Vol. 506 No. 2
1 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if the British Legion and the Irish area Royal Naval Association have been refused grants from the Irish Soldiers and Sailors Land Trust Fund; if so, the reason in this regard; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14854/99]
In my reply to a question on 1 June, I detailed the process by which the Assessment Committee made its recommendations for the allocation of funds to projects and I detailed the relevant provision in the Act under which projects can be funded. I circulated a list of the 59 projects supported with my reply of 25 May.
Applications from the British Legion and the Irish Area Royal Naval Association were not among those selected from a field of 175 applications for approximately £16 million, as compared with the £1.2 million available. The selection was on the merits of the proposals submitted by reference to the terms of the Act and the guidelines and the criteria thereunder to which I referred in my reply of 1 June. As part of that, the committee took into account the aspect of demonstrating respect for the different traditions of Ireland, in line with the Irish Government's commitment in the Good Friday Agreement. The projects selected include the Journey of Reconciliation Trust Peace Park at Messines, the Royal Dublin Fusiliers Association, the Ulster Society and the Cork Lions Club proposal for the restoration of a Cenotaph War Memorial.
Does the Taoiseach agree that welfare organisations helping those from this island who are in their declining years and who served in the last world war to defend democratic institutions in western Europe should have qualified under any sensibly drafted legislation and that clearly there is either a defect in the criteria or interpretation of them if the British Legion and the Naval Association are excluded ab initio on that basis?
This was brought to my attention through correspondence which was probably also sent to Deputy Bruton's office. I looked back at the position at that time and at the issues and arguments. Legislation was tightly drafted on some of these issues while some of those I thought would have been included should have remained so. There is a case history which answers the Deputy's question, as was laid out by the then Taoiseach, Dr. Garret FitzGerald. I offer my condolences to Dr. FitzGerald and his family on the death of Joan FitzGerald who was held in the highest regard by all Members who attended the funeral services yesterday and today.
Dr. FitzGerald explained what happened and said one of the first thoughts he had on the money was that it might be used to assist ex-servicemen in the Irish Army. However, he felt there would have been a difficulty in convincing the British trustees and Treasury that the money should be transferred from British ex-servicemen to Irish ex-servicemen. He said that one might ask if it could not have been provided for both – he said it could have been, and that might have been the answer. However, Dr. FitzGerald said that at the time people were agitating in an extremely unpleasant way against the commemoration of the dead of the two world wars. It was becoming an area of contention and there should have been none. Dr. FitzGerald was speaking about the introduction of the legislation in the House after he had left office. He went on to explain why this happened and he was taking responsibility for it. He obviously took part in negotiations and he dealt with Lord Killanin. It was an issue of great contention and he had great difficulty dealing with it. That is why the legislation was drafted in that way.
Thankfully we are now in slightly different times and people are not agitating in the same manner – the allocation was passed in the House last year. Money was also allocated to the peace park in Messines. However, at that time, people vociferously canvassed and lobbied against this.
Does the Taoiseach consider, as I think he does, that circumstances have changed? Given that the State is already making generous contributions to the maintenance of the British army memorial at Islandbridge and the memorial at Messines to those who died in British uniform in World War I, does he agree that there is a different attitude now and that problems which might have required a rather restrictive approach to be taken in the 1980s no longer apply?
Would the Taoiseach consider it useful to change the legislation, if that is necessary at this stage, to allow welfare organisations looking after the now elderly men, some of whom suffered greatly in the last war and from whose work Irish democracy benefited, to benefit from this fund which was originally set up for them? The Sailors and Soldiers Land Trust fund was set up to provide houses for ex-servicemen of the British forces. Housing is not a priority for them at this stage but welfare is. Does the Taoiseach agree that these organisations should be eligible to apply, at least? Does he agree the legislation ought to be changed at this stage?
I do not really have an argument with that point of view. It was drafted in the manner the trustees wished at the time. They were different times. There is not much point in going into it now as we have moved on, but that is why they were excluded. While welfare organisations of a different kind were included, the argument can be made that they were not related to the fund to the same extent. These negotiations went on through the early and mid 1980s. A number of projects have now been funded in a different way, such as the Corrymeela fund, the Glencree peace and reconciliation fund and others. I will look at the Act but I think the resources are probably at an end. However, if there are any other resources I will certainly look at the Act.
Would the Taoiseach consider that, under strand three of the Good Friday Agreement, east-west co-operation, it might be appropriate for the British and Irish Governments to agree to contribute to the organisations in their jurisdictions catering for soldiers who served in the army of the other jurisdiction? For example, the Irish Government might contribute to the welfare of British Army ex-servicemen in Ireland and, in turn, the British Government might contribute to the welfare of Irish Army ex-servicemen who happen to be living in Britain, of whom there are many. An agreement of that nature, which would be mutual and reciprocal, might be a useful reconciliation project under the east-west strand of the Good Friday Agreement. It would supersede this particular issue which, as the Taoiseach rightly said, is of limited remaining value because the fund is largely exhausted.
I do not have any difficulty with that. I will look at it to see if it possible.
