Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 9 Nov 1988

Vol. 383 No. 9

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

Section 1 agreed to.
SECTION 2.

Acting Chairman

Three alternative amendments have just been submitted.

I move amendment No. 1:

In lines 20, 21 and 22 to delete all words after "and shall be" and substitute:

"allocated to the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, for the purposes of providing hostel accommodation for service and ex-servicemen and for other purposes which the Minister for Foreign Affairs, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, directs".

I propose to confirm in law the intention and now the decision of the Government to give money to the Royal National Lifeboat Institution. I support the amendment in the name of Deputy O'Malley. I understand an amendment has been circulated on behalf of The Workers' Party in relation to ex-servicemen's accommodation. I support the move by Deputy Mac Giolla that some money should be allocated for that purpose and that the balance of moneys should be allocated for purposes which the Minister for Foreign Affairs considers appropriate. That would maintain the spirit of the agreement arrived at in 1986 by the two Governments. If this amendment is accepted it would not contravene the spirit of an agreement arrived at by the British and Irish Governments because in effect, a sum of £1 million, just about 40 per cent of the sum of money we can anticipate would come from this fund, is being given to an organisation which was considered by the participants to the agreement at that time as an eminently suitable body who would meet the all-Ireland dimension that North-South co-operation suggested. That element can be accommodated in this amendment and we are not putting the Government into an embarrassing situation whereby an agreement entered into is now being reversed. The provision for the Royal National Lifeboat Institute meets the spirit and the reality of that agreement.

Deputy Cooney, Deputy Durkan and others referred to the plight of single ex-servicemen and to the problems of homelessness they face. I overlooked this in my contribution on Second Stage but I agree that it is appropriate that some of the proceeds from this trust should be devoted to that purpose. The balance of the moneys should be allocated by the Minister for Foreign Affairs.

The Minister for Energy in his reply dealt with the question of subheads only partially to my satisfaction. The Minister said that the subhead provided in the Taoiseach's Vote was entitled "Irish Sailors and Soldiers Land Trust". To meet the point raised by Deputy FitzGerald it should have been "proceeds from the dissolution of that trust", but that is a minor matter. I can understand the intention of the Taoiseach and the Government in clearly putting in this separate subhead so that this sum of money can be identified separately to meet the spirit of the agreement between the British and Irish Governments, but I do not understand why this is being transferred from the Department of Foreign Affairs to the Department of the Taoiseach. I read the Minister's speech and listened to his closing remarks that because the Taoiseach's Department in the past have dealt with this matter, because the Taoiseach appointed the Irish representatives to the trust, it was appropriate that they should retain an interest in this and now, for the first time ever, have a direct role in allocating funds. That is not appropriate. There is a tenuous logical connection but there is not an automatic presumption that the Taoiseach's Department should be involved in another interdepartmental committee allocating this kind of money and considering requests from publishing groups in Derry and from other bodies and so on. That is not appropriate and it is second-guessing the Department of Foreign Affairs. It should be done directly by the Department of Foreign Affairs without the Taoiseach's involvement other than in the normal Government process of consultation. There should not be an interdepartmental committee.

In my Second Stage contribution I referred to the considerable confusion that now exists in the artistic world in respect of the alternative Arts Council located in Upper Merrion Street. This will be another potential area for confusion, because the cheques will be signed by the Taoiseach's nominees on that interdepartmental committee. Will that parallel the various decision-making operations currently going on in the Department of Foreign Affairs in respect of North-South co-operation projects? The Minister speaking on this legislation today did not satisfy me on why the original decision to have these moneys disbursed by the Department of Foreign Affairs was changed to transfer the disbursement of this money to the Department of the Taoiseach. I will not get into the question of lottery moneys and so on, but enough has happened to make us wary to begin with. This is the business within the framework of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, of the Department of Foreign Affairs, and not of an interdepartmental committee. Certainly, the Department of Finance, in an interDepartmental committee, should not have anything to do with this. They should be far too busy minding their own business instead of second-guessing the appropriateness from a political point of view of cross-Border co-operation projects.

My amendment attempts to stitch into the legislation the allocation to the Royal National Lifeboat Institute. That allocation will meet the spirit of the agreement between the two Governments with regard to a substantial allocation going to an all-Ireland body. The allocation is about 40 per cent and represents the same degree of allocation that the British authorities are making to organisations in the North. My amendment also proposes that some moneys be provided for hostel accommodation for ex-servicemen. Deputy Mac Giolla has made a very good case for this and will no doubt add to it when he moves his amendment. I agree with the points made by Deputy Mac Giolla. The third point in my amendment is that other purposes within the broad framework of North-South co-operation would be the beneficiaries of the proceeds of this trust. This should be decided upon by the Minister for Foreign Affairs in the conventional manner and the Taoiseach's Department should not be involved.

My amendment is the same in spirit as Deputy Quinn's. I drafted it slightly differently to make it more precise. Although I am not hung up on percentages I suggest that 50 per cent of this money should be given to the RNLI and that the other 50 per cent to such ex-servicemen's organisations as the Dáil should approve by motion. Nobody has any objection to money being paid to the RNLI. If we were to remain true to the spirit of the original trust, it is to ex-servicemen generally that perhaps the balance of the money should go. It is well known that ex-servicemen of all armies living here tragically often have to live and die in the most deplorable circumstances. They are people to whom we owe a lot, irrespective of the army in which they fought. I found the reply of the Minister for Energy unsatisfactory in that it was very vague, apart from what he said about the lifeboat. There were references to some association having got into difficulties with their commitments because their patrons withdrew; another reference was to a publishing project in Northern Ireland on Irish literature. We do not know very much about any of these. They are somewhat removed from the original purpose of this trust. There is no commitment by the Minister to expend the money for any particular purpose other than this lifeboat for County Mayo. The rest of it is vague. It is appropriate that it should be set out in a fairly precise way, otherwise there is a grave danger that the whole thing will be looked upon in the same way as the lottery funds, to be distributed in the same nod and wink fashion.

Deputy Kelly referred to the Caligula factor and it is not something that should be overlooked in all circumstances.

It is a class of a gift horse.

It would be wise to have the general purposes for which the money is to be expended set out. That is why I suggest that my amendment or Deputy Quinn's or something on those lines should be accepted. Otherwise we are simply transferring the lottery syndrome to something to which it should not be transferred.

I wish to move my amendment.

I have advised the House that, strictly speaking, we can have only one amendment moved. The subject matter of all the others will be discussed. If it were to happen that the amendment which had been moved failed, then we would formally ask for the moving of the other amendment. It is a small technical point.

The main fault in section 2 is that it is not specific in any way in regard to the allocation of these funds which are regarded as a windfall but which were established for a specific purpose in regard to the Sailors and Soldiers Land Trust Fund. Some vague references and suggestions about how it will be allocated have been made by the Minister but even the specific one, the allocation to the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, has not been put down in the legislation. There is nothing to prevent the Minister or the Taoiseach from changing their minds in regard to the allocation of moneys. I cannot understand why it can be put into a speech but not into the Bill.

The main flaw of this Bill is that the moneys from the trust fund are simply being transferred to the Exchequer under section 2. The Minister said it would be put into a special fund in the Exchequer not into the big maw of the Exchequer where it would be likely to be spent on anything. The Bill simply provides that the moneys shall be paid into the Exchequer and disposed of as the Taoiseach chooses. One hopes that the Minister will see the need for an amendment to that section.

There seems to be a consensus developing among the Opposition parties — we have not heard from Fine Gael as yet — that they are in agreement with the Minister in regard to the RNLI as being an excellent organisation to which to contribute a proportion of the funds. It is an all-Ireland body but it also deals with sailors and soldiers and rescue services. It is an excellent idea. The parties also agree that another proportion of the funds should be allocated to improving living conditions for serving soldiers or former members of the Defence Forces, ex-servicemen of the Irish Army. I do not think any of us would argue with any of the amendments put down and with the various divisions suggested. The Progressive Democrats wish to specify that 50 per cent should go to the RNLI and 50 per cent to ex-servicemen's organisations in Ireland. The Labour Party amendment states that it should go to both but does not specify the percentages. Our amendment divides the money three ways, providing for 30 per cent, 30 per cent and 40 per cent. We include all-Ireland projects of a social and cultural nature.

This brings me to the main point of contention. The Minister said that 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. When replying to the Second Stage debate the Minister repeated this statement and indicated that it would not be appropriate for that reason to provide funds for the ex-servicemen's organisations here because the funds would not be for an all-Ireland project. He said the agreement did not provide for that. We have not seen the agreement. It is very important that we should see it. What is the agreement? The Minister simply said that in the discussions which led up to the agreement there was an understanding. We presume there is nothing in the agreement about this. It did not prevent the British Government from giving it to their ex-servicemen. They say it is given to ex-servicemen North and South, but we do not know how many are in the South. How can the Minister say the Irish Army are not contributing to Anglo-Irish co-operation when they have been co-operating for years along the Border, day and night, living in absolutely brutal accommodation, under very bad conditions, with hopeless equipment, getting the lowest pay in the EC. How can the Minister say they cannot come under North-South or Anglo-Irish co-operation when they have been co-operating for years along the Border?

Irish servicemen and ex-servicemen fit in very well with the terms of the discussions which led up to the agreement, and presumably the agreement itself. There is nothing to prevent the Minister from showing his appreciation at this stage and using this little windfall to show this North-South co-operation, this Anglo-Irish co-operation, with ex-servicemen of both Forces benefiting from this trust fund which is appropriate for soldiers and sailors, British and Irish. The British Government got 68 per cent of the money and decided to rip off 60 per cent of that. They gave only 40 per cent to their ex-servicemen but that is their business. We do not have to do that, and we should not do it. We should give a proportion of this money to our ex-servicemen and our present servicemen, many of whom are living in very bad accommodation.

As regards our amendment, we are prepared to move on the proportions but it is important that we specify the proportions in this Bill. The Minister says 40 per cent will go to the RNLI but let us write that into the Bill, and let us say 30 per cent will be provided for our ex-servicemen and the balance of 30 per cent will go to all-Ireland projects of a social, cultural or educational nature, or whatever the Minister thinks. It would be totally wrong to adopt the position that assistance to the ex-servicemen of the Irish Army does not fit into Anglo-Irish co-operation or North-South co-operation.

I will be moving our amendment and hope the Minister will see that there is a consensus among the Opposition parties that some portion of the funds should be given to provide assistance for Irish ex-servicemen. In this section we should get down to the nitty gritty by specifying what proportions should go to various areas. If we do that, we will be tying down not just this Minister and this Taoiseach but other Ministers and Taoisigh to come because it may take four or five years for the balance of £300,000 to come here. As I said, section 2 should state what proportions should go to each area.

I want to explain my amendment to say why I would have difficulty with the amendments already discussed. I can understand why Deputies should think this is an appropriate thing to do with the money and, in the absence of full information, it is understandable that they would not comprehend why this is not provided for in the agreement with the British Government.

The position was that Lord Killanin had a very difficult task negotiating to secure any share of this fund because the British Treasury was concerned to keep it all and we had no clear legal right to any part of it. It was therefore necessary to help him have a negotiating position that would enable him with the trustees, vis-à-vis the British Government and the British Treasury, to secure a positive outcome.

One of the first thoughts I had in relation to the money was that it might be used to assist ex-servicemen in the Irish Army. However, there would have been a difficulty in convincing the British trustees and the British Treasury that the money should be transferred from British ex-servicemen to Irish ex-servicemen. You may ask if it could not have been provided for both. It could, and that might have been the answer, but at that time there were people agitating in an extremely unpleasant way against the commemoration of the dead of the two World Wars. It was becoming a contentious issue in an areas where there should be no contention. I had to consider what the impact would be if we made provision that the money would be used for British and Irish ex-servicemen, and what the reaction would be. The last thing I wanted was to make this an area of contention.

Faced with the invidious choice between proposing that it be provided, or a large part thereof — which would inhibit Lord Killanin's negotiations — or that it should be provided for both, arousing these ill-conditioned people who think the commemoration of the dead is something to make a political point about. I felt the best course of action was to provide that the money be used in the way the Minister has indicated. I take responsibility for that. I can understand that Deputies feel I could have acted otherwise and my actions in that regard are obviously open to criticism, but, in fairness to the present Government, they cannot be blamed because they inherited the understanding that came from those discussions, and I have explained the rationale for them.

It is on that basis that I submit my amendment which is designed to give legislative effect to the intentions set out in the Minister's speech. The wording might need to be polished up between now and Report Stage, but the first word in the last line "the" should read "to"— my hasty handwriting is the reason for that error. The purpose of my amendment is to give effect to the understanding between the two Governments which led to this not insignificant sum of money coming our way and to give effect to the intentions of our Government as set out in the Minister's speech. I hope the Minister will accept this amendment, with whatever improvement in wording he feels may be necessary, possibly on Report Stage.

I have only three minutes and the principle point I want to put before the House will take longer than that to explain. However, I will use these three minutes to impress on the Minister, in regard to all the amendments before the House the desirability for him to seek between now and 3.45 p.m. some advice from the Attorney General or his office about the bearing of Article 11 and Article 17.2 of the Constitution on the Bill in front of us.

It is absurd for this House to spend the day chewing the rag over a piffling sum of money compared with our problems when the only point all Deputies are trying to make is that the beneficiaries from this distribution should be clearly shown in the Bill. I have no preference. Obviously I take Deputy Garret FitzGerald's point in regard to the all-Ireland nature of the original group of beneficiaries being appropriately reflected in an all-Ireland distribution, and this is something Deputy Mac Giolla also wished, and I see a lot of merit in that, but I have no objection to the other amendments. I do not want to take sides. I am certain any of these schemes would put a quick end to this matter.

Unless the Government are passionately attached to establishing the precedent that a sum of money, perhaps in defiance of the Constitution, is passed through this House and lodged at the exclusive disposal of the Taoiseach, subject to the proper consent of the Minister for Finance, I ask the Minister — I know he is not the most flexible man in the world — to see if he could save a lot of time and agony for all concerned by getting the Attorney General to look at the points I am trying to make in as noncontentious a way as possible. Any one of the amendments before the House would avoid the problem which I think I see in Article 11 which reads;

All revenues of the State from whatever source arising shall, subject to such exception as may be provided by law, from one fund, and shall be appropriated for the purposes and in the manner and subject to the charges and liabilities determined and imposed by law.

Provision is made in that Article for an exception but the exception provision relates to putting the money into one fund. It is possible to make provision by law for money not to be put into that fund, but this Bill is not doing that. This Bill is saying it is going into the Exchequer, into the Central Fund, but with an "in áirithe" ticket pinned to it. It is "in áirithe" for the disposal of the Taoiseach. Maybe I am making a mountain out of a molehill but this is the sort of point which, if I were at the Bar, I could quite happily debate for three days at a high cost to someone.

In anticipation, the Order of Business said this business will finish at 7 p.m.

Progress reported: Committee to sit again.
Top
Share