieve many of these deserving institutions. I have much pleasure in supporting the amendment.

The President: I think the Deputy misunderstands the amendment. The proposal in the amendment is that, as regards all the hospitals participating in the sweep, not discriminating between one section and another, the amount in respect of them should be raised from twenty per cent. to thirty-three and one-third per cent. That is the purpose of the amendment, and I am against it. I do not think that it is good business or that it is fair. The people who contribute their share towards the sweepstakes are entitled to get the maximum return for their subscriptions. They are being called upon to contribute to an unusual extent to the Irish hospitals, and it is not fair to ask what is being asked in this amendment. The hospitals are getting twenty per cent. from the sweepstake, and that is a very valuable concession. The sums that have been got in the case of the last two sweeps were beyond the dreams of the most avaricious supporters of the hospitals. Surely people ought to be satisfied with the distribution that is laid down in the Bill.

Mr. R. Walsh: Would the President say if he is in favour of State lotteries?

The President: That question is not before us on this day, when there have been so many irrelevancies. One of the things which has made this particular activity attractive is the fact that it is well run. It is run on a sound business basis. In the case of no other sweepstake that has been run in any part of the world that I have been able to learn of has there been such a large proportion of the money collected distributed in prizes. That really is the measure of its success. I [2174] disagree absolutely with the proposal to increase the hospitals' share from twenty to twenty-five per cent., and I told members of the Hospitals Committee that. I do not want anyone to be under any misapprehension about it. It is grasping, and not good business.

We ought to be satisfied with the remarkable success which has attended the sweepstakes, and the hospitals ought to be satisfied with the very large distribution they have received from them. The success that has attended them has been due to this, that in the first place they were run on good business methods. They have set a headline for other activities of the same sort throughout the world. The twenty per cent. gives more than is required to the hospitals. Nobody in his wildest anticipations ever expected that such results would have been achieved. People ought to be satisfied with that. Surely even avarice has its limits.

Mr. Little: Charity has none.

Mr. de Valera: I can quite understand members of the House holding different opinions on this as to whether it is not better leave well enough alone. I can understand that argument thoroughly; the danger there may be in interfering with something that is a success. But I certainly cannot understand the argument put forward by the President that it would be grasping on the part of the hospitals to look for more. Are we running these sweepstakes simply as a mere gamble? Is it to facilitate gambling that this thing is being done, or is it being done primarily with the object of assisting certain institutions of a charitable character? At the start I know there was a difference of opinion in the House as to whether or not we should engage in a thing of this kind at all. The interruption from one of the members on this side raised, I think, a very important point, because the President's argument was immediately an argument in favour of the State running public gambling.

The President: Which the Deputy is against.

[2175] Mr. de Valera: I am. I am definitely against the State running a gambling show. If it is done as a means of assisting charities there is some sort no excuse for it, but certainly there is no excuse for looking for money for these hospitals on the basis put forward by the President. Are we prepared to go the step suggested by the interruption, which was, “Is the President now in favour of State lotteries?”

Mr. J. White: Will the Deputy say what are Deputy Ruttledge's views on this?

Mr. de Valera: It is no concern of mine what anyone's views are except my own. I am prepared to give my views on matters that concern me, and when I speak I do so irrespective of whether other people agree with me or not. Possibly there are other members who do not agree with me, and they are at liberty to express their views. What I was disappointed with was the basis on which the President opposed this amendment. I have no fault to find with any member of the House opposing an increase of the grant to the hospitals on the basis that they are doing very well, and that to interfere might endanger success. I am certainly against the President's argument, that it would be grasping, and that all the money should be given in prizes. No more should be given in prizes than would be sufficient to secure as big a sum as possible for the hospitals. Otherwise, if you are going to make it a matter simply of people competing for the prizes, then we are by State action facilitating gambling. I think we ought not to do so.

I want at this stage to say that it is a matter very much of opinion whether a larger percentage should not be given the hospitals than is being given. In my own belief it could be given, and it would not be at all grasping. If this thing has become a success, those who have made it a success have been pretty well rewarded for their work. I agree with others that the success attained has been beyond the expectations of those who were most sanguine, and, from the business point of view, its success is a credit. They have done [2176] their work very well indeed. I am quite prepared to admit that they have done well, but the State has assisted them. It is because this business was backed by the State that they have been able to do the work, and it is only fair that the State should come in and claim a greater portion for the hospitals. I think the greater proportion suggested in the amendment could fairly be given without any charge whatever of being unduly grasping being made against the hospitals.

[An Leas-Cheann Comhairle took the Chair.]

Mr. O'Hanlon: I would like to join with Deputy Sir James Craig in appealing to the mover to withdraw this amendment. Dealing with it on the merits, and on the difference between 20 per cent. and 33⅓ per cent., I wonder is Deputy O'Kelly satisfied that if the amendment were carried there would be more money available for the hospitals? In my opinion there would not. It must be remembered that the great draw is the prize money. If you take away the high prize money, and if 33⅓ per cent. were put into the Bill, it might result that instead of the hospitals getting £600,000 or £700,000 under the next sweep, the amount might be reduced to £500,000, because the subscriptions might not be so great. Dealing with the debate, on which we have had a rather unfortunate incident—a Deputy retiring from the House rather than withdraw a statement—I think it is unbecoming that it should be in this House the first unpleasant incident should occur in connection with an hospitals sweep that enjoys world-wide fame. After the first hospitals sweep there was a kind of Press campaign started to spike the second one. The motive of that campaign was practically to tell the people to reduce subscriptions, and it was held out that the proportion of the money devoted to expenses for running the sweep was altogether wrong. I have not heard that anything like that occurred in the case of the second and third sweeps. The Press that tried to torpedo the second sweep with that suggestion has given up that class of [2177] campaign, and so popular has the sweep become, even in England, that the Bench there have flouted their own law, believing, as they do, that the hospitals sweeps run in Ireland are run on good honest lines, and that it is only a travesty of law to set up a barrier against people buying tickets in other countries.

There is another aspect to the question of reducing the percentage. This sweep has given an immense amount of much-needed employment in the city of Dublin. No organisation, and no factory, established since this Government took office has given such a large amount of employment in Dublin as the Hospitals Sweeps. That is an aspect of the case that has been overlooked by those who want to try to make very good better. They are running the grave risk of spoiling everything. Supposing the 33⅓ was inserted in the Bill instead of 25 per cent., if the net effect was that there was a falling off in the number of employees required to run the sweep, and if the number of tickets sold were considerably reduced, the services of hundreds of boys and girls who are employed would have to be dispensed with, because we made the foolish mistake in this House of interfering with an organisation that is going on successfully.

I do not like to refer to what Deputy Kennedy said, but apart from the little incident between him and Deputy Sir James Craig, I would say this: I remember a very flourishing concern in this city some years ago when a very eminent financial gentleman was brought in to pull it together because it was a little bit on the down grade. His method of pulling it together was this: He looked at the expenses book and found that the horses in the stables were getting a ration of oats. He thought that that was a little bit too much so he cut the horses' rations down, with the result that he destroyed the institution which he was brought in to put on a sound financial footing. Are we going to cut the horses' oats down, because that is the policy suggested in the amendment. I [2178] like Deputy Sir James Craig, would ask Deputy O'Kelly to leave well enough alone, and unless he is satisfied that that 33 1/3 per cent. is going to bring in a bigger sum to the hospitals and that there is not going to be unemployment in the Sweepstakes Office, withdraw the amendment.

Professor Thrift: I think that I look on this statement a little bit differently from other Deputies. It seems to me that the point is this: The clause, as it stands in the Bill, is a restrictive clause, and requires that those who are managing the sweepstakes shall, at least, allot 30 per cent. of the money received to prizes. It does not bind them in the other direction. I think that our experience in the past has shown that there is no reason for us to restrict them further than we have restricted them up to the present. We all admit that they have managed affairs extremely well. As has been pointed out, they have not kept to the 20 per cent. mentioned in the restrictive clause. In fact, on their own account recently, they raised it to 25 per cent. They have managed matters so well that in my view, at all events, they are the best judges as to what should be allotted in any particular sweep with safety to the real object of the whole movement. I think that the past justifies us in leaving the restrictive clause as it was, namely, in the form in which the Minister has put it. I would not change it to 25 per cent., 30 per cent. or 33⅓ per cent. I think that the people who are the best judges in this matter are those who are managing the sweepstakes.

Dr. O'Dowd: I am opposed to the amendment, because I think that the percentage suggested is too high. We should remember that in the first year of the sweepstake the hospitals will have got, after the Derby Sweep, practically one and a half million. Each sweepstake is undoubtedly a greater success than the preceding one. If the success of the three sweepstakes in the coming year is to be as great as that achieved in the Derby Sweep, the hospitals will get over two and a half millions per year. There is no reason why the success of the forthcoming [2179] sweeps should not be even greater. If the hospitals are in a position to get two and a half millions a year from these sweeps, I do not think that anyone will say that it is not sufficient to meet their needs. There is no doubt that the larger number of prizes that is being given in the Derby Sweep is an added attraction, and it accounts to some extent, at least, for the greater success of that sweep. If we do anything that would take away from the amount of the prize money, I think we would be making a mistake. I would suggest that a compromise could very well be effected between Deputy O'Kelly and the Minister. In the Derby and Grand National Sweeps 25 per cent, was allotted to the hospitals. This Bill definitely states 20 per cent., and the amendment seeks to have it fixed at 33⅓ per cent. We have already given 25 per cent. in the cases of the National and Derby Sweeps, and I do not see any objection to having the same percentage fixed here. If the amendment is put to a Division, I will have to vote against it, but I suggest to the Minister that if the amendment is lost he should bring in an amendment on Report to make it 25 per cent.

Mr. Cassidy: I am in favour of the hospitals getting 33⅓ per cent., as suggested in the amendment, but, at the same time, I must feel constrained to oppose it on the ground that it would be killing the goose that lays the golden egg, and would, in fact, defeat its own purpose. It must be remembered that probably 99 per cent. of the people who purchase tickets do so not with the primary object of helping the hospitals but of endeavouring to win a prize. I believe that if the amount of the prize money is reduced the ultimate amount of money that will be brought in will be decreased, with the result that the hospitals, instead of benefiting by the amendment, will lose. Reference has been made to the Calcutta Sweep. It must be admitted that the sweeps which we have run have put into the background not only the Calcutta Sweep but the Danzig and Liverpool Stock Exchange Sweeps. I believe that the sweeps are of great [2180] assistance not alone to the hospitals but in the large amount of employment which they are giving, so far, at least, as Dublin is concerned. They provide, as has been pointed out, practically Dublin's biggest industry at present. The only fault which I have to find with them is that employment is not given to more men. If it were, it would be much more beneficial than employing woman labour. The winners of prizes so far, including two Deputies of the House, have, I think, been satisfied with their winnings. The only one who does not seem to be satisfied is Mr. Scala. There is one reason in particular why I would not like to see the amendment carried. I believe it is time that the country hospitals got more out of the sweepstakes.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: That is not in the amendment.

Mr. Cassidy: I believe, at the same time, that if the percentage is increased to 33⅓ per cent., instead of bringing about the object which I desire, it would reduce the income, and consequently the country hospitals would not get the benefits which I would like them to get. I think that the amendment would be detrimental to the objects which the mover has in view.

Mr. Ruttledge: My only reason for intervening in the debate is the remark of Deputy White, but I will not leave him very long in doubt as to my views. I am opposed to the amendment mainly on the ground mentioned by Deputy Thrift. For some time I have been in touch with the operations of the Hospital Trust Committee and the experts who are working to make the sweeps a success. To some extent they may be described as experts, because they have organisations throughout the world and have received reports as to the various ways in which the sweeps could be improved. As it is their opinion that it would be dangerous to interfere with the present arrangement and to reduce the amount of prize money, I do not think, especially as the sweeps have been such a success, that we should be a party to interfering with them. We should not [2181] do anything that might afterwards be said to prejudice that success. That is the only reason why I oppose the amendment.

Mr. MacEntee: My position is very divided in this matter. I can see the force of the statements of Deputy Ruttledge and Deputy Cassidy that the big prizes are undoubtedly a very big factor in the success of the sweepstakes. At the same time, I have a considerable amount of sympathy with the amendment of Deputy O'Kelly. That sympathy has been entirely aroused by the attitude which the Minister for Justice took up on the Second Reading of the Bill when he clearly indicated to the House that, in his opinion, the benefit of any economies which might be effected in the operation of the sweepstakes should go, not to the hospitals, but to the prize fund. I must say that there is no real justification for that. The present allocation has at any rate shown that sweeps are sufficiently attractive to make them a snowball success. Each sweepstake seems to be more successful than its predecessor. I would take up the attitude, at any rate, that the increase in the prize fund in relation to the second sweepstake marked really the limit of the proportion of the total fund which should be allocated to prize money. If we take that limit, the hospitals should get the benefit of any subsequent economies which might be secured in the operation of the sweepstakes, rather than the prize money because the success of the sweepstakes has indicated that the prize fund is sufficiently large to secure the success which we all desire.

Over and above that, the hospitals are entitled to the benefit and the advantage that is, assuming the hospitals require all the assistance which according to some people the sweeps are going to provide for them, in saecula saeculorum. I would be satisfied to accept a compromise based first of all on the suggestion of Deputy O'Dowd, that the statutory allocation should not be less than 25 per cent., and secondly, that we should get an [2182] undertaking from the Minister that any economies which are secured in the operation of the sweepstakes should be given to the hospitals and not to the prize fund.

Mr. O'Kelly: Anything I have heard from the arguments, which have been reasonable, has not changed my personal view on this matter. I understand that the first prize in the last sweepstake was in or about £354,000. My proposal is to take 7½ per cent. additional off the prize money. If we take that figure of £354,000 my proposal would not reduce that huge figure to any appreciable extent. It would take, roughly, £26,000 off, leaving in or about £328,000. Does anybody suggest that any person, inside or outside Ireland, would refuse to buy a ticket if the first prize was reduced from £354,000 to £328,000? I do not think there is any reason in an argument of that kind. I think the great draw in the sweep was the huge prizes offered, and the additional 7½ per cent. to be taken off the prize money will not reduce it to any appreciable extent, as the amount is so large, while it would make a very considerable difference in the money available for the hospitals. That is my whole point. I have heard it discussed inside and outside the House, the question of the different arrangements made in connection with the running of the sweep, for the division of the prize money; and I have heard it stated that the greater number of prizes and the smaller amount of them is more likely to have an ill-effect than my amendment would have. The big attraction to my mind is the huge prize. A deduction of 7½ per cent. from any prize, from £100,000 upwards, is not going to make 5 per cent., or even 1 per cent., of the people interested, withhold their money, or withdraw from purchasing a ticket.

Mr. T.J. O'Connell: I should like to hear from Deputy O'Kelly, as he did not say anything in regard to it, if he has any authority to speak for the hospitals.

[2183] Mr. O'Kelly: No.

Mr. T.J. O'Connell: Or from the people who are participating in the sweeps in the past?

Mr. O'Kelly: None whatever.

Mr. T.J. O'Connell: I am glad we are clear on that, because we can take it that this is Deputy Kelly's own belief.

Mr. O'Kelly: Exactly.

Mr. O'Connell: If that is the case, each of us is entitled to have his own opinion as to whether the hospitals should get more or not. I think it is important that we should know as far as we have any means of knowing, whether any of the hospitals are satisfied. Perhaps I would be entitled to say that they are more than satisfied in regard to how well they have done during the past year out of the sweepstakes.

Mr. O'Kelly: The hospitals that have got the money are satisfied, but there are a number of hospitals, which are to get money out of this sweep, which are not satisfied with the division of the fund.

Mr. O'Connell: That is with the division as between hospital and hospital?

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney: They do not object to the gross total fund.

Mr. O'Kelly: No.

Mr. O'Connell: I do not think that is the issue that is involved in the amendment here. So far as the gross total is concerned, I think there is a good deal in what Deputy O'Hanlon and Deputy Cassidy stated. Let us be quite honest and ask ourselves to what extent that is a fact. How far does the hospital enter into your mind when you are buying a ticket? To whatever extent that may be so here in Ireland, if we go outside and ask the hundreds of thousands in England, Australia and the United States who are clamouring for these tickets, it will be found that they are not interested in the fact that they are helping hospitals. It may help some to salve their [2184] consciences, and, as Deputy de Valera said, to form some kind of excuse for buying a ticket. But that factor does not enter into it very much, and what they have in mind undoubtedly is the question of the extent of the prize. Deputy O'Kelly's last calculation has disappeared altogether, because he was referring to the proportion of money allocated for prizes for the Grand National Sweepstake. That scheme has disappeared altogether now, and if Deputy O'Kelly wins the first prize he can get only £30,000 unfortunately.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney: I am sure he has not a ticket.

Mr. O'Kelly: I have several. I wish I had more.

Mr. O'Connell: Deputy O'Kelly's interest in the hospitals has forced him to buy several tickets.

Mr. O'Kelly: Exactly.

Mr. O'Connell: I think that a sufficiently strong case has not been made for interfering in this matter. Everybody has admitted that the hospitals have done well. Deputy Thrift has pointed out, quite properly, that we are not confining the amount to 20 per cent. That is fixing a figure below which they should not go. Small things like this may have big effects, and an idea might get abroad—altogether unjustified, I am prepared to say—that the prize money was being decreased and that there was not such a good opportunity as there was under the previous sweeps for those who purchased tickets. As Deputy Hogan pointed out to me in conversation a moment ago, we have to think of those who purchase tickets in big blocks. Those are the people who have to be considered, and an idea might get abroad that would injure the whole scheme, and perhaps in the end Deputy O'Kelly would not have helped the hospitals to the extent that he thinks he would by having the amount increased. I am entirely in favour of leaving things as they are, with twenty per cent. as the minimum. I think the hospitals have done well.

[2185] I would like to say that I do not think the President was very happy in his opposition to the amendment. I think he made statements that he will be sorry he made when he reads them. I think he should not have said that the hospitals have got more than enough. I think that was a statement that ought not to have been made by the President, and that he did not help the case he was anxious to support. There are good grounds, as Deputy Ruttledge and Deputy Dr. O'Dowd pointed out, for leaving things as they are.

Mr. de Valera: As I said when I was speaking before, I can quite understand the difference of opinion as to whether it is not wiser to leave a thing that has proved itself a success alone. I quite understand and appreciate to the full the force of that argument, but as against that we are the people who are responsible for seeing that the primary purpose for which this scheme was instituted receives the fullest consideration. We have made ourselves the trustees on behalf of the hospitals, and it is our duty to see that they benefit to the fullest possible extent. Originally we had to look into the future. We had to guess what was likely to happen and to fix a percentage on that basis. Now we are in the position of knowing the facts and being able to take stock, and what we have to ask ourselves is whether the greatest amount of money that could be got for the hospitals in this particular way is being got for them. I believe that if we were sitting here as a board of directors, running this thing for the purpose of getting the greatest possible amount for the hospitals, we would come to the conclusion that the success had been such that we could afford to take from the prize money the percentage that has been indicated by Deputy O'Kelly, and give it to the hospitals. That is my view. I think we could do it, and that we would by no means be killing the goose that was laying the golden egg. It is for that reason that I am going to support the amendment. I believe that we should not allow ourselves to be influenced too much by the thought [2186] that things are going very well and should be let alone. If every business man was going to look at things in that way there would be very little progress. Business men would naturally ask themselves could they do better for the hospitals than is being done at the present time? My opinion is that we could. At the same time, I understand why people should differ from me in that particular matter. I think our attitude ought to be that, and that alone, and that any idea that the individuals who are participating should get the biggest possible prizes should be banished from our minds completely. It is to that argument I take chief objection. It is an argument that we should facilitate those who want to bet and to engage in an attempt to get for a little a large sum of money. I, at any rate, am going to support Deputy O'Kelly's amendment.

Mr. Little: Suppose we were to check the figures given by Deputy O'Kelly in order to arrive at what is the amount at issue, on prize money of £354,000 the difference would be about £26,000. It would be only a matter of one prize. If the figure rose slightly it would be only a matter of £30,000, and is anybody going to refuse to take part because there is a difference of one or two prizes. So that this discussion is about a matter which is really very small. At the same time the principle involved is a big one from the point of view of people who want to protect the primary object of the Bill. It is an effort on the part of the representatives of the people to press as much as possible for concentration on the object of the Bill and giving as much as possible to the hospitals while maintaining the success of the scheme. The reason why Deputy Kennedy laboured under so much feeling in the matter was because he has the interests of the country hospitals at heart. They are coming into the scheme for the first time, and so that the country hospitals would get as much as possible out of the scheme he is anxious to see the prize money reduced. It was because of that view he laboured under considerable excitement in the matter. I think there is a great deal to be said for that point [2187] of view. The new hospitals naturally want to get as much as they can out of the scheme. Another Deputy interested in the county hospitals thought it would be better not to decrease the prize money. I take the same view as those who advocate a reduction of the prize money and an increase of the amount for the hospitals. I do not think there is much in what Deputy O'Connell said about the discussion here injuring the scheme. I think the discussion shows that we are thoroughly in earnest in trying to help the hospitals.

Mr. O'Connell: I said that a decision to increase the amount to thirty-three and one-third might injure the scheme. I did not say that the discussion would.

Mr. Little: If this amendment were carried it would mean a difference of only about two prizes. So far as that is concerned, it is only a detail and it would not interfere in any way with the success of the scheme. I am rather distrustful of experts in this matter, because when financial experts get their blood up they charge along, and the point of view of the ordinary man outside—the man in the street— is required to keep them in check. A great many people buy a ticket because they want to have a ticket in the sweep and because they want to help the hospitals, but there is a very widespread and uneasy feeling that this whole scheme is not a healthy thing—that its tendency is not healthy. I believe that this amendment will have a very good effect in making people feel that we are trying, as far as possible, to check the more evil tendencies in the Bill. The President said that avarice has its limits. That is exactly what we mean by our amendment. We might add to that that charity should have no limits. In order to carry out the purpose behind the epigram, it should be the duty of everybody in this House to try to check the avarice end and to get as much as possible for the charity end.

Mr. Hogan (Clare): If I could be satisfied that proportionately as we reduce the prize money we will increase [2188] the money available for the hospitals, I would support the amendment. There is a great danger that, in reducing the prize money, we might also reduce the amount of money available for the hospitals. We cannot be sure that proportionately as we restrict or limit the prize money we will increase the money available for the hospitals. That is a thing that we can have no certainly or guarantee about. It has not been sufficiently emphasised that the figure 20 per cent. is a minimum.

The people responsible for the running of the sweep have to deal with an enormous transaction, representing a very large amount of money. We may, I think, be sure that those responsible will give 25 per cent. or 30 per cent. or 40 per cent. of the proceeds to the hospitals if that can be done consistently with safeguarding the continuous success of the scheme. After all, we are not dealing with a perfect human race. The psychology of people who undertake the distribution of large blocks of tickets has to be taken into account. It is not the psychology only of the man who pays 2/6 for a share in a ticket, or who buys one ticket or ten tickets, that has to be considered; it is the psychology of the people who control the distribution of large blocks of tickets. If you do not make it worth while for these people to operate, they will probably not take the same part in making the scheme a success as they have taken up to the present. Before we take any action which might be calculated to injure the scheme, the success of which Deputy O'Kelly and all of us have at heart in the interest of the hospitals, we ought to pause. I do not think there is any means by which we could be sure that proportionately as the prize money is reduced the amount available for the hospitals will be increased.

Mr. Law: I confess that I listened with a good deal of sympathy to the speech of Deputy de Valera. I do find it very difficult to believe that a moderate restriction of prize money would really have the effect to which Deputy Hogan has called attention. At the same time, it is, as Deputy de [2189] Valera recognised, a dangerous thing to interfere with a scheme which has on the whole worked successfully. In view of the considerations which Deputy O'Connell and Deputy Hogan put forward, and in view of the danger which Deputy Sir James Craig has indicated, it might be that the amendment moved by Deputy O'Kelly would interfere with the success of the scheme. I rise to ask the Minister whether, with a view to increasing, to some extent, the legal claim of the hospitals, as distinct from what has been available to them in practice, the Minister would be inclined to go so far, without accepting the amendment, as to fix a minimum of 25 per cent. for the 20 per cent. which the hospitals would receive.

Mr. Gorey: My view is that if a decision were come to in the terms of this amendment it would seriously affect the attitude of the public. I take the view that even this discussion will do the very same thing. It will have the effect, however small, of lessening public confidence. There are enemies of the idea of sweepstakes in this and every other country who use discussions of this type as propaganda —people of the extra-puritan type who think that everything is wrong except what they do themselves. While one of our first duties is to help the hospitals, I make no secret of the fact that my sympathy is almost equally distributed between the hospitals and the generous and trustful people in this country and in other countries who come to our aid. Deputy de Valera said that our duty is to help the hospitals to get as much as they can out of the sweepstake. That is not our only duty. From what we heard in the discussion, some people appear to have a sort of contempt for those who buy a ticket with the idea of having a “flutter.” I am one of those who have not that sort of mentality. I frankly confess that. It may be wrong from a moral point of view, but that is my attitude. I have as much sympathy with the outside public who trust us and generously subscribe as I have with any other interest in the community. I am sorry that, in my opinion, either envy to [2190] some individual or the desire to get more than we are getting is behind some of the speeches delivered. The case has been made by more than one Deputy that it would not affect the success of the sweep if the amount of one prize was deducted. That is put up as an argument why we should depart from the standard that has been set. If that is true in that case, then what addition would that small amount of money mean to the hospitals as a whole? If it makes no difference in one direction, then it can make no difference in the other direction, and you would do far more to injure the object of the scheme by weakening in the smallest degree the public trust in the way things are done than you would gain.

The one thing you had better continue to show is that it is not for avarice you are out. You are out to help the hospitals on a proper basis. Once you sap public confidence in how you do things you sound the deathknell of the object you have in view. For that reason I am altogether against the amendment. I am sorry that some of the things that have been said were said.

Mr. Goulding: Deputy Gorey understood from Deputy Little that the passing of the amendment would only mean the difference of one prize. I think Deputy Little's figures were based on the difference between 25 per cent. and 33⅓ per cent. If we had an assurance that the 20 per cent. mentioned in the Bill would be considered to be the absolute minimum, and that in all probability 25 per cent. at least would be distributed we would be more satisfied, because the difference between 20 per cent. and 33⅓ per cent. is considerable.

Reference has been made to the moral aspect of the question. We are appealing to the gambling instinct for the support of this scheme. If the impression got abroad that if we were trying to get as much as we could out of this for hospitals and trying to curtail the prize money it would undoubtedly damage the success of the sweeps. Many of us here are not at all in favour of this matter of appealing [2191] to the gambling instincts of the people, but that is what we are doing. There is no use in pretending that we are not. But if we are anxious to make the sweepstakes a success and get all the money we can for the hospitals we must do it and not interfere with the unfortunate propensity that is in human nature to go in for gambling.

Seosamh O Mongáin: Tá bród orm go bhfuil an oiread seo á dhéanamh d'oispidéil na tíre ach dá ndéanfai an oiread eile dhóibh 'sé mo bharuilse go bhfuil dream sa tír ag déanamh níos mó do dhaoine bochta na tíre— sin iad na banaltraí Jubilee. Tá siad seo ag obair do na daoine bochta in a dtithe féin, ag tabhairt aire do na daoine tinne o oíche go maidin —go minic daoine nach bhfuil in ánn dul go dti na hoispidéil agus daoine go mb'fhearr leo bás d'fháil ná dul go hoispidéil. Tá na mná seo ag obair sna ceanntracha is boichte in Eirinn. Sé an bealach a bhfuightear an t-airgead le hiad d'íoc: daoine anso agus ansúd go bhfuil grádh acu do na bochta agus gur thug Dia go leor dóibh fein tugann siad bronntanaisí don chumann seo. Na daoine fíor-bhochta féin, tugann siad san a sgilling uatha. Má stopann na daoine atá ag tabhairt na mbronntanas seo uatha, mar stop cúpla duine le goirid, caithfear na banaltraí a stopadh annsin. Agus cé'n mhaith oispidéal iongantach a bheith 'na scórtha míle o mhnaoi bhoicht nuair a bheidh sí i dtrioblóid no a leithéide? Nár bhfearr dí seo agus dá leithéide banaltra a bheith sa gceanntar a mbeadh sí in ánn glaoidh uirrthí? Mar sin sé mo bharúil-se, le bheith cinnte go bhfanfaidh na banaltraí sna ceanntracha bochta seo, ba cheart beagán den airgead seo atá ag dúl do na hoispidéil a chur ar leith dóibh siúd. Maran feidir é seo do dhéanamh faoi'n mBille seo, geallaim-se go dtabharfa mé féin Bille isteach le seo do dhéanamh.

Sean T. O Ceallaigh: An bhfuil an Teachta in ordú an cheist seo do phlé ar an mBille seo?

Seosamh O Mongáin: Gach rud adubhairt mé sa Tigh seo ar son na [2192] mbocht bhí sé as ordú do réir na barúla atá agaibh-se.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney: I agree with what has been said here, and I am afraid that the very existence of this discussion will have done a certain amount of harm to the hospitals sweepstakes. I am perfectly satisfied that if this amendment were carried, very material damage indeed would be done to the hospitals sweeps. I am opposed to this amendment on several grounds. I am opposed to it in the first place because I do not think it will have the desired result. I am opposed to it because I think it would defeat its own ends. To again use that very old expression, if it did not kill the goose that was laying the golden egg, it would certainly reduce the rations of that goose, so that it would lay in the future an egg of a very diminished size.

You have got the experts and the hospitals themselves, and they agree with what is being given at present. They are satisfied with the present proportion, but you want to force upon them something more than they have, and more than they themselves think it wise to ask. There is another thing—I would like to put it from another point of view, and it is this: you talk about people who buy tickets in these sweepstakes, and you talk about them rather with contempt. In the course of the discussion here, it was said that they were persons simply inspired by gambling motives, and that we should do nothing to help gambling by giving them all those prizes. That is exactly what you are doing in this Bill. These sweepstakes have been accepted in principle by the Dáil, and you have made an appeal to the gambling instincts of the people. That is what you are doing, and the question at issue is this: shall you give them a fair or an unfair gamble? I did not follow Deputy Little's arithmetic at all. He seemed to think that 7 per cent. would mean £30,000—seven per cent. of the total receipts. I think the question at issue for our sweep would be nearer a quarter of a million than £30,000.

[2193] Mr. Little: I simply took the figures that had been mentioned as prize money i