A Ceann Comhairle, I extend my congratulations to you on your moving to calmer waters. As a new Member I have appreciated knowing you for the past year.
Private Members' Business. - National Lottery Funding: Motion (Resumed)
The following motion was moved by Deputy Keogh on Tuesday, 22 April 1997:
That Dáil Éireann, recognising the arbitrary and unfair way in which national lottery funds are currently distributed, the lack of openness, transparency and accountability in the process, and the lack of any set application or qualification criteria for the making of lottery grants, calls on the Government to:
(a) review current procedures for the disbursement of lottery funds;
(b) re-state the legal and administrative basis on which decisions on lottery grants are currently made; and
(c) establish an independent trust to control the distribution of lottery funds.
Debate resumed on amendment No. 1:
To delete all words after "That" and substitute the following:
"Dáil Éireann, acknowledging the contribution made by the national lottery towards the funding of areas such as sport and other recreation, arts and culture, youth and welfare, notes:
(a) that over the period 1987-96 allocations of national lottery funds totalling approximately £700m have been made for the purposes approved under the National Lottery Act, 1986;
(b) that details of national lottery allocations are contained in the annual Estimates Volumes and Appropriation Accounts; and
(c) that a national lottery review group is currently examining the allocation of lottery funds with a view to ensuring maximum transparency in the allocation of the lottery surplus with particular reference to the allocations of financial support for voluntary — for example, sporting and community — agencies."
—(Minister of State at the Department of Finance, Mrs. Doyle.)
The Áras is beckoning.
I have no comment on that. Last night I began my contribution on the national lottery by thanking the Progressive Democrats for raising the issue. We all accept the lottery has been a success which has aroused the interest of a large percentage of people. The manner in which lottery funds are distributed raises a similar amount of interest. As with any institution, it is realistic to review the lottery ten or eleven years after its inception. The issue of targeting lottery funding and its value to entire communities has been an interest of mine. Over the past year I have talked to many people from diverse backgrounds and interests.
Before becoming a Member of this House I was a teacher in a large secondary school in the Creggan in Derry. Within that school there was a huge investment in music resources; both in instruments and peripatetic and class-based teachers. This resulted in children having in-school and after school activities whether in a choir, a band, an ensemble, individual lessons or events. The pupils participated in feiseanna, musicals and other cultural events both within and outside the school. These events were often linked to charities and benefited the local community by collecting money for valuable services.
As a result of these activities, the children learnt a sense of discipline, the value of working together and pride in their own grouping and background. Everyone benefited from this investment.The students were happier and happy students make for happy teachers. The school had a good self-image and the community had a positive resource within its boundaries. In the context of lottery funding, the importance of music must be taken on board even more than it is at present.
Single allocations for large events are only one aspect of lottery fund distribution. Schools such as the one I spoke of receive grants of tens of thousands of pounds for the purchase of instruments.According to a parliamentary question I tabled last year, three schools in County Donegal benefited from our type of grant for school orchestras and bands. However, they only received £90 between them. Our investment in these activities is incomparable.
Much of what I am speaking of could be considered the responsibility of the Department of Education. I have not touched on the educational value of music to the development of children. My argument rests on the societal benefits of such investment. Therefore, while the reduction may seem slight, 0.2 per cent, I am disappointed to see that the lottery's arts, cultural and heritage estimate spending in 1997 is down from 26 per cent to 25.8 per cent. This is not going in the right direction.
In areas distant from large urban centres, such as the north west, there is a feeling that people are forgotten. Whether perceived or real, it is felt that too many initiatives are not applied north of the line between Dublin and Galway. The Department of Tourism and Trade's Celtic Flame initiative would suggest this is correct. Some people seem to think Galway is next door to Donegal. Dublin is almost as far away as Galway for many people in the north-west.
We have debated and passed legislation throughout the year on issues such as crime, drugs and children. Very bleak pictures were painted during those debates. Recreational facilities could combat much of the boredom which lies at the root of problems. Many speakers spoke of the need to better target resources at recreation. Last year 33 per cent of lottery funds were allocated to youth, sport, recreation and amenities. This year an estimated 32.2 per cent will be spent on these facilities. The reduction is small in percentage terms but it is a sizeable amount of money.
If a community group is unsuccessful in seeking lottery assistance in providing sporting facilities there are no alternative funding bodies. European funds exclude anything involving bricks and mortar. The national lottery is the only source of funding for many community groups. Small groups rely on this assistance to ensure that their young people have somewhere to go and something constructive to do with their time.
The ideals of voluntary workers deserve support.Investment at the early stages would have cost-saving repercussions in later life. There needs to be continued support which targets as many children as possible. The downward trend in estimated expenditure on music and sport must be reversed.
There needs to be a review of the lottery's objectives. Measures prescribed ten years ago do not necessarily reflect today's needs. Music and recreational activities are very productive activities for children. They teach children how to work together in teams and how to listen to each other and get on. If they do not get on, at least they learn to handle their emotions. These activities take children off the streets.
When one considers the money spent on young people involved in crime and on prison spaces, it is more prudent to invest money in preventative measures. There is much good work being done which I hope will be recognised, leading to a revision of the capping provisions. Whenever people are engaging in any positive activity for the benefit of the community, they should be helped rather than hindered.
I am glad the national lottery has been such a success and I congratulate those who support it. When it comes to the targeting of its funds they should be allocated where most needed, benefiting as many as possible.
With the permission of the House, I should like to share my time with Deputies Upton and Lynch.
I am sure that is quite in order and agreed.
I should like to be associated with Deputy Keaveney's kind comments in relation to your retirement, a Cheann Comhairle, and wish you well. I always remember the first occasion on which I walked down these steps and met you. I will not remind the House of what you said to me on that occasion but I hope your remarks were correct, that I would be a Member of this House for many a long day. No doubt the House will experience great difficulty in appointing a successor, following a person of such considerable panache and ability and fairness in rulings.
I am very disappointed at the tabling of this motion by members of the Progressive Democrats. I cannot understand Members from any side of the House wanting to divest politicians of their powers. As somebody who progressed through the political system — by way of the urban council, county council to being a Member of this House — I cannot understand their objective.One only has to consider the manner in which the National Roads Authority distributes funds. It is answerable to nobody and frequently does not respond to correspondence. One cannot make strong representations to them on behalf of constituents. The same is true of IDA-Ireland and other semi-State boards which are no longer accountable to politicians.
We must remember that people elect us to this Parliament to represent them. That is its raison d'être. If they are not satisfied with us an interview board can be convened at any time, as it will be in the near future, when the electorate will decide who they want to run the country.
I cannot understand why the Progressive Democrats have tabled this motion and are being supported by the Fianna Fáil Party to prevent politicians from allocating national lottery funds — an objective I could never support — particularly when successive Governments and parties in Opposition have informed local authorities they will give power back to the people. The proposal in this motion is quite the contrary.
A young group in my constituency called Caoibh Rua applied for funding to the cultural relations section of the Department of Foreign Affairs in three consecutive years but received none. It took me many weeks to obtain the relevant report to ascertain where that funding had been allocated. I can positively inform the House that much of it never reached the west, just as in the case of the National Roads Authority and IDA-Ireland in the case of job creation. If we in the west are to be dependent on those in Dublin to take decisions on our behalf, it is indeed a sad day. I have been elected to fight for them and it is the responsibility of those in Government, to stand over any decisions taken.
There always will be people who will never agree with any decision, such as those in sporting organisations or swimming clubs who will claim they deserve more funding than anyone else. At the end of the day, politicians do take correct decisions, being familiar with circumstances on the ground. I attend clinics every weekend and listen to my constituents. I know what is taking place within my community and those local organisations in need of support. I am proud that last year I was able to assist the Sacred Heart School in Westport to the tune of £50,000. I listened to Deputy Keaveney quite rightly talk about schools. Those funds would not have been allocated to that school had we been dependent on somebody in an office in Dublin 4, but I fought for it and explained to the Minister what the people in that school were doing. In many other places such as Louisburgh voluntary groups are fighting hard to maintain people in rural areas.
I can never understand why any politician would want to divest us of our powers. I do not consider this or any future Government should engage in that practice. I am sick and tired of tabling parliamentary questions, only to have the Ceann Comhairle inform me they are out of order or are not the responsibility of the Minister to whom they are addressed. They should be the responsibility of the Minister, who should be accountable and responsible to this House, not to those in Dublin 4 or others who are answerable to nobody.
I have arranged to have my name placed on the ballot paper in the forthcoming general election when the people will decide whether they want to re-elect me. They will take the correct decision. I cannot understand the Fianna Fáil Party supporting this motion, particularly when their rural representatives tell the electorate they will give power back to local authorities, whereas the objective of this motion is to take power from elected representatives. I could understand and support it if its objective were to divest Ministers of those powers and vest them in local authorities but I cannot support the establishment of a review group, no doubt to be comprised of big business people or others from the east coast, when we know well where funding will go. It annoys me to observe such occurrences.
While not a Member of this House when the national lottery was established, I remember reading Deputy Creed's contention that it would never work whereas it has proved to the most successful operation. I agree with Deputy Keaveney in that I would never wish to control any voluntary organisation or have any capped. I believe in fair play and free competition and, if Rehab and others want to compete, they should be enabled do so on the same basis as the national lottery, offering the same prize money and leaving the best to win.
I have a major problem in any effort to take powers away from elected representatives. I appeal to the Progressive Democrats to withdraw this motion and to the Fianna Fáil Party to vote with the Government on its amendment. They should think of all the good voluntary groups throughout rural areas that have obtained funding from the national lottery, whose very existence affords Members an opportunity to fight on behalf of their constituents and ensure fair play. If we must approach faceless people in Dublin 4, answerable to nobody, as happened in the case of other organisations who acted like little generals when they received some power, no doubt we will meet the same response.
It is my pleasure to join in the well deserved good wishes and tributes paid to you, a Cheann Comhairle, by other Members. By any standard yours has been a remarkable career. On a personal note, I always considered you to be at your best on big occasions, particularly on the occasion of President Clinton's visit here when you performed magnificently, with a most appropriate speech, which again was remarkable and compared favourably with the best expected of any Parliament.
In relation to the contribution by my colleague, Deputy Ring, about Dublin 4, I accept Dublin 4 is, to a large extent, a state of mind. I do not represent Dublin 4 but its neighbouring areas Dublin 6, 8 and 12 which has are many areas which would be appropriate for lottery funding. To the extent that one can analyse these matters on a per capita basis the Dublin area does not do well in respect of the disbursement of lottery funding. This is something that may be forgotten in these debates.
There is relatively little difference between the substance of the Government amendment and the motion proposed by the Progressive Democrats.It contains a certain amount of overlap and some of the language used is the type we associate with the Progressive Democrats in Opposition.When in Government, as with many of us, a different type of wording is used.
The Progressive Democrats want a review of the procedure for disbursing lottery funding. The Government has established a body to undertake a review of the allocation of lottery funding. There is not much of a difference. The proposed review deals with transparency, a concern expressed by the Progressive Democrats. There is no doubt the lottery has been an outstanding success, to date it has generated of the order of £700 million which has been used to fund worthwhile projects in youth, welfare, heritage, amenities and so on. The rate at which lottery funding is generated is of the order of £100 million per year. That is not a huge amount in terms of the total budget but it is a significant amount and undoubtedly helps to greatly enhance the quality of life for many people.
Despite its success in generating huge sums of money in the past ten years, the lottery is by no means perfect. It is time a critical review of its workings was carried out. By any standards, the £700 million which has been disbursed to date is a significant sum. It is time we considered the question of carrying out a value for money audit on how that money was spent, whether it might have been better spent and the lessons for the future arising from the experiences of the past decade.
Much has been said — and Deputy Ring alluded to it — about the lottery being used as a slush fund for political purposes. I do not want to amplify that view of the lottery or that view of politicians. However, some of the behaviour associated with the disbursement of lottery funds in 1992 in my constituency left much to be desired. At that time there was what might loosely be termed "instant lottery disbursement". People were somewhat bewildered on receipt of the lottery cheques. They did not really know what had happened. Having attended a meeting and made application on the back of an envelope, lo and behold a few days later the cheques, some of which were made out to organisations that did not exist, were available. This is an understandable type of error when people are overcome by the nitty gritty of the detail of a retirement association or a youth club. While the procedures followed at that time left a great deal to be desired, the end use to which the money was put was worthwhile. The organisations and the people supported were worthwhile. They made a contribution to the community prior to that and they continued to make a contribution to the community in my constituency. Some of the money disbursed at that time went towards building community halls which have been a great help, even if the manner in which the money was disbursed was unorthodox.
At a political level sometimes people under-estimate the wisdom and the cop-on of the average person. The manner in which the money was disbursed made much political difference. At that time, some of my supporters showed me the cheques for which they were grateful and assured me of their No. 1 vote. There are limits to what that type of activity does in terms of political advantage. We should all be a little more restrained in how we do the business.
I differ from Deputy Ring inasmuch as I see a good deal of merit in establishing an independent agency to disburse lottery funding. The Government should lay down standards and the money should be disbursed by an agency in accordance with those standards. It is important that proper procedures be established for the disbursement of funding. Clear guidelines should be laid down and a proper procedure established on how applications are to be made for lottery funding. Prior to the events of 1992 and the subsequent hearings at the Committee of Public Accounts there was no formal mechanism by which to make lottery funding applications. One simply made it up as one went along on a sheet of paper or on the back of an envelope. Subsequent to the hearings at the Committee of Public Accounts the procedure was changed and that was a step in the right direction. The procedures for a review on how the money was spent could be enhanced. Certainly procedures have improved arising from those events.
I wish to draw attention to regional disparities between disbursement of lottery funding on a per capita basis. On the assumption that people contribute much the same amounts of money on a per capita basis, in other words that people from counties Donegal or Kerry play the lottery to the same extent as people in Dublin, it is hard to understand or justify the fairly considerable differences which exist on a per head of population regarding the outcome of lottery funds. Some areas do five or six times better than others. While I realise I am taking the maximum and the minimum in those matters it is important to look again at that aspect of the process.
The lottery generates and promotes a culture that there is an easy solution to almost every problem. Many people seem to believe their difficulties can be resolved by winning the lottery. The chances of winning the lottery are so infinitesimal I cannot understand why anybody who is serious about betting could indulge in buying lottery tickets. One has about the same chance of winning as the roof falling in.
That is the beauty of it.
It is a hopeless job. If you want to gamble your money with some hope of winning, you would be much better off dealing with the bookies. I am not a supporter of the bookies but in terms of the odds one has a much better chance compared with the lottery.
People want to dream.
The paradoxical aspect of the lottery is the bigger the jackpot the smaller one's chances of winning unless one buys a large quantities of tickets. The bigger the jackpot the more people gamble. There is an element of this which may be worth exploring. Something which concerns me is the hype associated with the promotion of lottery funds, it is unbalanced. There is another side to all this. Most people who gamble in the lottery do not have a hope of winning. That side of the case is never put. It might not be out of place if some of the public service agencies in broadcasting were to state that side of the case. When the stakes increase there is huge hype to promote the jackpot and to suggest people should invest in the lottery. The only people discussed after the big event are the winners. They are a minority to which many of us aspire. However, something should be said on behalf of the people who spend millions of pounds and get nothing. I am not saying one should not be interested in winners, but a case can be made for discussing the other side of the equation.
Concern has been expressed by many people about the manner in which lottery funds have been substituted for Exchequer spending. I accept their point, but I wish they would take the argument further and explain how they would replace the moneys in the Exchequer if lottery funds were not used. Perhaps they would outline the cutbacks they would propose to make up the deficit. In these matters, people cannot have it every way.
The most telling comment this morning about the Ceann Comhairle's position was the Ceann Comhairle's own remark that, despite all that had been said, there would still be Members who would be happy to see the back of him. That proved that despite the Ceann Comhairle's air of elevation and of being not quite of this world, he is a realist about politics. That is why he has survived so well. I have been a Member of the House for almost three years, which contrasts with the Ceann Comhairle's long service, and the Ceann Comhairle has always been most courteous, kind and helpful. At a time when politicians thought little of themselves, the Ceann Comhairle thought more of us and always portrayed that. I hope the Ceann Comhairle and his wife have an extremely happy retirement and that he will not be too busy and will have time to relax.
When the idea of a national lottery was first mooted, nobody envisaged its eventual success. It was estimated at its launch that it might raise about £12 million over ten years. However, since 1986 the national lottery has raised £700 million for worthy causes. Everybody has a gripe from time to time about the lottery. People are often disappointed when their project does not get approval for funding or does not get as much funding as expected while a nearby project does. It is natural for them to assume that if they had had better connections with the local politician or Minister they would have received more. However, in the past 20 years almost every political party has participated in Government and, since almost everybody in Ireland is connected with an individual politician or party, the spread of lottery funding must have been equal. While there should be more openness and transparency in the disbursement of lottery funding, a politician cannot honestly call for its distribution to be taken out of the hands of politicians when each party has enjoyed its share of the distribution.That might not be right, but it happened.
The lottery has become a national institution. I smiled when Deputy Upton asked if anybody spoke for the losers. We all speak for the losers every day of the week. We have not yet hit the magic jackpot so we can speak for them. However, for a politician to say that everybody loves a winner is a huge understatement. Of course they do, and nobody knows that better than a politician.
Certain aspects of the lottery should be urgently reviewed. Different regulations should be put in place to ensure certain practices do not continue. I have spoken about this matter on many occasions and have always expressed concern about the lack of a ceiling on the advertising budget. When one considers some of the gimmicks the national lottery have launched, particularly in the past year, most people would agree there should be restraint on what the advertising budget can be used for and how much money should be allocated to it. At present, there is no cap on the budget and the amount of money spent on projects such as the millenium clock is sinful. Everybody was amazed by that project. They knew even if it worked it would not be a great attraction. In addition, what benefit would it be to people or to the national lottery?
While the sum of £140,000 which was spent to advertise the visit of the aircraft carrier, the JFK, was not as great, it was equally sinful if not immoral. Why was the national lottery promoting the “greatest killing machine in the world”, as it was described in advertisements? Nobody could get an answer to inquiries about its involvement in this visit and how much it spent on it. Only in the annual report did we get a breakdown of how much was spent but the reason for the venture was never explained. That is disgraceful and such ventures should stop forthwith. Gimmicks such as the two I have mentioned are only for the sake of spending money.
Another aspect of the national lottery which concerns me and on which I have spoken several times, is the use of unclaimed prize money. It is estimated that it amounts to approximately £4 million each year. What happens to that money? It is given out in special jackpots on occasions such as Easter, Christmas and St. Patrick's Day. The jackpots on those occasions are usually large anyway. I do not seek to limit jackpots to £1 million or £1.5 million. If somebody is lucky enough to win £3 million I wish him luck and hope he enjoys the money. However, the unclaimed prize money should be put into a special fund and my preference for its use would be to provide services for the mentally handicapped. I doubt that anybody in Ireland would object to the moneys being diverted for that purpose.
I agree with the sentiments expressed by Members, particularly those expressed this morning, on the Ceann Comhairle's announcement of his retirement on the dissolution of the Dáil. I also agree with the pride expressed by the Ceann Comhairle's constituency colleagues in South Tipperary. As a Deputy representing the south-east, I believe we all shared in the pride and credit the Ceann Comhairle brought to the region and not just to his native town and constituency. Following my election to the House for the first time in 1987 I always found you fair and helpful — the hallmark of excellence — in spite of my inclination at times to get excited on the Order of Business. You carried out your duties as Ceann Comhairle to the highest possible standards. There is a great sense of loss that you will not be with us in the next Dáil. I wish you a long, healthy and enjoyable retirement with your wife, immediate family and friends. Many of us could not aspire to match your contribution to public life. It will be difficult to match your achievements over many years of public service at local, national and international level in which your family has every right to take great pride. I wish you well.
I welcome the opportunity to speak about the national lottery of which I am a supporter. It is a worthwhile venture which has done enormous good in communities throughout the country. Nothing is perfect at its inception. Now that the national lottery has been in operation for ten years there is nothing wrong with reviewing its operations, both internal and external, to assess its effectiveness in the allocation of funding under the headings of sport, the national heritage, health and welfare and to see if its achievements to date can be built upon. Nothing is so successful that it cannot be improved.
In general, I have no difficulty with the sentiments expressed in the motion but I take great issue with paragraph (c) to which I will return. To understand what the national lottery is all about, one needs to look at what is happening in various communities throughout the country. We are best qualified to speak about what is happening in our own areas. There is no doubt that in the allocation of national lottery moneys communities throughout Waterford city and county have been galvanised and given a great sense of purpose in maintaining the structures that hold them together. We should not lose sight of the fact that it would be difficult to find these moneys in various departmental Estimates.
When I look at national lottery allocations, on occasion I feel aggrieved that other parts of the country receive a disproportionate amount. While communities throughout Waterford city and county have benefited, funding should be allocated on an equitable basis. If that is the central thrust of the motion, it is something I can fully support.
There is a constant drift from rural communities towards urban areas. The loss of the local post office or Garda station compounds the difficulties experienced in maintaining the fabric of rural Ireland. We, therefore, have to find other ways of ensuring rural communities continue to grow. There is a need to provide structures to retain young people in particular. To this end, national lottery moneys have played a substantial role as seed capital. The real benefit is that members of rural communities have been galvanised to raise funding locally to provide facilities which everyone can share. This gives them a sense of purpose, pride and achievement.
When the national lottery was first established it was suggested there should be regional centres to ensure equality of access to sports facilities. I subscribed to this view. While there was an initial rush of blood to provide such centres, they have not been developed to the level required. We have lost focus in recent years. This is understandable as it is difficult to refuse requests for funding for worthy projects. Ten years on, however, we should be able to see facilities throughout the country to which as many sporting disciplines as possible have access. It is not feasible to provide large structures in every town and village. That would be the wrong approach.
What Waterford Corporation has achieved in recent years is remarkable, given the lack of Government and national lottery funding. If adequate funding was provided for the Waterford regional sports centre, the structure in place could be developed to the point where international events could be attracted to the area. Every event does not have to take place in the capital. This is an issue about which everyone outside Dublin feels strongly. Regional centres, if properly funded, have the capacity to inject new life to the regions concerned. This would make an enormous difference. There would be a knock-on effect in the tourism industry in that many visitors would be likely to return.
We will be seeking substantial funding to enhance the footballing structures with the county. In this connection, I hope Waterford Football Club will be returning to the premier division. The athletics facilities need to be further developed, while additional facilities must be provided to cater for the very large crowds attending events in the area on a regular basis.
I regret the Government did not avail of the opportunity provided by our buoyant economy to pull back the national lottery funding made available to the health and welfare areas. This funding was rightly allocated to these areas at a time when our economic position was very different. However, Departments should now be able to meet the requirements of these areas from their budgets. Investment in sports, recreational amenities, the arts and cultural activities has many beneficial effects for communities For example, if young people, particularly those in disadvantaged areas, can be encouraged to get involved in sport they are less likely to get involved in crime or to take drugs, which are a major curse on society. The provision of adequate sporting and other facilities has huge benefits in terms of health and welfare and I am sure Deputies will agree national lottery funding should be allocated for the purposes originally intended.
I am unhappy with paragraph (c) of the motion. The standing of politicians in the community is low and the blame for much of this lies with this House. However, it is not good enough to say to the public that we will bridge this credibility gap by setting up independent bodies and ad hoc committees to do our work for us. If politicians want to regain the status they once held they must do this work themselves. I am not saying there is no need for more openness and transparency in how funding is distributed — there is — but I will not be answerable to my constituents when a person on a committee or independent body which decides how Exchequer funding should be spent is not answerable to anybody.
I am sick and tired of political correctness which originated in America and was taken up here with no major benefits. I accept some matters needed to be sorted out and tidied up and new directions needed to be found but it is a grave error to look to bodies outside this House, our most democratic forum to decide the distribution of national lottery funding. This is a step in the wrong direction. We have seen the effects of this at local level where local government was diminished almost beyond recognition. I support many of the proposals put forward by the Minister for the Environment, Deputy Howlin, on restructuring local government. We had given so much power to ad hoc committees that no one was answerable to anyone for the spending of local government funding. We must not go down a similar road at national level. We have the capacity to stand over the decisions made and we must demonstrate this. I accept there is a bias from time to time in the distribution of funding by Ministers. However, this can be overcome by adopting a more transparent, structured and focused approach in terms of what we want to achieve with national lottery funding. The sentiments of the motion are fine but the proposal in paragraph (c) can be dealt with in another way. I do not support the policy of going down the road of looking to independent bodies to solve problems.I hope the National Lottery Review Group will outline new ways forward, new areas on which to focus, new structures and projects which should be developed.
There has been much reference to the millennium clock for which there are many euphemisms and which has been removed from the river Liffey.National lottery funding could be used to celebrate the millennium. There are five county-city boroughs and it should be possible to have a project in each city which is linked — for example, a type of tourist trail — and which will attract tourists.I do not have a specific project in mind but Dublin, Cork, Limerick, Galway and Waterford cities and counties have a role to play. It was proposed to establish a five continents project where each continent would have a similar project to celebrate the millennium. Waterford was chosen to represent Europe in this project. This was an international honour for Ireland and a huge honour for my city and county. I hope the necessary funding will be made available for such a project. It would be great to see Waterford representing Ireland and Europe at the dawn of the new era.
Charitable lotteries have a role to play in the community. However, they have been treated unfairly in recent years, for example, the cap on the prize money they could offer. These charities must be given an equal opportunity to raise funds through their lotteries.
The national lottery has achieved much but it can achieve more. In a democracy the ultimate responsibility for this matter rests with the Dáil. If we want to have credibility we must accept this responsibility, get on with the job, ensure that the funding is allocated in a more open and transparent way and be responsible for our actions.
I support the motion tabled by Deputy Keogh. It is time after 11 years in operation for some fundamental changes to be made to certain aspects of the national lottery. There seems to be a general acceptance that the national lottery is a great success because it brings in very large sums of money. However, that is not the only criterion by which it should be judged. One of the consequences of its success is that it has all but destroyed charitable lotteries and has made it very difficult for people to raise money by way of a lottery or raffle for genuine charitable causes. There is a limited amount of money in the pockets of the public which can be spent on lotteries or gambling in the widest sense of that word. Because of the huge prizes it gives — some prizes are unnecessarily and unconscionably big — the vast bulk of this optional spending tends to go to the national lottery. When one considers the way this money is used, I am not sure this is necessarily the best option. I would like to see a fairer proportion of this money going to genuine charities.
At a time when the Government promotes and helps the national lottery it refuses to amend the Gaming and Lotteries Act, 1956, and thereby refuses to give genuine charitable organisations an opportunity to compete even in the smallest way. That is wrong.
The odds involved in the national lottery, which unfortunately many people do not examine, are so large as to be meaningless. If the people who studied it were genuinely interested in trying to get some return on their stake, they would bet on lottery numbers in bookmakers' offices where their prospects are considerably better. The national lottery odds are so great as to make the chances of success extraordinarily remote. That is borne out by the fact that it is frequently not won for several weeks at a time. The national lottery organisers are delighted when that happens. They would like it to be won perhaps once in every two or three months because they could then hold up the prospect of a vast divided of many millions of pounds, which appeals to the basest instincts in people. That is unfortunate because there are different ways of approaching it.
When I say I am interested in the welfare of genuine charities, I bear in mind in particular the fact that the disbursement of lottery funds is one of its great weaknesses. Section 5 of the 1986 Act, which allows discretion to the Government to expend it for such other purposes as the Government sees fit, is wrong because it has been abused. In spite of the assurances given to this House at the time the legislation was passed, it is used as a substitute for Exchequer spending that would otherwise have to take place. I regret that. We were led to believe at the time the Bill was being promoted that the vast bulk of the profits would be expended on sport and other socially beneficial activities. That has not happened.
Deputy Cullen believes politicians should continue to be allowed to disburse these funds. I would agree with him if I were confident it would be done on a proper basis, but it is not. In my constituency of Limerick East, which is by far the larger constituency of the two in Limerick, no national lottery money was disbursed for a period of two years. All the money was spent in the smaller constituency of Limerick West because it had two Ministers at the time, whereas Limerick East had none.
They were like that.
That was changed.
Unfortunately, from what I can see, it changed between east and west, but the leopard does not change its spots. We still have a situation, as Deputy Keogh outlined last night, where the ear of the Minister and the Minister's perception of what might be done is more important than the genuine needs of organisations in a particular area. What went on in Limerick West at that time was disgraceful. In 1989, the Progressive Democrats in Government sought to have that stopped and we were partly successful. We insisted on some amounts being given to health boards, for example. More money should be given to local authorities to enable them to disburse funds.
One of the weaknesses of the national lottery, among others, is that there is no proper accountability for the disbursement of funds. The Comptroller and Auditor General does not have any audit functions in regard to disbursement except by accident where the disbursement is through the Vote of a particular Department. If it appears as part of the Vote, he audits it.
Some years ago, the Comptroller and Auditor General brought to the attention of the Committee of Public Accounts activities in the Department of Health by the then Minister for Health, former Deputy John O'Connell, who disbursed large amounts of money in his constituency and apparently not too frequently outside his constituency.
Without application.
Those activities came to the attention of the Comptroller and Auditor General because he could not find documentation to support these disbursements — applications did not appear to have been made. The sums of money were disbursed in different premises late at night and requests were made to the beneficiaries, often by telephone, by the Department of Health some days later asking them to make an application to the Department for lottery funds they had already received. It was documented in the Department that some of the applications were made five days after the cheques were cashed. That is not transparent. It is not disbursing lottery funds in accordance with set and proper criteria. I make no apology for saying that method of disbursement is wrong and statutory provisions should be put in place to prevent it.
The time has come to amend the 1986 Act. It has been in force for 11 years. We now have a great deal of experience of the way the lottery and its disbursement of surplus operates, and the House is now in a position to make a judgement. It is interesting to read some of the contributions made at the time the legislation was passed. In fairness, several Members foresaw the kind of abuses that subsequently transpired, and they warned against them. Unfortunately, they were not listened to at the time. They were right and this is an appropriate time to amend that legislation.The amendment would be facilitated if the House passes this motion, which I urge it to do.
I support the amendment proposed by the Minister of State, Deputy Doyle. The national lottery has made a major contribution in recent years to the funding of many areas such as arts, culture, youth, welfare, sport and recreation throughout the country, including my own constituency.Many good causes have been funded that might never have been supported if it had not been for the national lottery.
The figures speak for themselves. Approximately £700 million has been made available over the past ten years for projects under the National Lotteries Act, 1986, benefiting many communities and voluntary organisations throughout the country.Sales have increased from £102 million in 1987, the first year of operation, to almost £308 million in 1996. In 1996, £100 million was available for disbursement to the beneficiary fund. Though spending on lottery projects is beginning to even out — the sharp rise in the early years could not continue — the annual sum available for disbursement will continue to be very significant.The fact that the lottery has been so successful, with revenues greatly in excess of expectations, has allowed a broader allocation of funding than had been envisaged at the outset. Sport was particularly in mind when the lottery was set up, and I share Deputy Cullen's view that it is important. I hope that, when the Tour de France comes through Carrick-on-Suir in south Tipperary next year, funding will be available to ensure the success of the race and that the regions of the country visited by the tour will be a showcase for Ireland.
The Act provides in particular for the use of lottery proceeds for sports and recreation, for national culture, for the arts and for health. When lottery sales greatly exceeded original expectations the categories of youth, welfare, national heritage and amenities were added. While lottery sales have exceeded original expectations, the range of recipients of lottery funding has also greatly expanded. Needless to say, the demand for lottery funding is always considerably greater than the resources available, and it is only natural that organisations should apply for funds and that they are greatly disappointed when funds are not available, but all applications cannot be successful.
It has been suggested that in terms of transparency and accountability an independent board would be preferable to the present arrangement whereby the Government decides on lottery allocations as part of the Estimates process. However, experience abroad has shown that this route offers no simple solution to this problem. It is vital that everybody should have confidence in the procedure for allocating lottery funds. The lottery Act contains provision to protect not alone the public put the people who play lotto. The details of lottery allocations to organisations are always available, and they are contained in the annual Estimates and Appropriation Accounts. Ministers are fully accountable in the Dáil for lottery spending as administered by their Departments.
In order to further ensure maximum transparency in the allocation of funds, because some of Deputy O'Malley's accusations are quite true, the Government decided to examine the process by which it would distribute national lottery surpluses.It has, in consultation with various voluntary agencies, set up the review group, and those of us who are serious about ensuring accountability should await the report of this committee which is an important committee chaired by a person of the highest calibre, Mr. Niall Greene, and two other independent members, Mr. Richard Burrows of Irish Distillers and Dr. Kathleen Lynch of UCD. That committee is considering how, within its terms of reference, we can have a comprehensive review of existing arrangements which will shortly be submitted to the Minister for Finance. This report will be available to all Members of the House when all Deputies will have the opportunity to look seriously at its recommendations and ensure that the public can continue to have full confidence that the lottery will continue to benefit projects that would never otherwise be funded.
I am surprised that the Progressive Democrats are disappointed that lottery funds are used to replace departmental spending because I thought they were concerned about overspending in the Departments. Here we have a fund available through the lottery and they are objecting to it being spent in this way. I do not understand their economic argument, but they cannot have it both ways.
I thank all the Deputies who contributed to this timely debate.
The question of the cap on other lotteries has been a cause of great concern, and I am pleased that a number of Deputies raised the fact that the cap on prize funds for charities of £10,000 is still in place, despite a commitment by the Government that something would be done about it. I am extremely disappointed that, in the dying days of this Government, nothing has yet been done. It is appalling that organisations such as Rehab and other genuine charities find that their work is severely impeded as a result of the downturn in their funding because of the effects of the national lottery on their own lotteries. Despite the success of the national lottery, it has had this negative effect which is very unfortunate and not at all desirable. It is my belief that the general view among the public is that the cap on other lotteries should go. It is not necessary, and it means that the national lottery has a virtual monopoly of lotteries which is not healthy. Deputy Woods referred last night to the fact that Rehab's turnover had gone down by some two thirds. This is quite extraordinary and unfortunate when one considers that its funding goes directly to worthwhile projects particularly for people with a disability.
I was very pleased that so many Members spoke on this motion and that virtually everybody supported the spirit of it, even Members on the other side of the House. There may be some reservations, but most people recognise that it is essential that the whole issue of lottery funding be re-examined. Everybody supports the spirit of the motion except, perhaps, Deputy Ring who thinks this is all a Dublin 4 plot. If he were to re-examine the speech I made last night he would be reassured by the fact that what we seek is that the surplus from the lottery should be distributed equitably across the country.
We heard from some Deputies, particularly Deputy Keaveney, that this is not currently the case. Bearing in mind that everybody supports the motion, it is regrettable that the Government intends to oppose this proposal to establish an independent trust to administer the lottery. That is proof, if it were needed, that the rainbow coalition Government's commitment to accountability and transparency was never for real. The words which underpinned the rainbow Government's programme for Government have a particularly hollow ring when Government Deputies will troop through the lobbies in support of what is generally perceived as the slush-funding status quo. It is difficult to understand how a Government could oppose a measure which is clearly designed to introduce fairness and justice into the administration of lottery grants. Lottery games may be played by the people, but the proceeds of those games have in many people's minds become the playthings of politicians. That is not desirable and must be eliminated. It is not just desirable, it is vitally necessary that the administration of the funds should be kept out of the political sphere and left to independent assessors.
Nobody doubts that thousands of projects have benefited from lottery funding since its inception. We heard much about that tonight and last night. Nobody disputes the fact that much of the money has been well spent. I spoke last night about encouraging groups in my constituency to apply for lottery funding, knowing that even a small grant from the lottery would mean a great deal to such enterprises. There are many groups who, when they receive money, spend it well. There is much unease about the criteria used to decide who gets funding.
By supporting this motion the Government could have sent out a message that it is prepared to loosen politicians' grip on lottery money and allow the process to be transparent and beyond reproach. Why did it not do so? The Government has become very cosy and comfortable in power. Perhaps it cannot bear the thought of having to loosen control of the purse strings. It does not want to lose the political advantage which this pool of money has the potential to offer. At the heart of this motion is openness, transparency and accountability, which the Government preaches but fails to practise.
The Minister of State last night said if it is not broken do not fix it. She detailed all the achievements made during the past ten years through the lottery, pointing to various controls that have been put in place. Nobody denies there have been great achievements. There is some control in place at present, but the Minister suggested it would be naïve to think that an independent board would find a magic formula to reconcile demand for and availability of lottery funding. She conceded it is extremely important that lottery players and the public have confidence in the methods by which funds are allocated and that there should be maximum transparency.
The Government recently announced the establishment of a national lottery review group and no doubt the very fine members of that group will come up with worthy proposals. The Government has proved to be a dab hand at setting up review groups, but fails to act on their recommendations.Since we are running out of time, when will the review group bring forward its recommendations and will they be implemented?
Let us look at the Government's record on reports and consultancies. During the past two years in office the Government spent an average of £300,000 per year on consultancies. A total of £31 million has been spent on external advice. That is a scandalous waste of taxpayers' money. In many cases consultants' reports are an expensive substitute for real action. In the area of education in particular excellent reports have been put on the shelf. There have been refusals to publish reports and we practically have to beg the Minister to place them before the House. As well as being an expensive waste of taxpayers' money, to some extent reports have been a waste of time. There is no substitute for action, but in the main when reports are published no action is taken.
There is no great science to the establishment of an independent lottery trust, a body which would highlight the inadequacies of the current system. We all know from experience where the major failings are and where improvements can be made. We all know, although some are not prepared to admit it, that the money raised through the lottery could be much better spent. Deputy Upton wondered why nobody talks about the lottery losers. It is sad that many communities which suffer serious social disadvantage have been the real lottery losers. Where the need has been greatest, the flow of funds has been slowest. Often the voiceless have been left penniless.
Communities ravaged by drugs and crime have been left to fend for themselves, struggling to secure a place anywhere in the pecking order. In deprived communities there is no real evidence of lottery investment. Where are the all-weather pitches, tennis courts, state-of-the-art gymnasiums and halls? Last year RTÉ visited a boxing club in west Tallaght which was housed in a tiny basement and 60 young boxers were packed into the room like sardines. There was hardly room to throw a punch. Many of the trainers there reckoned they were keeping the young people away from a possible life of crime, but they were working against the odds. Those people were doing trojan work despite the indifference of the State. There are clubs such as that throughout the country and people who deserve medals for their human endeavour. Volunteers have taken on the role of social workers and the least they should expect is lottery money to make facilities attractive for local children and a deterrent to life on the edge.
Areas of greatest disadvantage have not received their fair share of lottery funding and that is a crying shame. All politicians have a duty to do something about that. Through this proposal the Progressive Democrats is seeking a fairer system of funding. An independent trust may not have wisdom on every funding proposal, but it would be seen to be fair and would stand a greater chance in the long run of being fair.
I welcome the Fianna Fáil Party support for our proposal and I thank individual Deputies for their contributions. There is another side to this matter. As soon as the rainbow Government leaves office — the sooner the better — we can return to this issue and ensure that accountability, transparency and openness is central to the lottery allocation process. Shame on the Government for rejecting this proposal. Perhaps it was too much to expect it would on this occasion rise above its mundane, muddled approach to policy and support a proposal which makes very good sense, as was admitted by many speakers. The Government never made good sense on any policy issue. Its departure from office in a couple of weeks will be greeted with a nationwide sigh of relief because never has a Government with so much done so little. I commend the motion to the House.
Amendment put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 72; Níl, 51.
Tá
- Ahearn, Theresa.
- Barrett, Seán.
- Barry, Peter.
- Bell, Michael.
- Bhamjee, Moosajee.
- Boylan, Andrew.
- Bradford, Paul.
- Bree, Declan.
- Broughan, Thomas.
- Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).
- Bruton, John.
- Burke, Liam.
- Burton, Joan.
- Byrne, Eric.
- Carey, Donal.
- Fitzgerald, Brian.
- Fitzgerald, Eithne.
- Flaherty, Mary.
- Flanagan, Charles.
- Gallagher, Pat (Laoighis-Offaly).
- Higgins, Jim.
- Higgins, Michael.
- Hogan, Philip.
- Kavanagh, Liam.
- Kemmy, Jim.
- Kenny, Enda.
- Kenny, Seán.
- Lynch, Kathleen.
- McCormack, Pádraic.
- McDowell, Derek.
- McGahon, Brendan.
- McGinley, Dinny.
- McGrath, Paul.
- McManus, Liz.
- Mitchell, Gay.
- Mitchell, Jim.
- Connaughton, Paul.
- Connor, John.
- Costello, Joe.
- Coveney, Hugh.
- Crawford, Seymour.
- Creed, Michael.
- Crowley, Frank.
- Currie, Austin.
- De Rossa, Proinsias.
- Deasy, Austin.
- Deenihan, Jimmy.
- Dukes, Alan.
- Durkan, Bernard.
- Ferris, Michael.
- Finucane, Michael.
- Moynihan-Cronin, Breeda.
- Mulvihill, John.
- Nealon, Ted.
- Noonan, Michael (Limerick East).
- O'Keeffe, Jim.
- O'Shea, Brian.
- O'Sullivan, Toddy.
- Pattison, Séamus.
- Quinn, Ruairí.
- Rabbitte, Pat.
- Ring, Michael.
- Ryan, John.
- Ryan, Seán.
- Shatter, Alan.
- Sheehan, P. J.
- Shortall, Róisín.
- Spring, Dick.
- Stagg, Emmet.
- Timmins, Godfrey.
- Upton, Pat.
- Walsh, Éamon.
Níl
- Ahern, Dermot.
- Ahern, Michael.
- Ahern, Noel.
- Andrews, David.
- Brennan, Séamus.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Browne, John (Wexford).
- Burke, Raphael.
- Byrne, Hugh.
- Callely, Ivor.
- Coughlan, Mary.
- Cowen, Brian.
- Cullen, Martin.
- Davern, Noel.
- de Valera, Síle.
- Doherty, Seán.
- Fitzgerald, Liam.
- Flood, Chris.
- Foley, Denis.
- Haughey, Seán.
- Hilliard, Colm.
- Jacob, Joe.
- Keaveney, Cecilia.
- Kenneally, Brendan.
- Keogh, Helen.
- Killeen, Tony.
- Kirk, Séamus.
- Kitt, Michael.
- Kitt, Tom.
- Lawlor, Liam.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Leonard, Jimmy.
- McDaid, James.
- McDowell, Michael.
- Moffatt, Tom.
- Morley, P. J.
- Moynihan, Donal.
- Ó Cuív, Éamon.
- O'Donnell, Liz.
- O'Donoghue, John.
- O'Hanlon, Rory.
- O'Keeffe, Batt.
- O'Keeffe, Ned.
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Malley, Desmond.
- Ryan, Eoin.
- Smith, Brendan.
- Smith, Michael.
- Wallace, Dan.
- Wallace, Mary.
- Woods, Michael.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies J. Higgins and B. Fitzgerald; Níl, Deputies O'Donnell and Callely.
Amendment declared carried.
Question, "That the motion as amended, be agreed to" put and declared carried.