Supplementary Estimates 1988. - Irish Sailors and Soldiers Land Trust Bill, 1988: Second Stage. – Dáil Éireann (25th Dáil) – Wednesday, 9 Nov 1988

Supplementary Estimates 1988. - Irish Sailors and Soldiers Land Trust Bill, 1988: Second Stage.

Minister for Energy and Minister for Communications (Mr. R. Burke)

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

The Irish Sailors and Soldiers Land Trust was established after the First World War to provide houses for Irish ex-servicemen who had fought in that war. Over 2,000 trust houses were built throughout Ireland at the time. The trust was formally established under section 3 of the Irish Free State (Consequential Provisions) Act, 1922 but this section did not come into operation until the passage, the following year, of legislation to enable the trust to acquire and hold land in the State and to facilitate the transfer to the trust of houses already built.

The trust comprises five members, one of whom is appointed by the Taoiseach. The others are appointed by the British Government. Lord Killanin has been the Government nominee on the trust since 1955.

Over the past 60 years, the number of beneficiaries of the trust has declined and there are fewer than 100 trust tenants throughout Ireland now, most of them in Northern Ireland. With the consequent sale of property, the trust accumulated surplus funds. These funds are held in London where the administrative headquarters of the trust are located. In 1983, the trustees formulated proposals for the disposal of their surplus funds and put these to the Irish and British Governments. The proposals formed the basis for subsequent discussions and agreement was reached in 1986 for the repayment of the surplus funds in the ratio of 68 per cent to the British Government and 32 per cent to the Irish Government. These percentages were based on the original contributions whether in money or in kind of the two Governments.

I would like to take this opportunity to record the Government's grateful appreciation to Lord Killanin for his efforts as a trustee to bring about a settlement of this issue. It was largely through his work that agreement was reached.

The settlement was regarded by all concerned as satisfactory and equitable and its terms were incorporated in legislation passed by the British Parliament in 1987. As well as providing for the distribution of the surplus funds of the trust, the British legislation enables the trust to be wound up in due course.

Following the enactment of the British legislation it is necessary to pass legislation here to facilitate the acceptance and disposal of the trust funds and to enable our legislation in this area to be repealed in due course. This Bill will achieve these purposes. It is, as the House will see, a very short measure with just five sections. The rights of existing trust tenants will not be affected by the Bill.

Sections 2 and 3 are the main sections. In section 2, there is provision for the acceptance by the Minister for Finance of any money payable to the Irish Government from the trust. The sum of £1.6 million was in fact paid over by the trust last January and this was lodged at the Exchequer. A further sum of £747,000 has recently been paid to the Government. As the trust was anxious to pay over these funds as quickly as possible, it was considered sensible to accept them in anticipation of this legislation and legal advice concurred with this view. It is expected that over the next few years, there will be further payments — of a smaller nature — by the trust as it continues to accumulate surplus funds.

The Department of the Taoiseach have had a close involvement with the affairs of the trust down through the years and the Taoiseach has the function of appointing the Irish Government's representative to the trust. During discussions with the British Government which led up to the agreement on the repayment of the surplus funds, there was an understanding that the Irish Government would endeavour to use their share for North-South or Anglo-Irish co-operation or for projects with an all-Ireland dimension. Section 2 also provides for the disposal of the money paid into the Exchequer. The Taoiseach has already announced the Government's intention, subject to the passing of this legislation, to allocate a portion of the funds received to the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, to enable it to purchase a relief lifeboat and expand its search and rescue facilities on the west and north west coast. As the Taoiseach said at the time, the Government are confident that there will be widespread approval in the House for this proposal. The RNLI is organised on an all-Ireland basis and is seemed to the Government to be a very appropriate recipient of funds from a trust which has been concerned with the welfare of sailors and soldiers.

Consideration is also being given to a number of co-operation projects in the educational, cultural and social field. The British Government, in accordance with their legislation, are allocating 40 per cent of their portion of the trust funds for the support of ex-servicemen's charities North and South. The balance of the British Government's share will be lodged to their Exchequer. A sum of £750,000 has already been provided in the Estimates this year to assist the type of project I have mentioned. Pending decisions on the terms of the legislation and as a contingency arrangement, a new subhead for the trust funds was opened in the Vote for the Department of Foreign Affairs at the beginning of the year. This subhead contains the provision of £750,00 and it will be necessary, in consequence of the provisions of the Bill, to transfer this to a new subhead in the Vote for the Taoiseach's Department, by way of Supplementary Estimate. This will be moved at the conclusion of the debate on this Bill. I expect that the funds from the trust will be allocated over a three to four year period and the provision will cease once the funds paid by the trust have been drawn down.

The British legislation provides that the trust can be dissolved by order of the Foreign Secretary. Section 3 of the Bill will enable trust legislation applicable in our jurisdiction to be repealed following the dissolution of the trust. It is unlikely that this will happen for some time yet and, in the interim, the trust will ensure the rights of existing tenants. At the winding up stage also there will be a further repayment of funds to both Governments but it is not possible to quantify this at present.

The other provisions of the Bill are the standard ones relating to expenses, etc. and do not call for specific comment. I recommend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Connaughton

At the outset let me say that the Bill as presented is non-contentious in the sense that the trust has outlived its usefulness and the original objectives cannot be pursued any further. Let me give some of the history of the trust. It was established after the First World War to provide houses for Irish ex-servicemen were scattered throughout the Republic, Northern Ireland and England. As the Minister pointed out, the trust was controlled by both the Irish and British Governments. I, too, would like to pay tribute to Lord Killanin who, I understand, has been a member of the trust for the best part of 40 years. I understand that his performance during the negotiations on the allocation of the surplus funds of the trust was sparkling, to say the least, and that, because of his negotiating skills, he ensured we got our due share. Incidentally, I received half only of the memorandum accompanying this Bill from the Whips' office. It did not indicate who were the main beneficiaries or to what purpose the money was to be put. It was said it would go to the Taoiseach's office which was the agreement reached at the time.

There are a number of questions I should like to pose to the Minister today. I should say that the main beneficiaries, the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, is a very fine organisation. One would hope that the vast bulk of the funds representing our contribution — £2.3 million — would be given to that institution. Obviously what was uppermost in every-body's mind, indeed even a suspicion, was that the £2.3 million would be directed to the Taoiseach's office and would not be earmarked for a specific purpose. I want to place on the record of the House that I would not want the funds about which we speak under the Irish Sailors and Soldiers Land Trust to have any connection whatsoever with the national lottery. I want to make that abundantly clear.

A number of questions arise with regard to the winding down of the trust and where the moneys will go thereafter. When replying, the Minister might state the exact amount of money that will be received by the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, how they will receive such funds and the timescale proposed. This is timely particularly in the conditions prevailing along our north and west coasts. Indeed, it arises at a time when my party are devoting much time and effort to the question of air and sea rescue through the relocation of Air Corps Dauphin helicoptors along our west coast. There is no doubt that that huge coastal area warrants much more investment than can be provided by this trust fund. I should be grateful if the Minister would let me know exactly how much money is being earmarked.

I understand that there are approximately 100 houses — according to the information available to me — remaining at present. Obviously their tenants will be very old or they will be members of their families who inhabit them. Is it proposed to allow those tenants or their families to purchase those houses? If so would the Minister say how that will square up with the winding down of the trust? The trust had a large financial commitment. I understand that, when it began, something over 1,000 houses were involved which means that we are talking about several millions of pounds.

There are two other aspects I should like to mention in passing. I note that there has been talk about consideration being given to a number of co-operation projects in the educational, cultural and social fields. I should be grateful if the Minister would outline for the House exactly what is in mind in that respect. For example, has such co-operation being negotiated with the other partners? Furthermore, would he say who will be the beneficiaries at the end of the day. It is not often that we have excess funds available. It would be our hope that they would be put to the best possible use.

Because this trust pertains to ex-soldiers and sailors, I should have thought that part of its funds could have been made available to help our hard pressed Army vis-à-vis their housing needs. Perhaps the Minister would take that cause on board. It should be remembered that certain sections of our Defence Forces live in terribly poor housing conditions. I should have hoped that part of these funds could have been siphoned off and made available for that purpose. It is non-contentious if I can be convinced that the major portion of the funds available will be earmarked for the Royal National Lifeboat Institution. I hazard a guess that very few people would quibble with that allocation. However, perhaps the Minister would say whether they have received any funds already and what it is proposed to do with the remainder of the funds. Furthermore, he might explain to the House those matters pertaining to the co-operation projects, informing the House whether he can take on board what might be described as a mini-windfall, informing us whether he could do so even as a gesture of goodwill by way of helping our Defence Forces in their deplorable housing conditions.

Mr. D. O'Malley

I welcome the Bill so far as its provisions go but I want to make some comments on it. If one compares the Bill before us with the British Bill passed in Westminster last year, we find that the British Act is much longer and more specific. This is very short, the nub of which is contained in section 2 which says:

The Minister for Finance may accept on behalf of the Government any money payable to the Government from the Trust pursuant to an Act of the British Parliament entitled the Irish Sailors and Soldiers Land Trust Act 1987 and any such money accepted by him shall be paid into the Exchequer and shall be disposed of in such manner as the Taoiseach, with the consent of the Minister of Finance, directs.

Curiously it says:

...and shall be disposed of in such manner as the Taoiseach, with the consent of the Minister of Finance, directs.

When I read the Bill this struck me as unusual to say the least. It warrants some explanation as to why the normal procedures are not followed here; that the Taoiseach, not in a personal capacity, obviously in his capacity as Taoiseach but as an individual should distribute the funds. I was immediately put in mind of the national lottery funds, that this represented merely a more high class form of distribution, that this would be done by a Taoiseach from his office in Merrion Street; it would not be reduced to the unseemly scenes we have witnessed in west County Limerick or in some other parts of the country. It struck me as odd. The Bill should spell out exactly what will happen or at least it should be put here irrevocably on the record of the House exactly what will happen. In my opinion it is entirely unsatisfactory to leave it as vague as it is here and just say that the funds shall be distributed as the Taoiseach may direct. There is nothing binding him to distribute them to any particular cause, object, charity or anything else. He would have total legal discretion to give them to anyone, any body that he wished, if this Bill is passed in its present form.

I thoroughly approve the statement of the Minister for Energy and for Communications today, that it is proposed to give the bulk of these funds to the Royal National Lifeboat Institution. I fully approve of that but we should be told exactly how much they will get out of the £2.3 million that has come to hand so far, which is at the disposal of our Exchequer, what will happen to the remainder of the funds and to any further funds that may come here.

In this context it is worth referring to part of a speech made by Lord Killanin in the House of Lords in London on 28 April 1987 when the British Bill was being considered by that House. With your permission, Sir, I should like to quote a paragraph of what he said from columns 1431 and 1432 of the Lords Hansard of the day as follows:

Yesterday I saw the new Taoiseach and took a note. Mr. Haughey promised me, as indeed did Dr. FitzGerald whom I had seen previously, that first of all the money would not be snapped up and put into the Treasury. It would be spent wisely. He even suggested that he would consult me as to how it should be spent. I told him that I was not very keen on that. I would probably want, as in my Olympic days, to go exdirectory because the telephone would be ringing to such an extent. I have no doubt at all from speaking to him — and I wrote it down — that the money will not be snapped up centrally. It will be used for social, cultural, recreational and other purposes. It will be used for the best but it will not be used politically or to go into the central Treasury, whatever the finances of the country may require.

Notwithstanding the assurances given to Lord Killanin, written down twice on his own statement in the Lords, the money has gone into the central treasury and perhaps only some of it may be paid out for some purpose which is not specified in the legislation. The British Act specifies exactly what goes where and to whom; it specifies that the Exchequer in Britain is to get part of it, that the British Legion are to get the remainder and that they are to expend it for the benefit of ex-servicemen on the island of Ireland, which they now have a statutory obligation to do. Therefore, we need much more specific information on what will happen than has been given here today. We are all perhaps more sensitive and more conscious of this nowadays than we might have been in pre-lottery days. You cannot help comparing this with the national lottery. These are funds which, fortuitously, have come into the hands of the Government, they are not taxes or revenue raised in the ordinary way and they should be applied, as best one can, in accordance with the charitable legal doctrine of what is called cy-près. In other words they should be applied for an objective that is as close as is reasonable in present circumstances to their original objective. The application of these funds, cy-près, would, I would have thought in this country, be the expenditure of the funds on ex-servicemen, Irish and British and indeed American or other armies, the ex-servicemen of which may be living here in retirement, perhaps in poor circumstances.

It is interesting that in the House of Lords' debate Lord Denning who, in his day, was one of the leading judges in common law was also anxious that a cyprès scheme should be utilised to the greatest possible extent. That is the normal way of applying charitable funds of this nature. I do not think that the Royal National Lifeboat Institution is so far removed from that that they would be ineligible. It is an excellent proposal but I should like to know exactly how much will go to them and what the balance — which will probably be quite considerable — will be expended on.

The Supplementary Estimate which has been circulated this morning and which is taken in conjunction with this is, unfortunately, not very informative. Apparently there was provision in subhead J of the Foreign Affairs Vote 40 to expend £750,000 on what is described as the Irish Sailors and Soldiers Land Trust and it is simply taking it out of that and putting it into the Taoiseach's Vote. However, it is simply putting it in under the heading Irish Sailors and Soldiers Land Trust and it does not say what it will be spent on. Normally, when some body or other objective is named in a subhead, that is the body to whom the money is paid but I cannot see how this money can be paid to the Irish Sailors and Soldiers Land Trust when the land trust is being wound up and when the purpose of this Bill is to facilitate its winding up and dissolution. Therefore, to say that you will pay the money to the trust from which you got the money seems to be somewhat contradictory and does not make sense. It underlines my sense of unease about what should happen. It is in this Supplementary Estimate that the particular purpose for which the money will be expended should be specified and I would have thought that the Royal National Lifeboat Institution and other bodies should have been specified instead of simply putting down the name of the body from whom the money was received rather than the body to whom it should be paid. I will be interested to hear the Minister's reply to these matters and, depending on the nature of the reply, I will obviously consider then whether to put down an amendment to cover the points I made, particularly in relation to section 2 which is the kernel of the Bill. It should be more specific and not left open in the rather vague way in which it is at present.

Mr. Quinn

I welcome this legislation which is timely and right. In so doing, the House should take the opportunity of recognising and paying tribute to the people who were originally the beneficiaries of this trust. They are all too often forgotten by society, especially by the present party in office.

Literally thousands of Irish people, from the manse to the gatelodge, fought in the First and Second World Wars on our behalf. One cannot go into a Church of Ireland anywhere in the country without seeing a testimony to the deaths and the sacrifice made by that generation in two world wars. This trust was set up as a joint effort by both Governments and it became the responsibility of both of them to administer it for the wounded and the dependants of the people injured or killed in those two struggles. Those struggles were carried on on our behalf. I know that some history books attempt to deny it but the reality is quite different, and if we were to recognise and celebrate the differences that divide people on this island the differences might be reduced, if not eliminated.

In passing this legislation, it would be inappropriate, if not dishonourable, not to recognise the contribution made by those who died and the continued dependency in some respects of people who have suffered — and who still suffer — from their disabilities as a result of their participation in the Second World War. I presume that most of the combatants of the First World War are now, sadly, deceased. The Labour Party appreciate Lord Killanin's contribution over the years in relation to this matter. I am aware of this because there are some properties in Sandymount built as a result of this trust. I now want to move to the point of concern which is the focus of our attention today, the proposed disbursal of the moneys. I calculate that something in the order of £2.3 million has already been received by the Exchequer and there is a possibility of something in the order of £300,000 to £400,000 being due over the next couple of years.

In total we are talking of the order of £3 million but specifically about a figure of £2.3 million. I warmly support, on behalf of the Labour Party, the decision to allocate this money to the Royal National Lifeboat Institution. I understand that this recommendation was made by the previous Taoiseach, Deputy FitzGerald. I concur with Deputy O'Malley that it is a most worthy institution to receive the money and it is symbolic and representative of the kind of organisation that should be the recipient of this money.

I note in the text of the Minister's rather brief speech — these matters are carefully written, rewritten and proofread before they become ministerial speeches — the following sentence: "The Taoiseach has already announced the Government's intention, subject to the passing of this legislation, to allocate a portion of the funds received to the Royal National Lifeboat Institution." I would be much happier with a phrase that would say: "The Taoiseach has already announced the Government's decision." If a decision has been made and if it is recorded in a Cabinet meeting then I would be happy to be so assured by the Minister. Intentions, as we all too well know, can be changed. Therefore, like Deputy O'Malley and other speakers, I would ask the Minister in his Second Stage reply to avail of the opportunity to confirm that it is a decision subject to legislation and that the sum of money is £1.1 million. I have information to that effect and that it is for purposes set out in the Minister's speech.

The second point of concern is this shifting around with subheads from the Department of Foreign Affairs to the Department of the Taoiseach. No satisfactory explanation for this has been given by the Minister in his brief opening speech. Since at some stage clearly the decision was implicit in the fact that a subhead was opened in the Foreign Affairs Estimates to allocate moneys to the Department of Foreign Affairs for disbursal to organisations that would qualify, organisations of an Anglo-Irish, cross-Border, North-South dimension, with a suitable linkage presumably for purposes that would pick up some of the echoes of the original intention of the trust, I cannot understand why that subhead was opened in the first instance in the Department of Foreign Affairs and why it is now being transferred to the Department of the Taoiseach.

Quite frankly, the Taoiseach's Department, with the present incumbent, has opened up a parallel arts fund, overturning decisions and becoming a court of appeal in some cases for disappointed suitors who apply to the Arts Council for funds in the first place. If they do not get the funds in Merrion Square perhaps they might get them in Merrion Street. All the complications and rivalries do no good to anybody. That has been the experience. It is something that has happened in the last two years. We are not speculating about the possibilities or the probabilities. We are talking about things that have been experienced in our society which, for these purposes, is a very small society indeed.

Therefore, the idea that the Taoiseach would have moneys transferred to his Department without any clear indication as to what they might be spent upon, having regard to the Fianna Fáil Party's reluctance over many years to recognise or pay tribute to many of the North-South dimensions of our society, makes me nervous. That nervousness is shared by the Labour Party in its entirety — we discussed this matter at our parliamentary party meeting this morning before I came into the House. Unless we get a satisfactory indication from the Minister, clearly putting on record the types of bodies and the organisations to whom this money will be allocated, we will have to consider our position in relation to any amendments that will be put down on Committee Stage.

The last thing I would like to say — I do not wish to delay the time of the House because other speakers are offering — is to propose to the Taoiseach and to the Minister present that one thing that should be done, one thing that is sadly missing, is that a comprehensive and clear explanatory documentation, panel or some form of permanent information be erected and installed in the context of the war memorial at Islandbridge that was designed by Sir Edwin Lutyens. It is one of the great scandals of our society that that monument was left semi-derelict for years. Happily, it has been restored in recent years but yet many of the children and young families who go through that park during their leisure time have not the slightest idea for what purposes the memorial was erected or the extent to which hundreds, if not thousands of Dubliners, let alone people from the rest of the country, fought in the First and Second World Wars. It would be appropriate and totally within the spirit of this legislation, and indeed the trust which was originally set up and which we are now proposing to dissolve, that some suitably designed and annotated document or communication be provided to inform the people, and future generations of people, what took place and why the city saw fit to erect a memorial and to get at that time the services of perhaps the greatest living British architect in the world to design it. It would be a permanent explanation that would enable us to pay proper respect and gratitude to a generation of people who gave their lives and suffered for us. On that point I will conclude and I would remind the Minister that we will be looking for specific information in this regard in his reply.

Tomás Mac Giolla

First, I thank the Whips for the appropriateness of the time at which this Bill is introduced, just before Remembrance Day. Previous speakers have referred to the major defect in the Minister's proposals in the Bill and in his speech which is that the major proportion of the money from this trust fund is going into the huge maw of the Exchequer to be handed out by the Taoiseach, or the appropriate Minister, at his will, moneys which do not belong to the Taoiseach, the Minister or the Government. The Taoiseach has already graciously announced how he is going to allocate the money. It is his intention to give a certain undisclosed amount to the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, a very deserving cause, to assist them in purchasing a further lifeboat and providing better facilities. There is no indication of how much will be allocated. It seems that the Taoiseach is deciding how he will disburse these funds and that is the big weakness that has been pointed out by everybody. The Taoiseach has no more right to decide in advance how these funds will be distributed than he has to decide how the lottery funds will be distributed.

The British Government have made a very clear decision on what they are going to do but I totally disagree with it. They set out that 40 per cent will go to support ex-servicemen's charities, North and South, and 60 per cent will go to the Exchequer. I would totally oppose that if I was arguing the case on the British side. They have made a clear decision in regard to 40 per cent of their funds. Everyone will know where 40 per cent of their funds are going because it is set down in a Bill in advance in the House of Parliament etc., that 40 per cent will go to support ex-servicemen's charities North and South.

We have nothing like that here. There is nothing in the Bill to tell us how much money there is at all. We learn nothing from that. The Minister's speech tells us that £1.6 million was paid into the Exchequer last January already and £747,000 was paid in just recently. That is a total of £2,347,000 paid over to the Exchequer already. Further payments of a smaller nature will be coming over the next few years. Now we know a very substantial £2.347 million is to be disbursed but the Minister gives no indication either percentagewise or in actual terms how much money is being given to anybody, how much is to remain in the Exchequer or how much is to be distributed in any way whatsoever except at the discretion of the Taoiseach through the appropriate Minister. We have certainly almost returned to the monarchist system in this so-called republic of ours.

A sum of £750,000 has been set aside in the Estimates this year, we are told by the Minister. That is from taxpayers' money or wherever. It does not say £750,000 of this money or any such thing, but £750,000 has been set aside in the Estimates this year to assist projects of this type; whatever "of this type" is we do not know. It is very important in discussing this Bill, particularly on Committee Stage, that we decide where we feel the money should go and how much of it. Everyone would agree absolutely that the Royal National Lifeboat Institution is an excellent area for allocation of funds. How much? One third? A half? A million pounds is nothing for buying boats, modern technological equipment, facilities etc. for rescue services. How much?

Then we come to the remainder. Nobody has mentioned our ex-servicemen here. Our ex-servicemen through the Organisation of National Ex-Servicemen have been pressing the case for assistance for housing for ex-servicemen. They have pointed out in the past year or 18 months that former soldiers, ex-servicemen of the Irish Army, are found sleeping rough on the streets and that one was found dead on the street. They have asked for assistance in establishing a hostel or some type of accommodation for soldiers who after 21 years' service or whatever, totally institutionalised, unable to cope with society, need assistance in housing but there is nothing for them. It would be appropriate, and we are putting down an amendment on Committee Stage to this effect, that funds be allocated for assistance to ex-servicemen and servicemen in their own housing. This is a trust fund for housing, specifically housing for soldiers and sailors, housing for both ex-servicemen and soldiers in service, whose accommodation in some cases is absolutely appalling, and that is coming to light only now through this organisation of spouses who are bringing matters such as pay, conditions and accommodation to light. Accommodation for soldiers and ex-soldiers should be assisted out of this fund.

Therefore, while agreeing with the intention of the Taoiseach as disclosed in the Minister's speech with regard to the RNLI, I feel we need to decide what is to be done with the remainder of the fund, but the important thing we are discussing is this Bill. This Bill says nothing about the RNLI. This Bill simply means "Give it to the Minister and we will decide how we will allocate it the same as we decide how the lottery funds will be allocated". That is totally unacceptable. We must make a decision in this Bill to direct the Government how to allocate these funds. That is the issue we must face on Committee Stage.

Dr. G. FitzGerald

I would like at the outset to join in the tributes paid to Lord Killanin in connection with this matter, a man who for 40 years has been a trustee of this fund. When the question of its being wound up arose he undertook on his own initiative efforts to ensure that the money would not accrue to the British Exchequer solely but that there would be distribution beneficial to this State as well as to Britain. The negotiations he undertook were difficult, and the British Treasury are no different from the Department of Finance in their concern to lay their hands on any money available. It was not easy to secure an arrangement under which a large part of the money will go to purposes other than accruing simply to the Exchequer in the UK, and we owe a great debt to him for the manner in which he negotiated this matter. As a result a significant proportion, 32 per cent, of the funds are accruing to us in this State.

I would like to echo what Deputy Quinn has said about the ex-servicemen for whom the benefit of this trust was originally initiated. We are inclined to forget that 130,000 Irishmen fought in the First World War and 49,000 died. We are also very much inclined to forget that in the Second World War over 80,000 Irishmen fought of whom the majority came from this State, 43,000, with 38,000 from Northern Ireland. Because myths have grown up around that period, myths that happened to suit both the British and Irish Governments, there is a tendency to ignore the reality of what happened at that time. I do not want to dwell on this particularly now, but it has some relevance because the Government of the day under Deputy de Valera interpreted neutrality in a particular way which favoured Britian consistently in accordance with what he had told the German Minister at the eve of the outbreak of war. He said consideration would be shown to Britain, and that consideration included taking no steps to discourage recruitment to the British Army at the time to assist in the allied victory which in the Irish Army. Many other acts were taken secretly by the Government at that time to assist in the Allied victory which were never talked about either then or afterwards, as it suited Deputy de Valera to give an impression of great neutrality and it suited Mr. Churchill to concur in that myth.

In any event, the fund derives from those events, and the fund related to 210,000 Irishmen who served in the two wars. However, a number of questions arise in relation to the distribution of the funds. When I discussed this with Lord Killanin when he told me first that the opportunity existed to secure some of the funds for this country, we agreed that they should be put to the purposes which have been mentioned in general terms in the Minister's speech, that is, they would be used for the benefit of North-South Anglo-Irish co-operation or projects of an all-Ireland dimension, and in that context I suggested the RNLI as something which served the whole of the island. Lord Killanin easily concurred with that suggestion.

I am happy to say there are many such institutions still today. I mentioned another institution, the Royal Irish Academy, which also is an all-Ireland institution, and indicated I thought that was also suitable for the allocation of part of the funds. Let us hope the present Government will consider that when allocating the funds. I am glad the commitment I entered into as to the purpose for which the funds would be used is being maintained by the Government. I would prefer if the wording were a little stronger and, instead of saying the Government would endeavour to do their share for these purposes, that the Minister would say they would use their share for these purposes. There are some curious points that have been raised and which need to be clarified further.

Mr. Kelly

Collectors' items.

Dr. G. FitzGerald

First, it was made quite clear, as Deputy O'Malley has pointed out, by Lord Killanin in the House of Lords that what the present Taoiseach had said to him was that the money would not in fact be snapped up and put into the treasury. I, indeed, used similar, if not identical, words to that effect. I do not understand therefore, in view of the assurances given by two Taoisigh in this matter, how it is that the Bill provides that the money be paid into the Exchequer. The Minister would need to clarify that. It may be necessary to have an amendment to change that and to provide that the money be used in accordance with the arrangements which both myself and my successor agreed with Lord Killanin.

Second, I am as puzzled as other Deputies are by the provision that it should be disposed of in such manner as the Taoiseach directs. There exists in the Department of Foreign Affairs funds for the benefit of Anglo-Irish co-operation and funds for the benefit of North-South co-operation. Certainly when I envisaged this money being put to these purposes it did not occur to me to set up a rival fund for the same purpose in my Department. It is the kind of duplication which I did my best to avoid if possible, and I am very glad that the decision was taken initially that that money should go to the Department of Foreign Affairs. I do not understand why it is being diverted back. There is a fund there; there is a subhead in the Vote for this purpose and it is inexplicable that we would want to have rival projects assisting North-South or Anglo-Irish co-operation. I cannot imagine why anybody would want to do that. At least I cannot imagine any good reason for doing that.

I am well aware of the tendency of Departments to want to run things themselves and a certain rivalry exists between Departments. Indeed a certain rivalry has always existed between the Taoiseach's Department and the Department of Foreign Affairs as I know from my own experience of both Departments, but it is carrying it rather far if the Department of the Taoiseach wishes to set up in competition with the Department of Foreign Affairs in distributing funds for these purposes. This can only be harmful because these allocations need to be made in a co-ordinated way. If there are two Departments distributing money for the same purpose one is almost bound to have duplication and gaps. In some cases money will be provided through two channels for the same purpose and in other cases, for a good purpose, nothing will be provided. There is no justification for that. An amendment is required here to provide that the money shall be disposed of in such way as the Minister for Foreign Affairs, instead of the Minister for Finance, directs. That is something we should look at.

We should also endeavour to put into the Bill a provision to cover the commitment entered into by myself and my successor and referred to in the Minister's speech. The exact wording of this is something to be considered but it should be provided at the end of section 2 that the objects to which it is applied shall be related to the island of Ireland as a whole or to co-operation between the State and Northern Ireland or the State and Great Britain. Something like that would give effect to the intentions I had and my successor has also. As it stands at present there is no commitment other than a ministerial speech that the Department will endeavour to use its share for those purposes which is really not what was understood and not indeed what the British Parliament was assured in relation to this matter by Lord Killanin following his discussions with myself and my successor. Some change is needed there.

I am as mystified as Deputy O'Malley or Deputy Quinn were about the Supplementary Estimate providing for money to be given to the Irish Sailors and Soldiers Land Trust. As I understand it, the Estimate says what the money is for, where it is to go. That is where it has come from. Is it seriously intended to channel it back into that trust for that trust to distribute it rather than the Royal National Lifeboat Institution. If the trust is to do it what have the Taoiseach and the Minister for Finance got to do with it in the Bill? I cannot make sense of the Bill and the Supplementary Estimate together. There may be some technical reason for this which is totally obscure to me. We would really need, before we decide on the Supplementary Estimate, to know what it means. Does it mean the money is to be paid, as it would appear on the surface of it, to this trust for which it is coming, and if so how does that mesh in with the provisions of the Act? We cannot simultaneously endorse the Second Reading of a Bill and the Supplementary Estimate to put the same money to quite different purposes that are, on the face of it, mutually contradictory. That may be something that can be reconciled. I will not dwell on it because the Minister may be able to clarify it; there may be some technical explanation for it. If there is not an explanation we would certainly need to consider the phraseology of the Supplementary Estimate.

These are some of the points that occurred to me in relation to a Bill which I very much welcome. I particularly welcome the clear intention as regards the purposes for which the money will be spent. We are not quarrelling about that. It is the manner in which the Bill and Supplementary Estimate fail to give effect to the stated intentions of the Minister in his speech that gives rise to concern. I think therefore that we should wait to hear the Minister's reply and, in the light of that, we can all consider what amendments to this legislation may be required in order that it may fulfill the intentions of those who originally were involved, the present Taoiseach, myself, my predecessor and Lord Killanin.

Mr. Kelly

I do not want to hold the House up with any observations about the main purposes of the Bill, which is to regularise the position in regard to the fund arising from the long history of shared responsibility for Irish sailors and soldiers in the First World War.

I want to raise simply a couple of points which represent my feelings about the way this Bill seems to be joining a trend in the way this country is governed. I notice that the Bill has in section 5 the following sentence:

"This may be cited as the Irish Sailors and Soldiers Land Trust Act, 1988".

I suggest there ought to be a further subsection there saying that this Act shall be cited, together with the National Lottery Act, as the windfall Acts because we are not developing a situation where we have finance on two levels in this State.

That would not matter so much were it not for what the party opposite might see as the trifling fact that the Constitution does not countenance running the State finances in that fashion. Second, it appears to create two tiers of recipients, two tiers of beneficiary for the disbursement of State funds.

I must point to the lottery without getting away from the subject of this Bill. I want to observe that quite a number of the large range of objectives under that scheme, not perhaps golf clubs and tennis clubs — we have come a long way since the days when it was thought impossible that they should require a public subsidy — are objectives which once upon a time were provided for out of general taxation; in other words, they had to queue up and fight for their place at the Cabinet table the same as every other single thing. I am all in favour of trying to give a leg up to things which have been cinderellas in the past, like cultural activities and both Departments of the National Museum which have been scandalously neglected for so long that they should be given a leg up, but that should be done by the Government in the discharge of its collective responsibility, and those objects, and ones like them, should not be downgraded to a second tier where they can be administered without any direct responsibility, item by item, to this House by a Minister.

I am leaving aside all allegations about political intentions or political slush funding. I am not making any such allegation. Even if the thing were quite free of that, even if there was no such thing as a suspicious pattern emerging in where those parcels of manna fall as between Minister's constituencies and others, even if that were not in the picture, I would still object to the principle whereby certain objectives, once upon a time funded from general taxation, out of the general fund, now are demoted to a level which is expected to look to the lottery for sustenance or nowhere. That is an abdication of collective ministerial responsibility and it is taking a step backwards on the part of the Government from one of the principles, not perhaps explicit, on which our constitution, and the constitution of other States like it, is founded.

We now have an additional member of this club and that is why I suggested that they should be collectively cited as the windfall Acts. This sum of money does not go very far into the seven figures, between what arrived last year and what is arriving now — certainly, it is a very humble little fund by comparison with the national lottery — but it is not being fed into the national Exchequer in the way that other produce, other taxes, the sales of thinnings from State forests, fines or other miscellaneous State revenue is to be disposed of in the general pool after the Government have thrashed out which objective is more entitled to the money than another.

That is a pernicious principle, and it is doubly so when I see not only that the money, although going into the Central Fund as Article 11 of the Constitution requires, is going in with a label around its neck saying that that money, whatever about the rest of the money in the Central Fund, is not going to be at the free disposal of the Government in the construction of their budget for next year or in the construction of their Estimates. That money will be at the disposal of the Taoiseach. I hope that the Minister, Deputy Ray Burke, who knows that I am not one of the Taoiseach's admirers, will give me credit for not unfairly going out of my way to find faults where there is no reason for them. I hope he will believe that I would make that statement if I found that fault emerging under any Taoiseach. However, I have noticed that under this Taoiseach there is a tendency to gather things into his own hands. I am afraid I would have said that if I had noticed Deputy Garret FitzGerald behaving like that in his time as Taoiseach. Perhaps, I would not have said it in the Chamber with the same vigour but I would have said it in the party.

There is a certain Caligula factor, if I may call it that, at work here in our legislature and in the Executive Departments of our Government. More and more the Taoiseach is in the middle of the picture. He is ordering an inquiry into something which is not his business at all departmentally. He is, indeed, as the author of the principal text on this subject said, the captain of the ship and he must keep his finger on the pulse. It is perfectly ordinary, right and natural that he should be a leader to his own Ministers but it is not right and natural that he should step in over their heads and take up the departmental responsibilities which belong to them under the Constitution individually as members of a Government.

This relatively humble little fund is going into the Central Fund, as Article 11 requires, in a way that Article 11 does not envisage. It is going in tied up in a parcel with a ticket attached saying that the money, although it is resting on a shelf in the room marked "Central Fund", may not be disposed of in the same way that the rest of the money in the Central Fund is but is to be at the disposal of the Taoiseach, with the consent of the Minister for Finance. It is possible that if the Minister for Finance, whose imminent departure has stiffened his spine in the last 18 months to the point where he is getting admiration from this side of the House, was to stay put we would not see so much of this. Who imagines that Deputy Haughey's Minister for Finance, whoever he is, would withhold his consent for some objective which the Taoiseach had designated?

I should like to ask the House to bear with what I hope will not be thought a pedantry. I should like to direct the attention of the House to Article 17.2 of the Constitution which states:

Dáil Éireann shall not pass any vote or resolution, and no law shall be enacted, for the appropriation of revenue or other public moneys unless the purpose of the appropriation shall have been recommended to Dáil Éireann by a message from the Government signed by the Taoiseach.

The national lottery funds are not in the same category but this money is clearly, and unequivocally, going into the Central Fund because the Bill says so and Article 11 of the Constitution requires it. This morning we are engaged in enacting a law for the appropriation of that public money and the way we are appropriating it is that we are saying it should be place freely at the disposal of the Taoiseach, with the consent of the Minister for Finance. I accept that the general political intention to devote it to a worthy cause has been disclosed openly in the House and I have no quarrel with that but it might just as easily, so far as what we are doing is concerned, not have been disclosed. It is the principle underlying the mechanism which we are being required to operate this morning that I want to object to.

There is no message from the Government, signed by the Taoiseach, telling the Dáil in the form which Article 17 requires, what the purpose of the appropriation is or where this money is going. It is perfectly true that this is not a very thoroughly explored part of the Constitution. It rarely comes under the notice of the courts and I may have misunderstood it. I do not want to be set up as an authority on an Article which has not been kicked around so much that people know exactly what it means. However, on the letter and spirit of the Constitution I must seriously object to the principle which we appear to be swallowing, for the second time, that quite substantial sums of money coming into the State's hands are not being disposed of in a normal manner whereby the House requires an account from the Minister concerned about the objectives. The mere fact that in this instance we have been told where it is intended to spend the money does not change the principle I have tried to underline.

Mr. Durkan

I welcome the fact that the fund is being regularised. The Government are enacting legislation to coincide with British legislation which will allow this fund to be brought under the control of an Irish Government. However, I am concerned that the fund is to be administered by the Department of the Taoiseach. Members will be aware of the debate that is taking place about the pay, conditions and allowances of the Defence Forces and surely it should have been possible to allocate those funds to those people. We all recognise that the housing conditions of many members of the Defence Forces are not up to standard. In fact, they are such that at local authority housing allocation meetings we must consider how many and how often we can accommodate those unfortunate people. It is a sad reflection on our society that we treat members of the Defence Forces in that fashion. It is sad to think that in the last week members of the Defence Forces resorted to the only constitutional means available to them to highlight their plight by submitting to the Houses of the Oireachtas their legitimate claim for an urgent review of their pay, conditions and allowances. That is a national disgrace and is tantamount to creating a security risk. The spouses of members of the Defence Forces have been forced to lobby Members outside the House of Parliament in an effort to highlight the need to review pay and conditions.

Last week the Minister did not give detailed replies to the many questions put to him about the pay, conditions and allowances of soldiers. He told us that it was not his intention to bring forward any interim arrangements pending the outcome of the review by the interdepartmental committee. The Minister said he did not intend to expedite that report. Bearing that in mind it is a sad reflection on Members of the House that we should allow that to continue. The logical way to dispose of the fund under discussion would be to allocate it to the Department of Defence. I have no doubt that the Minister could put it to good use. He would be able to improve the housing conditions and allowances of soldiers and eliminate the discontent that exists in the Defence Forces.

The Minister indicated in the House the other day that he was not aware of the low morale which exists in the Army. He indicated also that there appeared to be no urgency in the manner in which he should address that problem. However, I think there is, and the Minister should have this fund at his disposal. The fund, in so far as the money would go, should be used by the Minister to ensure that at least reasonable housing conditions would be available for our armed forces. A great opportunity will be lost if the Minister does not do this. I cannot understand why at this time the fund should be made available to the office of the Taoiseach for disposal at their discretion when the obvious Minister to deal with the fund would and should be the Minister for Defence.

While I welcome the proposal to regularise the situation and bring the matter within the control of this House, nonetheless an opportunity will be lost if the Minister for Defence has not first call on this small sum of money from the fund as it becomes available. It is a sad and sorry reflection on our society that the spouses of our Defence Forces should have had to suffer the indignity of having to come before us and lobby us like beggars so that they could have their grievances about pay and conditions and their legitimate demands aired in a realistic fashion. Naturally, they are entitled to a realistic response from the Government and the Minister had such an opportunity in this instance.

The most unfortunate circumstances surrounding this Bill is that it should have come at a time when public attention is rightly directed at the valid grievances our Defence Forces have at present. The Minister for Defence gave the impression in the House that there was no great problem or urgency about the situation. Anybody who has experience of visiting the quarters of many of the members of our Defence Forces and can honestly say that we do not have a problem or that there is no urgency about it would be treating the members of our Defence Forces very badly.

We depend on the Defence Forces to resolve every emergency that arises whether it be transport, fire or ambulance services or in any other quarter. Our Defence Force are called on to stand in line and do their duty and they do it without a grumble. They repeatedly do so and very often they are in the field alongside people, who are, rightly, on a scale of better pay and allowances. It must be a very sore point when they, their wives and families, compare what they get by way of recompense with what is given to other sectors, and I am talking about the entire public service. The very people on whom we depend so much in times of emergency should be the first people we consider when we think of the disbursements of this fund.

I ask the Minister to convey to his ministerial colleagues our concern at the current situation of Army pay and conditions and to ask them to take the first opportunity to do something realistic about it. They should at least recognise the fact that a serious problem exists. I have said before that it is tantamount to a security problem. If the people on whom we depend ultimately for the security of the State have a legitimate grievance, and I fully accept that they have, we should do something about it. Otherwise, we are not living up to our responsibilities.

Mr. Cooney

The original purpose of this trust was to provide houses for ex-servicemen. That was done in many Irish towns and this served a great need at the time. The needs of ex-servicemen have not disappeared and I am aware that a significant, although not a very large problem, facing the Defence Forces is to provide accommodation for retired servicemen from our Defence Forces who are single and have no family connections and who literally do not have a home to go to. This problem exists. I have come across it in my own constituency and I know it arises in other garrison towns as well. It would be entirely apposite that some of the moneys coming from this trust would be spent on a scheme whereby accommodation could be provided in or near military barracks for ex-servicemen in that category. It would also have the great advantage that it would be entirely in line with the original objectives of the trust. These people are entitled to the consideration of the State because almost invariably these soldiers have come out after the maximum period of service with no other occupation and very often have no families — in fact very often they could have been orphan when they enlisted originally 30 odd years ago. Their plight is deserving of attention. I make a plea to the Minister when considering the methods in which this money should be spent to consider that small deserving and unspoken for section of our community who have served the State loyally throughout their entire lives. They are, as I say, homeless in many cases and have to end up in hostels far away from the community environment where all their friends remain. I repeat that it would be entirely apposite that the money be spent in that way, having regard to the original objectives of the trust.

Mr. R. Burke

First, I shall deal with the last point, a point that was raised also by Deputies Durkan, Connaughton and Mac Giolla. This is the matter of the use of the fund for Defence Force accommodation. There is an understanding with the British Government that the trust fund will be used for North-South or Anglo-Irish co-operation or for projects with an all-Ireland dimension That is the understanding in the division of the funds in the ratio of 32 per cent to 68 per cent.

With regard to accommodation for the Defence Forces, there is a provision of £9.8 million for Army buildings, accommodation etc. in the 1989 Estimates. This represents an 11 per cent increase on this year's provision. I can assure the Deputies that the Government are fully conscious of the accommodation requirements of the Defence Forces and will take every possible measure to improve the position. The increased allocation for 1989 is firm evidence of this. However, in the light of the understandings that have been entered into for the division of this relatively small sum of money, it would be outside that agreement to use this money for the provision of accommodation for our Defence Force, either retired or otherwise.

I would like to re-echo the tribute I paid to Lord Killanin at the outset, and which has been voiced by most of the speakers, for his work on the trust since he was appointed to it in 1955. In particular, I would like to pay tribute to him for his work in bringing the division of the funds to the stage they are at now. He, at all times protected the Irish interests while being on the trust and we are very grateful to him for that.

The role played by Irish citizens from the Republic in the First World War and in the 1939-45 conflict, the fact that this was not recognised, was raised by Deputies FitzGerald and Quinn. This was a matter of contention for many years. We had the spectacle on the British National Day of Commemoration where some political parties were represented in the Cathedral and others were not. To remove that contention and to move away from that spectacle a committee of this House were established and it was decided that we should have a National Day of Commemoration. It is right and proper that we have such an event. We have it in July every year and all the bodies mentioned by Deputy Quinn and others, including the British Legion, attend that national day of commemoration. I was surprised that that whole chestnut was raised again today as this is a matter that has been solved and as we now have a national day of commemoration with which all can be associated.

Deputy O'Malley, Deputy Quinn and other Deputies asked for categoric guarantees in relation to where the funds would be allocated and were seeking — while it is not in the legislation — irrevocable guarantees on the record. I should like to say that the Royal National Lifeboat Institution grant is a decision, it is a commitment. That decision was first mooted years ago, as Deputy FitzGerald rightly said. The grant will be in the order of £1 million to £1.1 million — £500,000 this year and £500,000 to £600,000 next year. The reason I cannot say whether it is £1 million or £1.1 million is that we do not know the full cost of the lifeboat and exactly how much will be spent on the upgrading of the facilities along the west coast. The Royal National Lifeboat Institution will purchase a new lifeboat and expand the search and rescue facilities on the west and north-west coast. We believe that is a very suitable project on which to spend this windfall fund. It is not an indication of where it is going; a decision has been made and this has been referred to before by the former Taoiseach and he confirmed it here also. The only question open for debate is the final costings and that depends on the Royal National Lifeboat Institution. The funds cannot be paid over to them until this Bill is passed. It will be paid in two stages — £500,000 this year and the balance next year. The Department of the Marine will, of course, be consulted at all times and will be in co-operation with the Royal National Lifeboat Institution on this matter.

The question was asked as to who else would benefit and what specific groups have been involved in making applications for funds. I want to make it absolutely clear that the fund will be used — as was the understanding between ourselves and the British Government — for North-South or Anglo-Irish co-operation or for projects of an all-Ireland dimension.

I would like to give the House an indication of the groups that have made application already and how those applications will be dealt with. An interdepartmental committee will be set up consisting of representatives of the Departments of the Taoiseach, Finance and Foreign Affairs to meet the point made by Deputy FitzGerald in relation to the need for coordination an co-operation so that there cannot be a fall between the Departments of Foreign Affairs, the Taoiseach, Finance and other areas. The applications will be examined by the interdepartmental committee before decisions are made.

An application has been received from the Irish Association to help them with a difficulty in which they have found themselves in relation to a commitment which was entered into by particular patrons of jubilee celebrations who have now withdrawn. Applications have also been received from the curriculum schools project North South and a number of schools in Britain. A new anthology of Irish literature is being considered for funding and that application comes from the Derry area. Other projects for which funds are being sought are cross-Border sheltered accommodation for the elderly in the Derry area, this would include the Donegal and Derry side. Those are the types of projects that are being considered for funding.

Regarding the role of the Taoiseach, because of the nature of the Sailors and Soldiers Land Trust and the fact that the Taoiseach appoints the Government representative to the trust, it is entirely appropriate that he should have the powers given to him under the Bill. It should also be noted that successive Taoisigh have exercised overall responsibility for the affairs of the trust of Ireland.

There was considerable reference to the lottery and the lottery legislation. We did not bring in the lottery legislation, it was brought in by the previous administration. However, there is a Private Members' Bill before the House at present and it would not be appropriate to get into a further debate on it now.

The question of the rights of existing tenants was raised. Tenants can remain in their homes. They can purchase these houses but, in practice, many may not wish to do so at this advanced stage of their lives. The Bill does not affect the tenants rights in any way. For the information of the House there are only 15 tenants here at present and 70 in the North.

Regarding the point made by Deputy O'Malley in relation to how the British Government handled their legislation: they are allocating 40 per cent of their portion of the trust fund for the support of ex-servicemen's charities North and South. The balance of the British Government's share will be absorbed by their Exchequer. We have not got a specific percentage written down but I have already given a figure for the Royal National Lifeboat Institution which will be about 40 per cent. It is not intended that it would be absorbed into the general kitty because, to the use the phrase of Deputy Kelly, "it is a relatively humble little sum" that we are talking about.

It will be to serve the Donegal-Galway coastline. I have not reached a specific decision as to the actual harbour port or head where it will be located but it will service the GalwayDonegal areas.

Mr. Connaughton

There is plenty of room for it.

Question put and agreed to.

Acting Chairman (Mr. Wyse)

We will proceed now to Committee Stage.

Mr. Connaughton

I object because some of the information I sought has not been given to me. I think we are rushing the Bill through the House. Obviously I would have some amendments to put down at this stage. I was waiting to hear the Minister's reply but I am not satisfied because so far as I can calculate about £2 million will be left in this fund and the Minister has not satisfied me as to what the funds are earmarked for. It is well and good to talk about a small amount of funding — and the House agrees that the Royal National Lifeboat Institution should receive £1.1 million — but I am far from satisfied what will happen with the other £2.2 million. I would prefer if my party had a chance to look at it in the cold light of day, as it were, and we would put down amendments to get information from the Minister as to where the rest of this funding will go.

I should have put down amendments if I had known what the Minister was going to say. I wanted to give him the chance of replying specifically to some of the questions I asked. Is it the ruling that we are debarred from putting down amendments?

Mr. McDowell

Perhaps it would be of some assistance to the Fine Gael Deputies if they put down an amendment to, say, section 3 or section 4, in regard to what the Taoiseach can do under section 2. That would give them time to circulate their amendments while we are discussing the earlier sections.

Mr. Connaughton

The Deputy is most helpful.

Mr. R. Burke

This Bill was circulated over a month ago——

Acting Chairman

The Chair has been directed that the decision made on the Order of Business was to take all Stages of the Bill.

Dáil Éireann debate - Wednesday, 9 Nov 1988