asked the Minister for the Environment whether he intends providing grant aid from national lottery moneys to those organisations which had been sanctioned for Exchequer grants in 1987 and from which he withdrew the sanctions.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Amenity Grant Allocations.
45.
In making this year's amenity grant allocations, I found it possible to assist ten projects for which grants allocated by the previous Administration in 1987 had been withdrawn.
Could the Minister explain or justify some grants under the existing round of allocations? For example, grants to organisations which are carrying out substantial work in conjunction with young people were withdrawn by him early in 1987 and have not been renewed since that time. Can he explain the basis on which he arrived at some of the conclusions which he reached in relation to this year's round of allocations?
Yes, I can. I take it the Deputy is aware I gave grants to ten of those projects from which grants had been withdrawn previously. It is to be hoped that there will be another occasion as well. Who is to know? I had to take cognisance of the criteria, such as desirability of the project. I was very concerned about that. I had also to consider the cost-effectiveness of the project being submitted for support and was very anxious about the number of jobs that each individual project might create. I was particularly anxious that the available funds would be distributed on an equitable basis throughout the whole country. The requirement in money to meet the more than 2,000 applications received would have come to £61 million approximately. I had £6 million and it was impossible to accommodate everybody. I know many people were disappointed and I can understand that. However, the more than 500 applications that were successful in regard to big and small grants I am sure are a source of great pleasure in the way they were allocated. When there are over 2,000 applications and all you can accept are 500, there will have to be disappointments. It is not as if the lottery funds were terminating; there will be another occasion. These projects have not been discarded. As proof of that fact, some of those that had been given allocations under a previous Administration have found their way onto the list for funding this year.
In view of that fact, credence is given to a statement which I made previously that those previous grants have been properly made to bona fide organisations that have submitted proper details. The Minister has accepted that in relation to a number of them, but not in relation to certain organisations. In particular, I am thinking about an organisation, a rugby club in my own area, which provides considerable assistance to over 200 young people under 18 years of age. They have been deprived of a grant which was allocated to them early in 1987, and refused a grant again during this year. How can the Minister justify removing a grant allocated to an organisation designed to help young people while grant aiding organisations such as golf clubs?
The Deputy will know that the amount of money available to me last year was a reduced provision of £4 million. How could I give out £10 million for the work with only £4 million available to me? I had to withdraw the grants and then when the money became available from the £6 million lottery funds at this time I had another look at these projects. They were not discarded or thrown aside just because it was the Deputy or anyone else who had put them up originally. Ten of these projects have received an allocation. I have sympathy for those who could not be accommodated this time. Let us take, for example, the case of St. Bridget's GAA clubhouse to which the Deputy allocated £35,000. I thought they could not get by on that amount and increased it to £50,000 this year. I would have thought that the Deputy would have been much more supportive of their requirements. The applications of those who could not be accommodated this year are still in good standing and will be considered if and when further funding becomes available. More than that I cannot do.
A final question from Deputy Boland.
I am reluctant to ask this question, but feel bound to. I cannot understand, and perhaps the Minister can explain, why it is that an organisation helping several hundred young people, the Skerries Rugby Football Club, and an organisation helping approximately 100 young people, the Skerries Sea Scouts, should have had grants withdrawn from them and are not being grant aided in this round. Is there any significance in the fact that both of those organisations happen to be based in the town in which I live?
There is no significance whatsoever. I would have to put it to the Deputy that I have the same sympathy——
It seems very difficult to reconcile that with grants given to golf clubs.
I have the same sympathy for the more than 1,600 applications in respect of which I could not allocate any money as I have for those from the Deputy's home town. I make no secret about that. I will ask the Deputy to bear in mind that it was extremely important, seeing that the allocation was being made from surplus lottery funds, that these be distributed in an equitable way over the whole country. I did that and it was appreciated by everybody. I am not so sure the Deputy was as conscious of that kind of equity when he had the opportunity to divide the money available to him, seeing that 13 counties got nothing at all.
The next question, please. We cannot remain unduly long on any of these priority questions.
The Minister will be aware that the mandate which I had was different from the one that he has, in that my instructions were to see a proportion of something in the ratio of 3 or 4:1 of the Exchequer moneys available allocated to areas of high population density. The minority was to be allocated to rural areas and that is the reason for the allocation being based as it was. I must ask the Minister to look carefully at the organisations which remain non-grant aided from that initial allocation of 1987. I am sorry to have to say that a disproportionate amount would seem to be based in areas contiguous to where I reside.
This question has taken up an unfair share of the time allocated to priority questions. Let us have a reply to Question No. 46.
Just a quick reply to the Deputy. I have allocated money to ten projects of the kind that the Deputy is talking about, from which allocations had been withdrawn. If the Deputy had stretched his imagination a little further when he was making the allocations, he might have considered at least one project in the 13 counties that he left without anything at all.