Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 15 Nov 1988

Vol. 384 No. 2

Private Members' Business. - National Lottery (Amendment) Bill, 1988: Second Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time".

Deputy Des O'Malley is in possession and he has some eight minutes left of the time allotted to him.

In the short time remaining at my disposal in this debate tonight, I want to make it clear that it is essential that in the disbursement of substantial sums of public money objective criteria have to be established and adhered to. In the instance of the national lottery funds which are now annually ten times greater than was estimated at the time of the passage of the National Lottery Act, 1986, there are no objective criteria established. Therefore, it cannot be claimed that objective criteria are being adhered to.

Part of the money is disbursed in individual constituencies largely on the basis of the personal preferences of Ministers or Deputies of the Fianna Fáil Party. This has given rise to practices of gombeenism which are reminiscent of a different era and a different century.

There is no real accountability for these sums in the normal acceptable sense. Several members of the Government have come into this House during the course of this debate and read out global totals under different headings of £X million for this and £Y million for that, but they made no attempt to be accountable for individual decisions by Ministers and Deputies, particularly decisions to give money where no formal application had been made. The Minister for Finance was at pains to say that thousands of applications that might well have been perfectly valid and worthy had to be turned down because of the numbers concerned. This is perfectly understandable if they had not been turned down in favour of people who had not even applied.

This practice is widely seen throughout the country as an abuse of public accountability and an abuse of public administration. Seventy per cent of the people in the country want a change. This Bill tonight seeks to change it. Less than 10 per cent of the people want the present system retained. What is even more ominous and sinister about this whole matter is not just the undoubted and widely acknowledged abuse that is going on, but the attitude of the Government and some of their supporters in relation to it. They have contributed to this debate on the basis that they are perfectly entitled to do what they are doing and that they have to apologise to nobody for this abuse. Since this is their attitude, while they are a minority Government retained in office by the grace and favour of a majority of the Members of this House, I shudder to think what their attitude would be like if they had majority support in this House.

The Government seem quite oblivious to the division of powers under our Constitution. Some members of the Government seem to think that once they become a Government, even by the casting vote of the Ceann Comhairle, which makes them the most narrowly elected Government in history, they are nonetheless entitled to walk roughshod over everybody and that they are entitled to the same support from this House for their corrupt abuse of the national lottery funds and for their crude attempt to gerrymander constituencies as they are for their efforts to reduce spiralling expenditure and to control the level of public debt. They are of course totally mistaken in this assumption even though the Minister for Finance came in here on Wednesday last to complain in an arrogant, threatening and petulant way that they had a right to support on everything and if they did not get it Opposition parties would be held responsible for "undermining the stability that exists in this economy". This is a brazen and arrogant assumption which presumes that the Members of this House have no rights, no duties and no opinions. A majority in this House do not support abuse by the Government of their position as a Government. That majority therefore have not just a right but a duty to express their opposition and, as far as the Progressive Democrats are concerned, we will push our opposition to such measures as far as we can. In particular, we will endeavour to change the law that appears to allow the present abuse to be perpetrated because it is insufficiently specific, because it does not establish objective criteria and because it does not ensure proper accountability.

To the present Government, the primacy of this House and of the Legislature generally appears to be only an obscure matter of constitutional theory. It is time that they took on board the existing parliamentary arithmetic and acted accordingly. It is particularly incumbent on them to do so when it is remembered that this Government have received unprecedented co-operation from much of the Opposition in the course of this present Dáil. I can think of no parallels in our parliamentary history since independence 67 years ago. Perhaps the fault lies in part of the Opposition lulling the Government into a false sense of security by giving them the impression that at times virtually anything goes. If that were the case it is as well in this debate and on this Bill the Government should be finally disabused of that notion. It underlines the dangers of a "blank-cheque" approach, and emphasises the importance of examining each issue on its merits.

This Government have had extraordinary and unprecedented goodwill both within this House and outside it. They have a corresponding duty not to abuse that goodwill and the parliamentary and other assistance which they have got. If the Government are defeated on this Bill, it is a defeat entirely of their own making. If they did not engage in these disreputable practices, the Bill would not have had to be introduced. I hope that they are beginning to learn a lesson. There was some indication that they might be in the course of the debate last Wednesday on the Irish Sailors and Soldiers Land Trust Bill, when a proposal to allow public charitable funds of £2.75 million to be expended at the sole personal discretion of the Taoiseach, was amended to put some limited constraints at least on the objects on which it could be spent.

It is likely that at some time in the not too distant future somebody will challenge the constitutionality of a Bill such as that or the National Lottery Act, 1986, because of the fact that it is very doubtful if disbursement by individual Ministers and others, in this fashion that has recently arisen, accords with either the letter or the spirit of Article 11 of the Constitution.

That provision is in the Constitution precisely to prevent the sort of undesirable practices we are now seeing, where public money is distributed for local political purposes in a way that has shattered all confidence in the system and in a way that in some cases at least is seen to be based neither on need nor on merit, when much more needy and meritorious projects are turned down.

It is worth reminding ourselves that on 1 July 1986 Fianna Fáil voted against Second Stage of the National Lottery Bill because they thought it was insufficiently tightly drafted and open to various abuses. In the course of that debate, the present Minister of State at the Department of Health, Deputy Leyden said and I quote from the Official Report, Vol. 368, column 1781: "Our main criticism is that we have been kept in ignorance of how the proceeds will be allocated". How very right he was.

At column 1782, he called for the establishment of a representative body to administer the proceeds:

....so that it will become clear that it will not be organised on a party political basis or that grants will not be awarded in a purely political way.... that would politicise the national lottery and would be detrimental to its success if it was clearly seen by the public that the funds which accrued would be used by the Government for party political reasons in the constituencies".

I presume he would have withdrawn his criticism of the potential abuses if he had realised that it was his own colleagues who would be carrying out the abuse. Perhaps in fairness to Deputy Leyden he was innocent enough to believe that they would not. Further on at column 1783 the same Deputy said:

....it would be very tempting for the Minister for Finance to use the proceeds from the national lottery to bolster politicians .... I know many Labour and Fine Gael Deputies who would be very tempted to apply for major allocations to their constitutencies to the detriment of Opposition Deputies. That is being realistic and down to earth.

Also at column 1783, Deputy Leyden said:

I appeal to the Minister to make this a totally non-political lottery. The proceeds should be allocated on a fair and equitable basis having regard to the demands and needs throughout the country.

At column 1786, the same Deputy said:

....the fund should be administered on a non-political basis by a non-political group including representatives of sporting and national organisations. Any local community could apply in an open manner for support and the application would not be dealt with in a partisan manner. This would be very acceptable to all sides of the House because sports should be above party politics.

He then went on to say, at the same column: "These are the major flaws I see in the Bill". How extraordinarily accurate he was in his prognostication. How totally justified Deputy Leyden's speech was. How totally justified Fianna Fáil's opposition to the original Bill was. Yet they are so immature in their political approach that they come along a year or two later and put into practice all the abuses that they so accurately foresaw and so properly complained of. Can we as a Legislature not raise ourselves above this mentality? Must the pettiness of the parish pump always be paramount?

Let us now do what Deputy Leyden so eloquently wanted and put an end to the abuses that he so accurately foretold. If the Government spent less of their time engaging in the sort of childish trivia we read about in the distribution of national lottery funds and more time on tackling the enormous problems that beset this country today, they would be serving the nation a great deal better. It is our duty to try to make them do so.

I wish to inform the House that I wish to divide the time allotted to me with the Minister for Health.

Is that agreed? Agreed.

I am going to confine my remarks to the amenity grant scheme operated by my Department. The amenity grant scheme, as we know it today, began in 1986 when £5 million was made available in the Environment Vote for special amenity projects. The original intention was that £4 million would be allocated to the Dublin area and the balance to the rest of the country. The scheme was to be aimed at the areas of greatest social need and the managers of the local authorities in Dublin and the other urban authorities with populations over 10,000 were invited to submit proposals for consideration. In the event, only £4.5 million was spent during the year. The Dublin area got just short of £3.1 million and the scheme was extended to 15 counties which between them received £0.8 million. Some examples of these allocations were: Kerry £159,000 and Kilkenny £70,000. To my knowledge there was no outcry in the media or political parties about the fact that it was the Minister who selected the schemes which were to benefit. The attitude would seem to have been that there was a need to improve the environment and provide more recreational facilities. The public were ready to let the Minister of the day get on with the job of doing this with the resources available to him.

In 1987 a further amount was provided in the Environment Vote for the amenity grant scheme. The outgoing Minister allocated this before the present Minister took over but on this occasion there was indeed cause for concern. He refused allocations to no less than 13 counties and allocated the bulk of the money to the Dublin area. Dublin County alone got £2.3 million while Dublin Corporation got £1.7 million and Dún Laoghaire £0.2 million. Whatever about the merits of the particular projects — and in fairness one could not question the motives of the people behind the projects who wanted to do something for their environment — this was grossly unfair. As I have said already, the purpose of the scheme was to help meet the need for recreational facilities but I want to point out that in that allocation 13 counties got no money at all. The then Minister for the Environment burnt the midnight oil on 9 March in order to make allocations available but he excluded 13 counties completely. There was an Adjournment Debate in this House — a very mild one because it only affected that Member's area — but other than that no concern was expressed. This year we increased amenity grants by 50 per cent to £6 million. The criteria laid down by my Department were very exact and many of those involved in the project said they were over-exact. I want to place it on the record that, in relation to the moneys which were allocated by my Department, both the corporations and the councils had to first ensure that the work was completed and the money spent and then send the notification to my Department. Deputies on the other side of the House seem to have said that these moneys were not being properly accounted for. It is not fair of them to come in here and accuse voluntary organisations and others of not disbursing the funds in a proper way because the officials of the local authorities, the corporations and the engineers involved had to certify how the funds were spent.

I want to throw down the gauntlet to the Progressive Democrats: are they saying — and some of them were hiding behind the newspapers — that the projects in the midlands which got money were not entitled to it? If that is the case they should say so. Are they saying to the Tullamore Harriers and to other community centres throughout the midlands that they should not have got the money? If that is what they are saying they should say so because these organisations have accountability and what is being said is casting a serious reflection on them. It is not fair of the Progressive Democrats to do this under the shield of this House.

All the moneys disbursed by my Department can be accounted for. We received over 2,000 applications and if grant allocations had been made to all of those projects it would have cost £60 million and we had only £6 million. Admittedly, many people involved in projects were going to be disappointed, not alone in my own constituency of Laois-Offaly, but all over the country. I resent the fact that the Progressive Democrats have come in here and said that the money was not properly disbursed. If the money was not properly disbursed I throw down the challenge to them to name the bodies who got moneys and who were not entitled to them. If it is the case the Progressive Democrats should come out and say that Portarlington community centre, or Tullamore, Kilcormac, Killinard and other places were not entitled to the moneys they got. The Progressive Democrats have not done this because every one of the projects in my constituency and in other constituencies submitted an application form for these moneys and these projects are now being properly accounted for.

This Bill is another layer of bureaucracy which the Progressive Democrats want to bring in. Could they not easily have turned around and said to the Minister of the day in the Department of the Environment that he should appoint a High Court judge to preside over the allocation of the road funds, the housing funds and the sanitary funds?

There are no housing funds.

When the Estimate came up here you shied away——

(Interruptions.)

They fudged the issue. Should we set up a High Court judge to disburse the road funds——

He would have nothing to do; he would have no money.

I do not want to get into that arena Deputy Farrelly because you would not come too good out of it. The Deputy should remember that when his party where in Government the Minister allocated only £5 million for the county road network. He did not think a whole lot of it.

There were no potholes at that time.

We increased the amount by 300 per cent but I will not get into that arena now. The truth hurts——

The former Minister said he would have all the potholes filled by the end of 1987. That is why he is not here tonight.

Deputy Farrelly, these interruptions must cease. There is a time limit attached to these debates and interruptions of this kind are particularly unwelcome, if not disorderly.

The facts hurt.

The Minister, without interruption.

If it were the case that a High Court judge should preside over the disbursement of lottery funds, would it not be the case that a High Court judge would be needed in every Department. We would soon run out of judges if that was the case. That is a stupid suggestion to make and it is offensive to the Minister of the day, whoever he or she may be, and to whatever party are in office. That is the responsibility of the Government of the day. We have a very intelligent electorate who will decide all those issues. We will not need a straw poll. The rules and regulations issued by the Department of the Environment to every council and corporation are very strictly laid down. Nobody should try to give the impression to the public that we are dispensing funds irregularly. That is not correct. There is some talk about people having cheques. I could not personally bring such cheques around and to say otherwise is grossly unfair. I have never handled any cheques in relation to amenity grants from the Department and I will not do so. It is the responsibility of the local authority to make the money available to the project for which the money has been allocated.

What about the presents in the hedgerows in the Minister's constituency?

I asked that interruptions should cease.

Deputy Flanagan is new to the arena and I am delighted to see him. I looked after his area of Mountmellick but unfortunately they were not able to comply with the conditions of the scheme. I even changed at the Deputy's request to another area of Mountmellick. I went out of my way to give Deputy Flanagan the flexibility he was seeking. I looked after the Tidy Towns competition in Mountmellick as well. I regret very much that the grant was not availed of, but other organisations in County Laois were crying out for assistance and are delighted to have received it.

All the money which has been allocated by my Department to various projects can be properly accounted for. If we are talking about bringing in judges, we should appoint them in all the Departments, but that would end up as a farce. I could not agree with that suggestion.

I do not think the Progressive Democrats are really "with it" on this occasion. Lately they have gone off track and we might try to get them back on it. They are being derailed unknown to themselves. The truth is coming home to them and they are beginning to realise that something is going wrong. Before tomorrow night is out they will realise it.

I fully agree with everything the Minister of State had to say. The Government have adhered strictly to the legislation of 1986. The criteria are similar to those applied to any Exchequer funding, with the same strict accountability. I am satisfied there has been no abuse by the Government in relation to the allocation of lottery funds.

My Department received £10 million from the lottery, £2 million of which went to the capital programme and a further £2 million to the health promotion unit, to provide for the functions formerly carried out by the Health Education Bureau. I am sure Members will agree that the money spent by the health promotion unit and by the advisory council on health promotion was well spent. The real value will only be seen in the years to come. Health promotion is a very important area of Government involvement. The main amount of my allocation, £6 million, was made available for distribution for the benefit of community health. We had detailed and extensive consultations about the priority areas for allocation.

Cavan-Monaghan.

We had consultations with the health boards and decided on a number of priority areas, that is, services for the mentally handicapped, services for the physically handicapped, services for the elderly, child services, psychiatric services, community information and the AIDS programme. These areas should have priority in the context of the lottery funds.

The House will appreciate that while we were very pleased to receive £6 million it was not sufficient to meet the demand from various organisations and bodies working with those in need. The money has been used for development services and was allocated mainly for community-based projects, on the basis of need.

I will refer now to some of the projects which were grant-aided. The sum of £1.8 million was used to provide community-based services for the physically and mentally handicapped. Basically we set out to encourage the development of resocialisation programmes with a view to transferring patients from institutional care to community care or providing care in the community for patients who might otherwise have to seek institutional care. An example of a provision for the mentally handicapped is the grant of £300,000 to the Sisters of Charity on the Navan Road for the purchase of eight houses to enable a group of handicapped persons between the ages of 13 and 40 to live in the community, which is their right when they are able to do so. Nobody in this House would disagree with that allocation for this worthy project from which 40 handicapped people benefited. St. Michael's House, another very worthy voluntary organisation working for the mentally handicapped, received £50,000 for short-term relief, something which has not been developed to the extent it should have been. I am sure nobody would disagree with that allocation to St. Michael's House for the short-term relief of parents of the mentally handicapped. The sum of £60,000 was allocated for the mentally handicapped at St. Peter's in Castlepollard. The Brothers of Charity in Galway received a grant of £100,000 and the Kerry Parents and Friends of the Mentally Handicapped received a grant of £100,000 for the provision of a day centre and a vocational training unit for the mentally handicapped.

A large number of groups working with the physically handicapped have also received grants. The Irish Wheelchair Association grant of £150,000 was spent on the provision of a home care service. They spent £100,000 in the Dublin area and £50,000 outside that area. I do not believe any Member could say that this money was misappropriated or ill spent. I believe every Member would have to accept that the Irish Wheelchair Association are an organisation well worthy of support and that a grant of £150,000 to them was money well spent. The Multiple Sclerosis Care Foundation received a grant of £65,000 and Clonturk House for the adult blind in Drumcondra received a grant of £50,000.

As I said, a total of £1.8 million was provided for the handicapped. I do not intend to go into detail about how we spent that £1.8 million, but I can assure Deputies that the remainder of that sum was allocated to organisations who provide the very highest level of service, or who wished to extend the service or to develop a new service for the benefit of the handicapped and that these allocations would stand up to any scrutiny under any circumstances.

A sum of £1.2 million was allocated for the provision of community-based services for the elderly. The House will appreciate that there are an increasing number of elderly in our community and that the availability of over £1 million from the lottery fund was very valuable in providing community-based services, improving existing services or developing new services for the elderly.

As Members are aware, my Department recently published the report of a working party on the future care of the elderly. Everyone will agree that the ideal for the elderly is that they should be able to live in their own homes or, failing that, that their families should be able to take care of them. If for one reason or another the families are unable to look after them, they should be able to remain in their own community. It is only when they cannot remain in their own community because of infirmity that they should have to go into residential care.

I am very glad to say that the money spent helped to develop community-based services and to improve the position for the elderly — for example, £5,000 was given to a parish priest who was left a house to convert it into two flats for the elderly — I do not think anyone in this House could say that was money misspent or misappropriated — £25,000 was given to provide an alarm system for the elderly in inner Dublin. I do not think anybody could say that money was misspent, and £20,000 was given to convert the former dispensary in Blacklion to a magnificent community centre, something that is very valuable in an area, where, I am told, there are approximately 300 elderly people living alone.

As the House is aware, at the end of last year a number of health boards closed small district hospitals, particularly in Munster. I was glad to be in a position to meet deputations from local social service committees who put proposals to me as to how they could make use of these centres. Through an agreement with the health boards, particularly the MidWestern and the South-Eastern Health Boards, a number of voluntary organisations took over the district hospitals on lease and, because of the availability of lottery funds, provided excellent facilities for the elderly in their own community.

For example, Kilrush got £45,000 from the lottery and provided a beautiful facility for the elderly in their area; Carrick-on-Suir got an allocation of £40,000 and provided a day centre and bus for the elderly; Gorey got £40,000 and provided a day centre and a bus and through the social services for the elderly Castlerea got £60,000. Again I do not think any Deputy could say the money spent providing these facilities was misspent or misappropriated.

A sum of £600,000 has been spent for psychiatric services. Here again I concentrated on the provision of community-based facilities with the particular objective of transferring long stay patients out of psychiatric hospitals into the community. A number of psychiatric hospitals, mental health centres, sector headquarters, and day centres have received grants under these headings ranging from £60,000 in the case of Listowel, County Kerry, to £5,000 in the case of Mohill and £100,000 for the provision of community-based psychiatric facilities in County Meath. I do not think the House would say that money spent on the development of community psychiatric services is misspent.

A sum of £1 million was spent on community information and development services. This included £600,000 for the National Social Service Board. The balance has been allocated to voluntary groups and to organisations providing a range of services, for example, marriage counselling, health information promotion, counselling for the terminally ill and community resource centres.

Over £500,000 has been spent on the AIDS prevention programme with special emphasis on measures to minimise the spread of infection among intravenous drug abusers and between those abusers and the community at large. As everybody here knows, while we had a major public information programme, that type of programme is not effective in getting to the intravenous drug abusers and it is necessary to have some sort of a one-to-one relationship to encourage the drug abusers to give up their habit.

We allocated grants of £150,000 to the Eastern Health Board for an outreach programme, £40,000 for the Anna Livia Drugs Counselling Service, £15,000 for a study on paediatric AIDS and drug abuse in the Coombe Hospital, and £15,000 counselling for AIDS patients in St. James's hospital, just to mention a few. I believe Members of this House would accept that the AIDS programme was an appropriate area in which to spend some of the money from the lottery and that the money was allocated to the right area.

The Opposition are accusing the Government of misspending the lottery money, but they have been accusing the Government of misspending money all the time, and not just in the area of the lottery. As the Minister of State said, we would need a judge in every Department of State to satisfy various Opposition parties. Today we had an example of an Opposition accusation of misappropriation regarding the funding for the equipment of hospitals. Deputy Spring alleged that because Cavan was in my constituency some special arrangement —"a precedent" to use his own words — was made in relation to equipping that hospital. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is mischievous of Deputy Spring to make this allegation. The precedent for such a loan was established by the previous Government to equip Beaumont and the Mater hospitals. The equipping of Cavan hospital is part of a package which includes Mullingar hospital, Castlebar hospital and St. James's Hospital.

If I might make a political point: Fianna Fáil policy differs from that of Labour because we do not spend hundreds of millions of taxpayers' money building hospitals and then leaving them idle. I suggest that Deputy Spring go public and tell the people of Mullingar, Castlebar and those who use St. James's hospital that he considers it a scandal — again to use his own words — to provide money to equip these hospitals.

It is the responsibility of Government to collect and to allocate money. A sum of £70 million has been allocated from the national lottery and controversy surrounds only a tiny percentage of it. It is very unfortunate especially for the beneficiaries of the funds, that the Opposition should attack the manner in which the money was allocated and misrepresent the facts. Indeed, Deputy Harney said twice on television that because Kilkenny did not have a Minister represented in the Dáil, they came out worst. As far as the health allocation is concerned, outside some of the major cities Kilkenny and Kerry received by far the largest allocation, going on a county by county basis. They were ahead of any other county, apart from large urban areas. If the Progressive Democrats were in Government they would allocate the lottery funds in exactly the same way, but perhaps not as fairly, having regard to the way they talk about it at present.

I wish to divide my time with Deputy Creed.

Deputy Sherlock wishes to share his time with Deputy Creed. Is that agreed? Agreed.

The national lottery, in commercial terms, has been a far greater success than anyone could have envisaged. It is bringing in much more than anyone anticipated when the original Bill was going through the Dáil. In its first year it raised £100 million against the generally anticipated income of £45 million to £60 million. It is expected to bring it up to £175 million this year. At the time when the lottery was first proposed there was a concerted campaign to try to ensure that it would be given over to a private firm to run it. This was resisted and it was given to An Post who established a subsidiary to organise the lottery. Its success has been a tribute to all those who worked on it and it shows that a State body can be imaginative, innovative and attractive in its operation and indeed that it can be as good — if not better — than anything in the private sector.

Given its tremendous commercial success, it is all the more unfortunate that the lottery should have been devalued by the way in which the funds contributed by the people have been applied in a blatantly political and partisan way. The whole controversy has reinforced the widely held view that what you get from the State is, in many cases, not on clearly specified entitlements but on who you know in the Government. The whole controversy has further undermined public confidence in politicians and in the democratic process. It is no defence for Fianna Fáil to say that Coalition administrations also bent the rules in relation to the allocation of funds under various headings. We all know that went on; the difference is that the sums of money are now so vast that public concern has increased accordingly.

There cannot be any doubt that the evidence is there to back up public concern. Every Opposition TD can point to cases where lottery money has been applied on a politically partisan basis with the aim of boosting the electoral prospects of a Government TD, especially a Government Minister. An analysis of the figures backs up what most Members of the Dáil know and what many members of the public suspect, that the constituencies of Government Ministers have got preferential treatment and been given a disproportionate share of lottery funds. Just take the example of the £6 million allocated by the Minister for the Environment, Deputy Flynn, for recreation and amenity purposes across the country. Almost 6 per cent of the total, some £400.000 was allocated to County Mayo, which just happens to be the Minister's own county. Kildare, which has a similar population to that of Mayo got only £92,000. On a per capita basis, Mayo got £3.51 compared to 79p per head in Kildare. I have no doubt that Mayo is in need of assistance to provide recreational and amenity facilities, but can anyone argue that they are entitled to ten times as much as Kildare, which is an area with a rapidly expanding population and all the problems associated with that?

Another example is the whole scandal of money apparently being allocated without proper applications being submitted or the required procedures complied with. Dublin County Council sought funding from the Department of the Environment for a total of 87 different projects. The list was submitted to the Minister for the Environment who approved funding in only 17 of the cases presented by the council. Yet overall, funding was provided for 49 projects, 32 of which were not on the list submitted by the council. Of the 32 projects not listed by the council, 25 of them just happened to be in the constituency of North Dublin, the home territory of the Minister, Deputy Burke. No doubt he will tell us that this was just a coincidence and that he was as surprised as anyone else.

What has also caused public concern and annoyance is the manner in which Government Ministers have tried to portray the allocation of lottery money almost as if it was coming out of their own pockets. Almost every provincial newspaper has, over the past year, featured stories about how rival Government Ministers and TDs competed with each other to be first with the news of the allocation of lottery moneys, Ministers sweeping up in their State cars to announce the good news personally to recipients — in many cases at times when they should have been at their departmental desks doing the work for which they are paid very substantial sums by the taxpayer. One of the outstanding examples of this sort of carry on was when the Minister for Agriculture and Food arrived last Easter in his constituency, headed by a pipe band, like some sort of third rate feudal prince, to announce the allocation of £10,000 to build a new handball court.

The Bill is a serious attempt to address the problem and to remove the worst excesses of political patronage from the allocation of money; as such it deserves to get through Second Stage and to allow a more detailed consideration of it on Committee Stage, where I am sure many people will have suggestions as to how it can be improved or tightened up. The principle of an independent board to supervise the allocation of money is probably the best option in the light of our experience to date. It is a sad reflection on the political system that the Government cannot be trusted to allocate lottery money in a fair and impartial way, but that is how it is seen by most people throughout the country. The establishment of an independent board would help to ensure that the money was allocated on the basis of need and not on the basis of political advantage to the Government, whether it is this Fianna Fáil Government, or any future Government of a different political hue.

The general purposes for which money is allocated under the original Bill and would continue to be allocated under this Bill are correct. There are sometimes calls for the use of lottery money to build hospitals or schools or to pay wages of staff in particular parts of the public sector which might be under threat. The fact that the lottery is in existence and operating successfully does not absolve the Government from the responsibility of ensuring that adequate money is raised through taxation for public services such as health, education and social welfare. To start allocating lottery money for these purposes would be a very dangerous precedent. The lottery is doing well at the moment and there is quite an amount of money available, but there is no guarantee that the lottery revenue will not go down. If money is allocated from the lottery now for health or education, and the lottery revenue goes down in future years, you could have a situation where the Government would try to use this as a justification for further cutbacks.

Lottery money should not be used to finance areas which the Government have a statutory obligation to provide. It should continue to be used for what might be called optional or discretionary expenditure in the voluntary sector and in, as has previously been mentioned, the community care area. There are anomalies in this regard. There are hoteliers who qualify for money to build golf courses and yet local authorities, who have responsibility for swimming pools which were built 20 years ago and are now in need of refurbishment, do not qualify. These swimming pools have to be maintained at a great cost to the local authorities.

We consider the general principles behind this Bill to be reasonable. We will support it at the conclusion of Second Stage but we reserve the right to seek to amend it in subsequent Stages. The success of the lottery has created its own problems, one of which is the amount of money being spent on lottery tickets by low income families. The struggle to survive for people on social welfare or on hopelessly inadequate wages is so bleak that the possibility of a lottery win is even more attractive and they may be tempted to spend more than is wise. If people are simply spending money on lottery tickets that would otherwise have been spent on drink, cigarettes or some other optional items there is no problem but if they are spending money which should be spent on more essential items there is clearly cause for concern. I would suggest that some moneys should be allocated from the lottery next year to fund a comprehensive, impartial study of money being spent on lottery tickets. If there is a problem there we should know about it and should consider ways of tackling it. Each and every area makes its contribution to the lottery funds. Consequently, it is right and proper that the distribution be made in a fair and impartial manner.

I wish to make a few points of clarification. I am glad the Minister of State at the Department of Education is here because it is within his ambit to comment on some of my concerns about the national lottery and the distribution of the funds. Everybody, even those people who were in doubt, the sceptics and the critics of the national lottery when it was first introduced, accepts that it is an enormous success. I am very concerned with the bad publicity that has been given to it in recent months. This publicity will not do the future of the national lottery any good. I have certain reservations about the Progressive Democrats' Bill. I have no hesitation in saying that it is by far the lesser of two evils. I support it because the present situation cannot be allowed to continue. If this Bill gets through its Second Reading, on Committee Stage we could prepare some kind of watertight distribution system of the lottery funds so that people will not be complaining.

As some people are aware, I have had a certain interest in the lottery since its initiation. I would like to take the House back to the early stages of the lottery. There are people who were very much opposed to it and are now pushing and promoting it with all the zeal of the convert. Credit should be given where it is due. As you, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, will know, in 1979 the whole idea of a national sports lottery was presented to the Government by the much maligned Cospóir, the national sports council. The idea was put forward because of the underfunding of sporting organisations, to make extra money available for the governing bodies of sport and to promote sport generally. The proposition by Cospóir was left dormant for a number of years but in the mid-eighties it was promoted. After some deliberation, many meetings and many weeks of discussion the Government of the day accepted the principle of a lottery. The question arose as to whether it should be a sports lottery or what kind of lottery should be introduced that would catch the imagination of the public and that would be successful.

I am sure the Minister present will be well aware of the many consultations which took place with people in charge of lotteries throughout the world, particularly throughout Europe. There was no doubt that once this lottery was aligned to sport it could not but be a success. We are a sporting nation and we have achieved a considerable amount as far as sports and athletics are concerned, not alone in this country but internationally also. Credit is due to Cospóir who thought of the idea of the lottery. Many of the sporting organisations were constantly complaining, and rightly so, that they never knew what they would receive the following year. They were at the end of the scale, the poor relation of the Exchequer, and if things were bad the sporting organisations suffered. When the lottery was suggested the Government accepted it and an interdepartmental committee was set up. At that stage there were a number of competing demands from the local authorities, the Department of Health and the Department of the Environment, looking for a lottery to boost their own funds.

It transpired, after one month of discussions and about ten meetings, that what would be introduced was a national lottery with the major portion going to sport. Both Cospóir and the officials in the sports section of the Department of Education were most optimistic about the lottery and it even surpassed their target. The lottery is a success and will continue to be so but if it is seen as another form of taxation, that will militate against it and will affect it in future. The distribution of the lottery funds should not only be fair but should be seen to be fair so that the people will support it. Nobody doubted that there was a place for a lottery but what kind of a lottery was the important question that arose.

Before the lottery was introduced there were a number of other lotteries in existence such as the Mater Hospital Pools, the Cork Polio and General AfterCare Association and a number of other small lotteries. Everybody knew that if a national lottery was introduced it would militate against those lotteries, particularly the Rehabilitation CRC. Organisations which were starved of money were raising funds from the general public and they were looking after people and doing work which they felt should be the responsibility of the Government. Those organisations should be encouraged. I had at least one meeting with charitable organisations. I wanted to make sure that if a national lottery was introduced, under no circumstances would it militate against their fund-raising campaign but rather it should be used to provide for any fall-off in their income.

There are two lotteries at present, the national lottery and the Rehabilition lottery. That is a scandal and I say that without hesitation. It is wrong that the State lottery is in competition with the Rehabilitation lottery. Because of the bad publicity given to the national lottery — I will give some statistics to prove what I am saying — the Rehabilitation lottery is gaining at the expense of the national lottery. One important aspect of the introduction of a lottery was that there would be one lottery that would provide for all areas and all the organisations would be brought under the umbrella of that one national lottery. I was convinced that what I was advised then was right and I am even more convinced now.

I put down a question to the Minister for Finance to ask the cost of the administration of the national lottery. An indication of concern expressed is that 14 Deputies in this House from the Opposition parties tabled questions to the Minister for Finance about the distribution of lottery funds. Every Member, I am sure Government Members as well, was meeting this criticism in his constituency. I was amazed at the answer the Minister gave me. The question was to ask, among other things, about the expense, and the Minister's reply was that prize expenses to date amounted to £36 million approximately. Total operating costs — this is the important part — incurred including agent's commission and all staff costs amount to approximately £16 million. Because you have two sets of administrative costs you have two sets of advertising and a competitive advertising campaign between the two. It is wrong, it is a scandal, and I tell the Minister of State here that an effort should be made to have some reconciliation or approach towards the elimination of a great deal of those costs, although it is a little late because the die is cast. If the national lottery is costing £16 million to administer, it is £16 million waste when you consider that on the other side to promote the rehabilitation lottery you have the same costs.

One of the many considerations that gave rise to the lottery was the fact that so much cost was involved in running small lotteries. The causes that were to be served got a very small proportion of the overall, gross intake from all those lotteries. It is sad. It is wrong. The CRC and the Rehabilitation Institute are doing very important work. Their cause is deserving, and if people see any form of taxation or abuse in the distribution of funds they will transfer to the Rehabilitation Institute's lottery. I was involved at the start and it was clear at that stage what the lottery should mean if it was to be a success.

Unfortunately, many of our young people are unemployed and have nothing to do and nowhere to go all day and every day, with a resultant increase in crime and vandalism. There is public awareness with people out there prepared to help. The people out there were asked again and again to put their hands into their pockets and contribute too much towards the community and the welfare of the community. In many of our built-up areas and new estates young people had not even a place to go to in the evening. If the people I have just mentioned could be brought in to involve those young people in sport and if the lottery could be used to make contributions to the provision of facilities for them, the crime rate would be reduced as would be the cost of keeping those people in our institutions. All that was a noble, good, great idea. I agree with the Minister for Health. The projects he mentioned are very commendable. It is very commendable to make conrtributions whether to the national lottery or any other source of funding, but it is a little bit much for any Minister to get up here, name and select certain projects and ask members of the Opposition if they object to this, why they object to it and whether they will come out publicly and state so.

I am sure Deputy Joe Sherlock was quoting from a leading article written in a southern paper in the past week about the lottery and the distribution of funds. I will not go into that now, but here is an impartial, independent observer who said you had an order of priority which indicated that where you had Ministers in a constituency that constituency benefited. We are talking about community halls and sporting and leisure facilities for young people. I do not want to be overcritical bacause this is a very serious debate, but the person who wrote that leading article had no axe to grind and I would say no political affiliation, but out of concern he assessed for himself that there was abuse, and considering the amount of money allocated I have no doubt in my mind that the abuse is there.

I am still interested in the national lottery because it is money out of the blue which if properly used can do so much good. If it is abused it will not be there to do good or harm. It is as simple as that. I made inquiries about the contributions on 5 January last from An Post. I wanted to find out exactly where the lottery was supported, in what counties, areas and places. I will quote a few examples. On 5 January, per capita, Longford headed the list at £1.13 per person per week. I inquired today, this very day, from An Post about Longford's contribution. It is 79p. On 5 January 1988 the contribution in Dublin, including city and county, was 72p; today it is 49p. Now I want to come to the country and constituency in which I have an interest. On 5 January 1988 it was 72p per person in Cork; now it is 51p per head per week. Is it not quite obvious that there are people who are not satisfied and who have lost interest in the national lottery? It is important that whatever problems are there be ironed out immediately.

I can see some merit in what the Government are talking about, setting up another layer of bureaucracy to distribute proceeds of the national lottery. I am not too enamoured by that aspect of the Progressive Democrats Bill. There must be some easier or more simplified way of distributing those proceeds.

I have no objection to what was said by the two Ministers who spoke here, because the Bill provides that surplus funds from the national lottery can be distributed in accordance with the wishes of the Government of the day. In other words, if they felt there was a need and if there were surplus funds over and above what was allocated for the three main headings particularly, at that stage the Government have a right to spend the balance. However, the lottery was never seen or understood by anybody as a gift to the constituencies represented by Ministers, TDs, councillors or Government representatives. For that reason it is a very serious matter.

I expect the Minister will be replying to this debate tomorrow night. I am a little saddened that the lottery is as it is at present. What happened? Was there any meeting or consultation? Was there any discussion in relation to the coming together of all the charitable organisations so that there would be a proper lottery with nobody getting hurt and no good causes suffering as a result of the introduction of the national lottery? Deputy Batt O'Keeffe is here. He is one of the Deputies from Cork who went around and made statements, distributed funds and informed organisations that as a result of his influence they were able to get funds from the national lottery.

You were well able to do it yourself.

I will challenge anybody in the House to prove that at any stage at any time I presented the cheque to any organisation or anybody.

(Interruptions.)

I can give instances where a Deputy from your constituency handed out £25,000.

(Interruptions.)

We have had what I would regard as very forceful and telling contributions and I want to advise Deputies on either side that if we do not have an audience for the speakers called upon I will be asking the offending Deputy to leave the House. I will not repeat that.

I do not want to invite interruptions but I mentioned that Deputy Batt O'Keeffe accused me of not being valid to myself. I want to challenge him to name one occasion on which I handed out a cheque on behalf of the Department——

He could not respond to that challenge now.

I know he could not but he has made the accusation.

Caithfidh tú críochnú.

Unless there is a change in the distribution of the lottery funds, we are killing the goose that laid the golden egg. It is time to retrieve the situation. Not only the Opposition Deputies but the general public are aware that this is being politicised, that it is being looked upon as a political slush fund and that Ministers and TDs are going to organisations and groups and giving them cheques. This is what is happening.

That is nonsense. It is not correct. No TD or Minister from my Department took any cheque.

If it is not correct I will withdraw it.

The Deputy should not make such statements unless he can substantiate them.

It was published in the national newspapers and the Minister should contradict it if it is not true.

(Interruptions.)

Since the lottery funds were first allocated last March many allegations, including those we have just heard now and which we find Deputy Creed read about in the newspapers, have been made on one aspect of the lottery allocation, namely, the £6 million allocated by way of recreation and amenity grants by the Department of the Environment and the £5.9 million allocated for youth and sport club facilities at local level by the Department of Education. The allegations centred on the publicity surrounding announcements of grants by Fianna Fáil Ministers and TDs in their own constituencies and the alleged unfair distribution of funds geographically throughout the country. Strong language has been used to add emotion to those allegations. Accusations of scandal and political gombeenism have been made by Deputies Harney and O'Malley. Phrases such as that the lottery is being used as a political slush fund by Fianna Fáil have also been used. The Progressive Democrats have chosen specific projects in specific areas amd made outrageous accusations without any reference to the facts surrounding those projects. On every individual project which any Deputy may wish to raise I can give the facts and these will show that the allocation is totally justified whether it is for a golf club, a hotel tennis complex or Portmarnock Community School I challenge Deputy Harney in particular to raise in public, or in private with me, any allocation that we have made in our Department and I will show her that that allocation was totally justified.

Let me take up some of the ones she has raised already. Last week she mentioned the scandal of Portmarnock Community School receiving a grant for a PE hall because there was already a sports centre in that place. So there is. The problem in Portmarnock is that that centre, properly and commercially managed, is so busy from morning to night that the school cannot get into it. A school of 950 pupils which did not have a sports hall was a fact that we had to comprehend and, because of continual promises over the years, we decided to give that school that sports hall. What makes the hypocrisy of Deputy Harney so great is that according to the official minute record of a Dublin County Council meeting on May 1988 which I have here in front of me, Deputy Harney voted twice in favour of granting £30,000 for the benefit of giving a PE hall to that school.

(Interruptions.)

She has mentioned the question of a luxury hotel in Kerry. Let me deal with that question. A proposal came from Cork-Kerry tourism that under our commercial development of sport programme we should make a grant of £10,000 available to this hotel for a tennis court facility subject to a covenant being signed with the local community that the facility would be used by the local community. We allocated the grant on that basis on the recommendation of Cork-Kerry tourism and we insisted that a proper facility, two tennis courts on synthetic surface with lights would be provided and that the local community would have full access to it. We also insisted that that facility would be properly managed by a leisure and recreation manager which the hotel was prepared to-employ.

That is exactly the type of leisure and recreational facility that is needed here because I see too many tennis courts with glass strewn all over them that are never used. We have a new dimension now in measuring recreational management, that is, that we build the proper facilities, manage them properly and use them to the full from morning till night. I stand proudly by the decision that we took in giving that provisional allocation. As it turns out agreement has not been reached with the local community. When the local community came back to us to say they were not happy we said that if they provided the site and the £35,000 required to add to our £10,000 we would give them the grant. They have not returned since. I am proud of that decision. It represents a new dimension in sport facility development here. It is one that I will stand over anywhere I go.

What about the golf clubs, the elite sport? I am glad to say that I was in Deputy Harney's constituency today in one of the two golf clubs I gave grants to under this scheme. There was a grant of £15,000 to Slade Valley and of £5,000 to Kilrush, £20,000 out of a total of £4 million. In Slade Valley today we initiated a new programme for golf for unemployed people, retired people and housewives, a programme that is now being adopted by golf clubs all over the country, with the exception of a number of championship courses particularly here in Dublin which obviously cannot accommodate such people.

I am proud that golf as a live sport which is now growing among the masses is getting a small amount of support from the lottery. The additional support Deputy Harney mentioned went to clubs from the Department of the Environment and I am glad to say that all of those clubs are now participating in like schemes. The other golf clubs who got grants got them under the commercial development of sport programme to encourage the development of tourism in five designated tourist areas. Already the Germans are packing in as a result of the initiatives we have taken. I make no apology for that kind of development. I make no apology to anybody for the fact that sport is now, for the first time, making a major commercial contribution to the life of this country, resulting in quite a number of new jobs. If Deputy Harney wishes to come up with any other slip-shod accusations, I will deal with those too. The Progressive Democrats cheap shot on this issue has been: let the facts not spoil a good story. Their misleading allegations on a few specific projects have brought the total national lottery allocations into disrepute and this is the greatest disservice that that party have done the country for some time. With those wild accusations they have brought the national lottery into disrepute and people are asking me what, in the name of goodness, we are doing with the lottery.

Tonight I wish to detail the total allocation of lottery funds made by my Department on youth and sport for the first time. I wish to show that the allegations made are untrue, that they stem from a background of bitterness and political jealousy on the part of a party whose interest in and commitment to youth, sport and recreation is absolutely pathetic. In setting out the total and detailed analysis of the lottery proceeds amounting to £27.14 million allocated by my Department — and I ask that the charts be given out — I ask the House, and those in the press gallery in particular, to be judge and jury of whether I, as Minister of State, my Minister, the Minister for Education, or our Department officials acted in any improper or unfair way in the task placed on us. The fact sheets now being distributed give a detailed breakdown of the specific allocations of lottery proceeds made by my Department. It is essential to point out that these allocations replace the total Exchequer expenditure on youth and sport and are made in exactly the same way, adhering to the same strict criteria as in previous years. The same departmental regulations, the same official accountability by civil servants, apply this year as previously. When we adopted new programmes I strongly insisted on even greater control and accountability to ensure efficiency of expenditure. For example, the Government allocated for the first time this year £4 million to my Department for expenditure on the most deprived and underprivileged young people. I appointed an interdepartmental committee of civil servants to ensure total co-ordination and avoid duplication. I consulted with people like Sister Stanislaus and Fr. Peter McVerry and then I accepted in full, and implemented, the recommendations of the interdepartmental committee.

I am glad to say that arising out of those allocations, subsequently made, many young people such as the homeless, substance abusers and children in conflict with the law now enjoy an enhanced lifestyle. A total of £16.64 million from current expenditure has been spent by my Department on youth and sport. I defy anybody to show any misappropriation in expenditure. Similarly, I challenge any person to prove how the money could be more fairly or effectively spent. I am proud of the effectiveness of the allocations and of the fact that in a number of schemes priority in expenditure has been in the less-well-off areas and on people who suffer from a disadvantage of some kind.

I was astounded last week at the proposal of the Progressive Democrats, which I take as their current policy, that less money should be spent on sport and instead be used to replace Exchequer expenditure in other areas. What they are saying is that the lottery proceeds should now become a tax to replace Exchequer expenditure. As Deputy Creed said — I complimented him on being the person who brought the lottery into being — the central concept of the lottery as proposed by Cospóir was to provide a regular source of substantial funding for sport. Other areas which, like sport, had not been adequately funded over the years were later included.

I now urge the many youth and sports organisations, in addition to the thousands of people involved in youth affairs and sport, to vehemently reject this Progressive Democrats proposal for dilution of funds away from sport and youth, as proposed by them last week. This year's allocation from the lottery has enabled the Government to give adequate funding for the first time in support of the massive voluntary effort in youth and sport. I should like to state categorically that there is no other area of Exchequer expenditure which gives a better return to the State on the investment it makes than that of youth and sport.

I should now like to turn to the capital programme which I outlined in pages 1 and 2 of the document circulated. There is a detailed breakdown of the allocations of funds for our national, regional and local facility development programme in that document. That programme, now taking place, was proposed by the Cospóir National Sports Centre Committee and adopted by the previous Government. In fact, the only political stroke that was attempted was that by Deputy Cooney who on the morning the report was presented suggested that instead of being in Dublin the national sports centre should be in Athlone. That was an attempt at a political stroke.

That is not fair.

As the document circulated shows, we are putting in place a nationwide network of sports facilities which includes a national sports centre, an outdoor sports stadium, basketball and badminton centres together with six regional centres. It would not have been possible to contemplate such a range of sports facilities 18 months ago. The national sports centre, which is being built at a cost of £35 million, will open its doors within three years. It will be constructed by the same method as that being used on the Custom House Docks development and will provide a 15,000-seat arena with multi-purpose indoor sports facilities and a 50-metre pool.

I should like to indicate the damage that is being done by the irresponsibility of the Progressive Democrats, backed by other parties. We heard from Deputy Noonan, a senior member of Fine Gael, that we should be thinking of providing a national sports centre. When one sees that a senior member of the Fine Gael Party does not know that we are about to lay the foundation stone of the national sports centre, which will be the finest in Europe, one can understand the disservice his party are doing in regard to the allocation of the lottery funds. The fact that it is being developed by private sector investment enables us to proceed with the construction of the regional sports facilities. The local authorities are now at an advanced stage of planning on each of those facilities with a view to their commencement in the near future and their completion within two years. I ask Members to refer to the first page of the document which has been circulated and they will see that a range of facilities costing in the region of £50 million will be completed and opened to the public within the next three years. That could not have been contemplated without the national lottery and it is the kind of service the national lottery has provided.

That is a credit to Deputy Creed. It was his brainchild and he got no credit for that.

It is credit to Deputy Creed, and I said that.

Deputy Kenny may not have been present when we said we would not have any corncrakish interruptions. I should like to point out that the Minister of State is capable of making his own contribution and he should be allowed to proceed without interruption.

The corncrake has gone.

With regard to the local facilities for which the Government have allocated £5.9 million to the Department of Education, I should like to point out that we have taken great care to ensure that the best possible return is achieved on that expenditure. Since 1980 the Department have operated a scheme under strict Department of Finance regulations for the provision of youth, sport and community facilities under the capital programme. In deciding on the successful organisations to whom funds are to be allocated I have used criteria such as to help those who are prepared to help themselves, as far as possible, to try to be fair and reasonable with a geographic spread, to take account of the views of informed and reliable sources in each of those counties, to have regard to the number of applications on hand at the time of the allocation and the amounts allocated to similar projects in previous years. I am insisting on proper planning, physical and financial, to ensure full utilisation and commercial viability of the completed facility. I am satisfied that a fair allocation is being made by me as Minister for Sport backed up by a knowledgeable Civil Service. In any scheme where there are 1,000 applications and resources that will fund only 250 it is understandable that many applicants will be disappointed.

The document I have circulated gives an account of the moneys allocated to each county and Members will agree that each county received a fair allocation. It is not possible to give each county an equal amount because we do not make decision based on mathematical considerations.

On politics only.

Where Ministers reside.

I have clearly outlined the programme, capital and current. There have been no scandals, no political slush funds. There has been nothing except absolute integrity on my part and on the part of my officials. I treat with the contempt it deserves the attempt by Deputy Harney, by implication, to question our integrity.

I should like to refer to the Deputy Leader of the Progressive Democrats to give an indication of what has gone on. The House will be aware that Deputy Keating was Minister of State at the Department of Education between June 1981 and February 1982. He withdrew approximately £4 million in recreational grants which had previously been allocated by the present occupant of the Chair, Deputy Tunney. After some controversy he reinstated most of the grants but reallocated £414,000 as follows: Tolka Rovers AFC, £40,000 in Dublin Central; Transport Boxing Club, £35,000 in Dublin Central; Ierne Social Club, £50,000 in Dublin Central; Dunshaughlin Community Council, £50,000 in County Meath; Charleville LTC, £13,000 in Dublin Central; St. Saviours YC, Dominick Street, £8,000, in Dublin Central; St. Joseph's Senior Citizens, East Wall, £20,000, in Dublin Central; Marino/Fairview Community Council, £18,000 in Dublin Central; CY Fairview, £80,000 in Dublin Central and Sheriff Street sports hall, £100,000 in Dublin Central. In case Members are wondering how Dunshaughlin happened to be the odd one out, I should like to point out that by coincidence that happens to be where Deputy Keating lives.

I should like to ask Deputy Harney what constituency the Deputy Leader of her party, Deputy Michael Keating, represents. There is an eerie silence hanging over the Progressive Democrats. He represents the constituency of Dublin Central. I have searched in vain for a record of Deputy Keating having consulted a High Court judge or an independent commission. A Leas-Cheann Comhairle, may I ask Deputy Harney whether she feels it is necessary to appoint a High Court judge to be the deputy leader of her party? There is an eerie silence hanging over the Progressive Democrats. May I ask Deputy Harney how she feels the rest of the country fared in the allocation of the £414,000, seeing that she is so concerned about fairness and equity in recent weeks?

This legislation is the greatest act of political gombeenism that we have seen brought before this House in many a long year. We know, and in fact they stated themselves less than 24 hours after they introduced it that the legislation was unworkable. We know there is no way we can accept the system being proposed in this House.

A Leas-Cheann Comhairle, may I be allowed continue tomorrow night, if that is possible, and I will deal with further aspects of the proposed legislation?

Will the Minister of State move the adjournment? The Minister of State will have ten minutes tomorrow night.

Debate adjourned.
Top
Share