Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 29 Jun 1988

Vol. 120 No. 10

National Lottery Allocations: Motion (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion:

That Seanad Éireann calls upon the Government to establish an independent authority to determine the manner in which allocations of national lottery funds will be made and disbursed.

—(Senator Kelleher.)

Mr. Ferris

In rising to support the motion in the names of the Fine Gael Senators, that the Seanad calls on the Government to establish an independent authority to determine the manner in which allocations of national lottery funds will be made and disbursed, I have no doubt from my travels around the country and in talking to people and to beneficiaries under this scheme, that they would prefer if there was an independent, autonomous body responsible for the disbursement of these funds. First of all, the funds are very welcome. Secondly, those of us who were involved in putting the legislation together which made the funds available, want to be crystal clear in saying that we have no objection whatsoever to the various sporting and cultural organisations that have benefited. But there is a perception that in some way the national lottery is being used and disbursed otherwise than in accordance with the relative legislation. That is understandable because all the announcements that are made about allocations from these funds are made by Deputies and Ministers and Ministers of State from the Government party.

That has been an acceptable procedure for a long time in connection with the allocation of grants and various other allocations of Government funds given out under certain Department Votes and subheads. There is a belief abroad that the national lottery funds, because of the very special way in which the lottery was set up and the way in which the Government have come to have them available to spend, this particular disbursement of funds should not be seen as a Government function. We have the Government announcing an allocation purporting that it comes from Government funds which it does not and announcements being made by people associated with Government as if an allocation was from Government funds — which it is not — obviously being informed through the offices of those who have the facility and the information available to them when the allocations are decided. That is, as I understand it, the nub of the motion.

The Fine Gael group want to remove allocations from the political arena because this money is not secured through political decisions. This money is secured because people support the national lottery which is run by the National Lottery Board and they advise Government as to the amount of money available for disbursement in grants. I understand there is an application process which is dealt with by the Minister for State in the Department of Education. The Taoiseach's Department, I think, has the overall responsibility. The widespread condemnation throughout the country of the manner in which the grants are announced has led to demands that somehow there should be an independent voice, opinion and authority, not alone to look at the applications but to announce them so that all of us can feel part of the distribution of these funds as all of us were part of initiating the legislation and as all of us are contributors in some way or another to the coffers of the funds. That being so, it is certainly outside the area of the privileged few who know about the information and those of us who have a right to know also, as part of the legislative body that set up the procedure.

I have welcomed the allocations to several sporting and cultural bodies within my own constituency. There is no suggestion that anybody on any side of the House is questioning the eligibility of some of the beneficiaries of these funds. It is the process that is used to allocate them and to announce the allocations. They are definitely being used by politicians for political purposes, which is not what the funds were intended to be used for. If that were the case, people could assume that this lottery was a further extension of the taxation system, which is a political instrument. The funds from taxation go into the coffers of the Government and are dispensed by the Government on the basis of the need in particular areas or communities for capital works, local authority funding and other such projects.

I regard the national lottery funds as the property of everybody and as such their disbursement should be above any question of political interference and allocations should certainly be announced outside the political structure presently being used by this Government for the allocation of the funds. For that reason I and my colleagues would support the concept of forming an independent authority to do this. It would benefit the Government and would probably benefit the national lottery in that it would have broader support from the public who have generously supported the lottery by their participation.

Often the lottery has been criticised and people have made judgments about its morality or otherwise, but its success and the way people have responded to it has overcome any inhibitions that particular people might have had about participating in it. I feel that the money that is becoming available for various schemes, money that would never have been available for these schemes were it not for the lottery, should be used and distributed as independently and as impartially as possible without the question mark that is being put against its distribution by various people throughout the country. I support the motion.

Mr. Loughrey

The motion before us in the names of the Fine Gael Members of the House is that Seanad Éireann calls upon the Government to establish an independent authority to determine the manner in which allocations of national lottery funds will be made and disbursed. I welcome the Minister, Deputy Pat "Cope" Gallagher, not that this is his first time in the House, but it is the first time we are both performing at the one time, so to speak. I am glad to see him and, indeed, I am particularly delighted to see the Minister here for this debate because he is one of the most useful disbursers of money that the lottery has found. We are not too far behind in Donegal.

Questions are raised about how the lottery moneys, not so much the projects they are being assigned to, are being determined and who makes the announcement. That is basically the political debate that is going on. Deputy Stagg was talking about how the projects are chosen. I do not know if there is a specific form whereby one applies for moneys under the national lottery scheme and it might be useful if the Minister would either nod or give me an indication to continue in that line. If there is a specific form, I am not aware of it; but I am aware of a number of deserving causes that have applied for funds to bodies such as Bord Fáilte and have not been in receipt of moneys while at the same time promoters of projects who have not applied anywhere for funds are being given funds. This I cannot understand.

The national lottery was set up under the Coalition Government and steered through the House by Deputy Jim O'Keeffe. In his speech he said:

...the Government have decided that the surplus of the lottery is to be applied to the benefit of sport and recreational facilities, national culture, including the Irish language, the arts and health.

These will be the first purposes under this section to be listed in Iris Oifigiúil. It would be possible to specify such purposes in the Bill but the Government consider that this approach lacks flexibility; for example, the provision of national lottery resources to some areas not included in the list I have just mentioned would have to wait amending legislation.

In a broad way he indicated how the funds would be distributed. I want to mention one area; and I know the Minister would be aware — not that he plays golf — of Port Salon Golf Club.

This club has applied for funds under almost every possible heading but it may not technically have applied for funds from the national lottery, not being aware of any specific form being required for such application. To put it on the record, Port Salon Golf Club is one of the four founding member clubs of the Golfing Union of Ireland, the other three being Royal Dublin, Royal Portrush and Royal County Down, to the best of my knowledge. We in Port Salon are part of the history of golf in this country.

Port Salon Golf Club members recently saved that course from possible extinction by purchasing the golf club grounds. In doing so they salvaged that club and in order to do that they conducted their own lottery or draw and raised a substantial amount of money. They have kept the club alive. They are now proposing to build a club house. They are not looking for anything extravagant, but they are looking for something to which we could take the many golfing dignitaries that may come to us in two years' time to celebrate the centenary of the Golfing Club of Ireland.

We have already indicated in principle our willingness to host a fairly major golfing competition, but I am sure the Minister, no more than myself as a club member — indeed, as a former committee member, and past captain of the club — would like Port Salon members to be inviting the golfing dignitaries to change in the open winds of Lough Swilly. We would like a club house. We have applied to everybody where funds are available. Unfortunately, we have not applied specifically before this to the national lottery because we were not aware if there was a specific form for that purpose. I spoke to the Minister's colleague, Deputy Fahey, and I am now formally, through the Chair and this House, asking the Minister to take a personal interest in this matter. If we could get some funds this year and a promise of some funds next year, we would not be slow to raise the money ourselves.

I might stress that the social balance within our club is such that many of our members are not earners, good, bad or indifferent. Despite the association of a certain social standing with golf in the past, many of our members who never were earners are privileged in that they were never involved in the social distinction that applies to membership of golf clubs; they play their golf and have been playing it. The net effect is that the average income of our club members is relatively low and we would find it difficult to go back to the public to look for funds when we have already got quite a substantial amount of money to enable us to own the club and the course and to get it back into good shape.

Today, I was on a deputation trying to retain a post office in the village of Ballindraith, County Donegal.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

That hardly arises under this Private Members' Motion.

Mr. Loughrey

I think it will, because what I am talking about is an independent authority to determine the manner in which the allocation of funds is made. I would hope that if such an independent authority were in existence they would give some funds to keeping Ballindraith post office open. Remember that Ballindraith post office is one of the possible outlets for selling national lottery tickets but unfortunately, a Leas-Chathaoirleach, the powers that be have decided to close Ballindraith post office. Let me just say that the reason given for closing it is, basically that as a unit it does not make money. There is no talk of the social implications of the closing of that post office — and remember that the funds are for social as well as other reasons. There are serious social implications in the closing of the post office. A whole community can disintegrate without that post office. The policy of closing small schools right around the country has sadly affected rural areas.

I am asking Deputy Gallagher, as Minister of State, to impress upon his colleagues and his senior Cabinet Ministers that they should endeavour to persuade the semi-State body, An Post, not to close small rural post offices simply because they may not be money-makers. I think it would be a sad day if that were the criterion to be used — we close the shop because that shop does not pay. I hope and I know that the Minister will take cognisance of what I have just said.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Would the Senator look at item No. 7?

Mr. Loughrey

On the specific point of the independence of the authority, I am not sure if it is possible to have an independent authority at any time, because the Government of the day would have to set up the independent authority, and we all know that people in Ireland are so politically tuned in, and rightly so, that it would be difficult to form an independent authority of any kind in our country, except in County Donegal where we have a number of variants of Independents. I would advocate, a Leas-Chathaoirleach, that there should be set up an authority of county councillors and members of other local authorities because our councillors have, for some years, been starved of funds. When you are starved of funds, you are starved of power and our councillors are starved of that power.

Our councillors at the end of the day represent the people on the ground and inasmuch as we are elected to this House, we in turn represent them, so that perhaps we are more representative than the other House. I have no doubt that if the power were to be given to an independent body comprising largely of members of local authorities you would get a balanced view because by the very nature of the balance of local authority areas, each side of the House is represented. When a group of people would come together within a particular electoral area to advocate that funds be allocated to a particular scheme, it would only be when you had the total support of the members in that electoral area that it would warrant serious consideration. In our local authorities, when giving out amenity grants and such other grants, we do not do it foolishly. These funds are allocated wisely; they are allocated to deserving causes. I have no doubt that if this independent authority were to comprise of local authority members, that in itself would give it its independence provided the local authority members came from each and every side of the political divide.

There is concern abroad and the Chair will be aware of that concern. I know the Minister would be aware of the opposite to that concern. It is nice — and I suppose it is part of being in office — to have the chance of announcing the allocation of grants. I am not so sure that the Minister's colleague, Deputy Connaughton, would be equally pleased with the method of announcing the grants. We, on this side of the House call on the Government, therefore, to establish an independent authority. I, as a Member of this side of the House, ask that the independent authority be comprised largely, if not totally, of local authority members.

Mr. McCormack

I begin by concurring with my colleague, Senator Loughrey, in his call for the involvement of local authority members on an independent commission that would be set up. I was glad he got back from the post offices to get on to that line because when I came in first I did not know what was going on, but I would certainly concur with his concluding remarks asking that local authority members would have a say on this authority.

While I welcome the presence of the Minister of State, Deputy Gallagher, I am a bit disappointed that the Minister of State with responsibility for Sport, my own colleague, Deputy Fahey, could not be here for the debate because I would prefer to cross swords with him than with Deputy Gallagher. I am sure the Minister of State will understand that.

We must establish the fact about the national lottery. The national lottery was first set up and began running in February 1987. It must be acknowledged here that it was the brainchild of the former Minister of State with responsibility for Sport in the previous Government, Deputy Donal Creed. He first set it in motion, having come to the conclusion that we should have a national lottery of this type to cater for the needs of sport and sporting organisations throughout the country. It was expected, when the lottery was set up, that it would raise about £7 million in the first year and it was stipulated that this money would be spent mainly on sport.

The income from the national lottery in the first year far exceeded the wildest expectations when the sale of tickets in the lottery exceeded £70 million. After administration costs and prize money there was a fund of over £45 million to be allocated. Most of this was to be allocated to sport with some going to the Department of the Environment — about £6 million — in amenity grants; some allocated to the Department of Health and some to the Department of Social Welfare. All that legislation and planning was correct when the lottery was established.

This motion asks that Seanad Éireann call upon the Government to establish an independent authority to determine the manner in which allocations of the national lottery funds will be made and distributed. It is signed by myself and my Fine Gael colleagues. The motion was put down because it is obvious to anybody that the system of distribution of national lottery funds is being abused by the present Government. It is not the system of allocating that is being abused, but the system of announcing the allocations that I submit is being abused. I regret to say that the Minister of State, Deputy Fahey, has been part of that abuse as well. That is why I am sorry he is not here. I would say now to Fianna Fáil Ministers and TDs that the game is up because the manner in which the grants are being announced is unacceptable. Political strokes should not be tolerated in the allocation of those funds.

Huge cash grants, money which belongs to us all and which should be distributed according to the most stringent rules, should not be exploited by politicians in the greedy interest of personal political advancement. The Government decide an allocations and, while that may not be the best position, it is not the cause of real controversy. The reason for the controversy is due to the haste of Fianna Fáil Oireachtas members to go back to the constituencies to announce the goodies. This is bringing the lottery into disrepute. Some members of the Government party seem to think that this money is a personal re-election slush fund. In constituencies where there are two Fianna Fáil Ministers — for example, Limerick East — there is strong competition between the Ministers in announcing grants and one is trying to best the other. In North Tipperary there are also two Ministers. I understand from people in that area that, if one Minister announces a grant one week for a particular organisation in a parish, the following week, the other Minister announces a grant for a different organisation in the parish. That is bringing the whole aspect of the national lottery into disrepute.

In my constituency there are two Ministers of State. I must acknowledge that the Minister of State, Deputy Máire Geoghegan-Quinn, a neighbour of mine, does not seem to have stooped to the low level of trying to pretend that the money is being personally given by herself. Perhaps she is not informed as quickly as she should be of the allocations within her constituency. The same does not apply to the other Minister of State in the constituency, Deputy Francis Fahey who is Minister with responsibility for Sport. He does not make announcements publicly. He has a different system from the Ministers in other constituencies. For example, if a grant is announced in a place like Turloughmore, he does not make any publicity about it but he writes to everybody in the area telling them that he has allocated a grant to their sports complex, their GAA project or whatever the case may be. That is a gross abuse of his position.

Of course, I acknowledge that the places getting the grants are all entitled to them and I am sure they will put the money to good use. The argument I have against the system is that it should not and must not be seen that somebody is giving this money out personally. That was never the intention when the national lottery was set up. It is most extraordinary that a Minister would do that. It is time that an end was put to this codology because people are now seeing through it. If it is continued it may be damaging to the whole concept of the national lottery and the good that this lottery money can do.

I would urge Senators to support this motion —"That Seanad Éireann calls upon the Government to establish an independent authority to determine the manner in which allocations of national lottery funds will be made and disbursed". There would be a lot of merit in that type of an independent authority having members of county councils and local authorities on their board. Those people have a say in the spending of amenity grants within their counties and there are no better people to establish the needs of their areas in this regard. If this independent authority is set up, and I believe it should be, the local authorities should be involved.

Mr. J. O'Toole

For clarification, I think there is an error in what the Senator has just said. Not only does Limerick East not have two Fianna Fáil Ministers but it is the only constitutency in the country in which they do not even have a Deputy. I am sure the Senator meant to refer to Limerick West.

Mr. McCormack

Yes, sorry. I thank the Senator for his correction. I was thinking of Galway West.

Mr. D. Kiely

I am glad of the opportunity to listen to the comments from the other side of the House on the national lottery. One would think that nobody abuses the system only the present Government. The Government are doing a very good job with the national lottery and the funds are allocated in a very reasonable way. Nobody should criticise it because many projects in this country would never have got off the ground were it not for the national lottery. I want to put it on record that I was the one politician who proposed the national lottery as far back as 1979. At the time I put down a motion on it at the General Council of County Councils and it went further up along the line. I had a different idea about the national lottery then. I felt that it should be more localised and that each county should allocate the funds in the way they saw fit. I will be putting that proposal to the Minister later.

We are listening this evening to criticisms about whether two Ministers or one Minister is announcing grants for certain areas. In my constituency of North Kerry there was no Fine Gael Minister or TD during the last Government but there was a Fine Gael Senator.

Mr. G. Reynolds

There was no announcement of the lottery then.

Mr. D. Kiely

Not alone did he announce grants but he brought down the cheques by hand to the area and presented them to the various sports clubs. He was supposed to be a sportsman himself. I think he dived as low as one could dive. That is not happening at present and I would not be a party to it. I just hope it will not happen in the future.

Acting Chairman (Mr. M. O'Toole)

The Senator should keep to the motion.

Mr. D. Kiely

It is the same motion. The Senator was talking about the national lottery. That person in my constituency brought cheques in his pocket.

Mr. Hogan

They were not national lottery cheques.

Mr. D. Kiely

I would like to know if the other side of the House can name one project which got money from the national lottery and did not dispose of it. It is about time they stopped cribbing, because it is a good scheme. I would like to see the national lottery extended perhaps to the United States, England, Australia and other places so that the funds would be increased. Many sports facilities would not have been developed were it not for the national lottery. It has done much good for this country. I would like to see the national lottery in future years extended from the sports area when that has been developed. The national lottery should take on a new role. It should be put to use in other areas and should not be confined rigidly to sports facilities. If there must be criticism in this House let it be honest criticism. I would ask the other side of the House to stop cribbing about something that has worked very successfully.

Mr. G. Reynolds

I have a few questions for the Minister and I am glad he is here to answer them. One of them might be a bit irrelevant at the moment. The first question I wish to ask is: why did Leitrim fare so badly from lottery funding? Is the funding based on population or on political clout? I have no doubt that the Minister is one of the strongest political people in the State. He represents the constituency of Sligo-Leitrim. I was amazed to find that we ended up, as we usually do, near the bottom of the pile as regards State aid from the national lottery funding. If the allocation is based on population, we are the lowest populated county and unfortunately that population is decreasing. Governments have a social obligation to help a poor county. That can only be done by funding through State agencies. Leitrim, per head of population, has put as much money into the national lottery as any other county and the size of our population should be taken into consideration. We have not got a very strong economic base and we need a lot of State aid.

I am not crying that Leitrim needs all the money it can get from central Government. We have many positive projects and the Minister is aware of them. For example, there is one cultural project in my county that has not received any funding from the national lottery. That is a pity because it is an excellent project — the provision of a drama theatre in Carrigallen. It was thought that that type of cultural activity would be funded through the national lottery. The local community have raised a lot of money and have put a lot of hard work into the provision of this theatre. The Government should give the community the credit due to them by providing financial assistance. This would help immensely in the provision of a theatre in Carrigallen, the only one in County Leitrim.

Another project that could benefit immensely and that could put up pound for pound is Ballinamore Golf Club. It has been in existence for a number of years but only in the past few years has it started to expand. Excellent club facilities have been built. If that club were given funding for which they have submitted an application through the national lottery, they would make great use of it. One project in Leitrim for which money was received from the international fund is the indoor swimming pool and complex at a hotel outside Ballinamore. This was a very welcome grant. It is this type of grant aid that will help communities to flourish and to have the facilities that will attract people. The Government should reconsider the way they allocate money to communities.

I would like to deal specifically with one area of funding by the national lottery, that is, grant aid for outstanding sportspersons. It is unfortunate that the Minister for Sport is not here, as a colleague of mine has already stated. This scheme was introduced in July 1986 and the first allocation was made in September of that year. The scheme has not been asked for and a suggestion of this nature had never been made at any meeting of the Irish Federation of Sports Bodies between 1983 and 1986, nor was such reported in the press as having been put forward at the annual general meeting of any national sports body. Theoretically, the idea behind such a scheme is good but in practice it would appear difficult, if not impossible, to operate fairly. Variations of this abroad can be used, and indeed some might be particularly applicable to the situation in Ireland where facilities are not equitably distributed.

The State has provided two sports tracks in Dublin, two in Cork and one in Limerick, while Tullamore Harriers have provided an excellent private facility. It is clear from this that athletes in many parts of the country are severely handicapped. Some have to travel well over 100 miles to train on the modern tracks. Financial aid to offset this would be very helpful. In some countries very young performers who have achieved a certain set of standards are provided with special help. Financial aid should be provided for persons who have achieved selection for certain major events such as world championships so that they could make adequate preparation in training and competition during the time leading up to the event. Aid should be provided to performers on the basis of having achieved a pre-set standard in their events. There might indeed be room for a social welfare angle, with an aid being provided for those with talents who are socially or financially disadvantaged. The operation of such a scheme with these parameters would require some clear ground rules visible to all potential applicants, with perhaps a certain discretion in regard to borderline cases. There are no such definite guidelines published.

I would like to deal specifically with one athlete who comes from Ballinamore, Mrs. Patricia Griffin, and I think the Minister will be aware of her success. Before I state what Mrs. Griffin has achieved as an athlete——

Acting Chairman

You can congratulate her on another day.

Mr. G. Reynolds

We have already done that. No athlete in Connacht has received a grant aid and no track has been provided through the national lottery funding.

Mr. Hogan

What about Knock?

Mr. G. Reynolds

That is an airport. That is a sad reflection. On Sunday, 19 June Mrs. Griffin won the Millennium mini-marathon in Dublin. She was 38 seconds ahead of her nearest rivals which is a lot in any track or field event. This year she came ninth in the National Cross-country Championships in Ballyhaise and she also finished 39th in the world championships in Adelaide, Australia, which was a very creditable performance. She trains twice a day, three times a week. She has to go to Tullamore, which is 140 miles round trip, to train and she gets no expenses for this. That is the nearest tartan track available. She also has to go to a cinder track in Lanesboro, which is a round trip of 80 miles. As the Minister and everybody else will be aware, this is very costly.

Mrs. Griffin is a member of the Ballinamore Athletic Club, which has had some very successful athletes who have represented this country at world championship and Olympic events. There are 150 members in that club, most of them in the age group of eight to 18; but, unfortunately, the athletic club does not have enough money to provide the type of costs that Mrs. Griffin would incur in her training. She made an application in July 1987 under the Department of Education scheme for grants to outstanding sportspersons, but to date she has not received an acknowledgement. Unfortunately, and much more importantly, she has not received any money. She has a very good case. I would be slow to highlight one individual above anybody else but I feel strongly about this case. Mrs. Griffin has represented her country and her county at the highest level and she has been successful. As a representative for the same constituency, I ask the Minister to inquire from the Department whether she would be entitled to grant aid in the near future. Mrs Griffin hopes to represent Ireland in the Seoul Olympics in the 10,000 metres event. She has three more races to run this year. She will be the first lady from Connacht to represent us at that distance in the Olympic games. She has a record and a case which would entitle her to State funding.

Our motion calls for the setting up of a body to distribute national lottery funding. Senator Loughrey made the case that members of local authorities should be members of this committee. I say that with tongue in cheek. Some people would say it is open to political abuse at the moment and I am sure if there were local authority members on that board they would say the same thing. Unfortunately, there are cases for money which is being made available from the national lottery which seem to be open to political abuse. This is not doing the national lottery any good and it is not doing politicians any good. I would be in favour of a special board being set up, at the discretion of the Government, to provide funding from the national lottery.

I would like to congratulate Mrs. Patricia Griffin on winning the Millennium mini-marathon. I hope that after these few words, she might be compensated financially for all the hard work she has put in over the last number of years.

Minister for Finance (Mr. MacSharry)

I am sure Senator Reynolds would not count it as political if she was compensated financially.

Mr. G. Reynolds

No, I would not.

Mr. MacSharry

I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak on this important matter which was discussed last week and again this week. While I am not going to be parochial, I will respond to some points raised by Senator Reynolds. I would like to be associated with the congratulations he has extended to Mrs. Griffin in relation to her successes. A track is being provided in Connacht — in Galway — under the regional centres which I will be referring to later. Obviously, one would be anxious to ensure that the drama theatre centre in Carrigallen would get consideration. I will look into matters like the case the Senator raised in relation to Mrs. Griffin, who did not get a reply. At least there should be a response to any queries that are made by individuals or on behalf of individuals or groups.

Since its introduction in March 1987, the national lottery has proved to be an enormous success and is now established as a colourful feature of everyday life. The response from the public to the lottery has been far in excess of our original expectations and their continuing support augurs well for its future success. That this is the case is due in no small measure to the hard work and dedication of the National Lottery Company in guiding the lottery through its launch phase, in developing an imaginative series of instant games and, now, in consolidating its popularity with the launch of Lotto.

The funds generated by the lottery are already having a measurable impact in terms of support for hundreds of individual projects throughout the country. To date, £71.5 million has been allocated in the areas of sport and recreation, youth, the arts, health and welfare, the Irish language and national culture. Many worthwhile projects are now in train thanks to the lottery and the effects of these will become more and more apparent in local communities as time goes on. Were it not for the lottery, there is no doubt but that many, if not most, of these projects would not be getting off the ground. This, for me, is the real success of the lottery — support for hundreds of worthwhile community-based projects throughout the length and breadth of the country, giving local communities a boost in the face of the many economic and other difficulties which beset them at present. Funding for discretionary projects must inevitably be a low priority for any Government in terms of overall national expenditure priorities, given the current economic climate.

So that we can be clear on the current method for allocating the lottery proceeds, I would like to explain how the system works. In the first instance, it is a matter for Government to decide on the categories which will be eligible for lottery assistance. The National Lottery Act, 1986, specifies that lottery proceeds are taken into the Exchequer as non-tax revenue and may be applied for the purposes of sport and other recreation, national culture, including the Irish language, the arts and the health of the community, and such other purposes as the Government may determine from time to time. Any decision to add to the list of purposes for which the funds may be used must be published in Iris Oifigiúil. Since the passing of the Act, the Government have decided to add youth, amenity and welfare to the list of beneficiary sectors.

All proceeds from sales of national lottery tickets, less sales agents' commission and "instant" prizes payable by sales agents, are paid by the National Lottery Company into the national lottery fund, which is maintained in the Central Bank, under the control of the Minister for Finance. The lottery company draws on this fund to cover (i) its operating costs and management fee as negotiated with the Minister and (ii) larger prize liabilities falling due. The balance — the lottery surplus — is available to the Exchequer. In practice, the Exchequer draws on the surplus only when funds are required for immediate disbursement to approved projects. Moneys accumulating in the national lottery fund earn interest which increases the level of funding available for projects. The funds are channelled through the national lottery subhead in the Vote for the Office of the Minister for Finance to suspense accounts operated by the spending Departments who are responsible for their administration.

To date £24.2 million has been issued to Departments for spending on approved projects. Once the Government have determined the broad allocation by programme of the national lottery surplus, the selection of individual projects within each area is decided upon by the relevant spending Minister. Departments concerned have drawn up detailed procedures for inviting and processing applications for grants. Criteria such as the desirability of the proposed project, its cost-effectiveness, involvement of the local community, the availability of existing facilities of similar type in the area, and the number of jobs it is likely to create are all taken into account in the consideration of applications. As applications for project funding submitted to Departments are running well ahead of resources available to date, there is a process of selection involved which will inevitably result in many disappointed applicants. All projects must, however, comply with the eligibility criteria laid down for the relevant schemes.

That is a general outline. Let me now illustrate how this process operates in practice for particular schemes, starting with the Department of the Environment.

Following the announcement last November of Government decisions on the allocation of the national lottery surplus, the Department of the Environment wrote to local authorities asking them to nominate suitable projects. In the following weeks local authorities around the country put forward hundreds of projects. In addition, up to 21 April, when the amenity grant allocations were announced, hundreds of other projects were brought to notice in written representations from Members of the Oireachtas on behalf of the promoters of particular projects and in applications made by the promoters of projects themselves, including residents' associations, community councils, local environment groups, and so on.

All of these applications were taken into account in the Minister's determination of individual allocations under the amenity grants scheme. When the decisions were made, over 2,000 requests for amenity grants to a value of £60 million had been received. In such circumstances, the relatively small allocation of £6 million was bound to leave many applicants disappointed. Nevertheless, some 550 projects were approved for grants. Even now, with the available funds allocated, grant applications continue to flow into the Department. The intention was, and still is, to ensure that funds are distributed on an equitable basis to all parts of the country. The fact that no county was left out of the grant allocations is testimony to the achievement of this objective.

Mr. Hogan

Some did better that others.

Mr. MacSharry

There was no formal application form required of those applying for an amenity grant. However, a fact sheet was devised by the Department and arrangements were made in respect of each project to have this fact sheet completed and returned to the Department. The information supplied on each fact sheet comprises a general description of the project, commencement and completion dates, the name of the body carrying out the work, financial details and employment potential details. The purpose of the fact sheet is to facilitate the Department of the Environment and the local authorities in administering the scheme and to provide the kind of detail that would be used later in the year when it comes to checking claims for payment of individual grants.

In some cases, fact sheets were either not available at the time of the making of the allocations, or were not fully completed. This does not mean, as Senator Kelleher implies, that the Department of the Environment did not have applications for grants. The initial, direct approaches to the Department by interested bodies and organisations and the lists of nominations submitted by the local authorities all constituted applications. How else can they be classifed? The fact sheets are part of the administrative follow-up instituted by the Department of the Environment. Let me add that it is quite normal in the case of grant schemes to have to seek further information of one kind or another which may not be strictly necessary at the allocation stage but will be needed before payments can properly be made.

The Department's letter to local authorities brought this fact to their attention and asked them to have these forms submitted as soon as possible. This was to ensure that all parties would be operating with a clear understanding of the nature of the project which was being grant-assisted and to ensure that grants will be properly calculated and paid when the time comes. This is what happened in the case of the 23 projects in the Dublin County Council area to which Senator Kelleher referred. Let me say that there are also projects in other counties which did not have completed fact sheets.

In administering the lottery allocations, steps were taken in both the Department of the Environment and the Department of Education to prevent any overlap in assistance between the amenity grants scheme run by the former and the recreational facilities scheme administered by the latter. This is relevant to the case of Kilnamanagh Community Centre referred to by Senator McMahon. This project has already received nearly £160,000 in State funding mainly from the Department of Education. The question of allowing further aid is under consideration at present in the Department of Education.

Local authorities act as agents for the Department of the Environment in the administration of the funds made available for amenity purposes. When the allocation decisions were made, each county or city manager was notified of the decisions on a county-at-large basis. The managers were asked to inform the successful applicants of their grant allocations and to brief them on the conditions of the scheme. Local authorities will, in due course, certify that payment of the grants are in order. On receipt of such a certificate, the Department will pay the local authority and, where the project has been executed by a body other than by the local authority themselves the local authority will pass on the amount of the grant to them.

As to the Dublin Millennium grant, which is also administered by the Department of the Environment, the Government announced on 19 November 1987 that £700,000 of the national lottery surplus would be spent on projects and events associated with the Dublin Millennium. The projects or events earmarked for assistance had been drawn up by the Millennium company — Dublin Promotions Organisation Ltd. — and were submitted for Government decision by the Minister for the Environment following approval by the Cabinet sub-committee on the Millennium — of which the Minister for the Environment was chairman. The projects were mainly in the area of arts and culture and in support of community efforts most of which would not attract commercial sponsorship. The £700,000 grant is channelled by the Department of the Environment on a phased basis to the Millennium company who are responsible for the subsequent expenditure. The detailed allocation of funds is on the basis of a list of projects or events which were approved by the board of the Millennium company and submitted to the Minister for the Environment last January.

Senator Kelleher also had some ill-judged comments to make on per capita comparisons between counties. He referred to my own county of Sligo. He cannot but have been aware that there is but one major project involved — a regional sports centre — which will benefit not just Sligo but also the surrounding counties in the north-west. This is also true of the comments on the per capita figure for Dublin where many of the facilities being provided are for national rather than regional use.

We have seen figures for averages in particular counties, whether it be Sligo, Galway or Dublin, but what is not being taken into full account by those who make allegations is that centres like Galway and Sligo are regional centres and have allocations on a regional basis outside the broad allocations of the Department of the Environment and the Department of Education for amenities, youth and sport facilities. Dublin has quite a number of national schemes included on a national basis. If one looks at those figures one will find that in addition to allocations made from the Department of the Environment, and some from the Department of Education, in 1988, £600,000 was made available to Galway; £500,000 to Athlone; £500,000 to Cork; £300,000 to Waterford and £250,000 to Limerick; the Morton Stadium in Dublin, received £400,000; Sligo £300,000; Tallaght in Dublin £300,000 and Baldoyle in Dublin £100,000. There is also the national centre which received £3 million and local centres in other towns and counties received £1.9 million in 1988. The outdoor stadium received £750,000. Those projects will proceed, thanks to the lottery. The example of Sligo is used here, and in many other places, and the figure of £23 per head of population is quoted. The allocations for 1988 show that with a population of 56,000 and a total of £711,000 going to Sligo the amount per head of the population was £12.70. If one takes away the regional sports centre in that area one will find that the figure is nearly below the national average at £7.30 per head. I was anxious to give that information to put the record straight. I believe I am a fair man and I try to be fair in everything I do.

Mr. McMahon

Sligo is the new capital of Ireland.

Mr. MacSharry

Senator Reynolds referred to the other part of the constituency I represent, Leitrim, where we are making progress. It may be that the reason there is a little more going to Sligo, or other counties, as against Leitrim is that there might not have been suitable projects available. The lottery will go on for years to come and over the years Senators will find that we will not have sufficient projects throughout the length and breadth of the country to use up the surplus of the proceeds.

Projects may be submitted this year, next year and the year after because the lottery, as I said at the outset, has been an enormous success. We will have successive Governments and Departments having these resources, the people's money, to give back to the people, to their projects and communities. That is what the lottery was set up for and that is why we are so heartened by the great success.

Let me turn now to the Department of Health who have responsibility for the £6 million allocated by the Government for services for the physically and mentally handicapped, services for the elderly, psychiatric services, community information and development services, Aids prevention services and provision of services for cases of child sexual abuse. Proposals for projects came from the Department of Health, on the basis of their assessment of needs, and from health boards and voluntary agencies. Independent agencies requesting lottery funds were asked to forward full details of the organisation, including its aims and objectives, details of the proposed projects, the total finance required for the project and the funding requested from the lottery.

Successful applicants were notified that payment would be made via their local health board on receipt by the health board of a written application from the agency for payment. Where the projects are being undertaken by health boards themselves, the boards have been advised that the money may be spent only on the authorised project and that certification of expenditure must be submitted to the Department of Health.

The largest single lottery allocation — £33.894 million — was made to the Department of Education and £20.75 was allocated for sport and recreation, £10 million for youth and £3.144 million for miscellaneous cultural and Irish language related grants. The national lottery proceeds in these areas are funding important new initiatives such as the national sports centre and the regional sports centres programme together with many ongoing activities which had previously been funded through the Exchequer but which are now being expanded in the light of the additional funding available from the national lottery.

Let me say at this stage how much I agree with Senator Fallon's remarks on the importance of the national sports centre concept. The centre will embrace a major indoor multi-functional sports arena with ancillary accommodation together with a 50 metre swimming pool.

The floor area in the arena will accommodate a six lane 200 metre track and a broad range of indoor sports to an international level, using, it is anticipated, changing floor finishes to meet varying surface needs. The centre is being planned on the basis that its operation in due course will be to the maximum extent possible on a self-financing basis. Constituting, as it will, the largest indoor resource available in the entire island it is intended to capitalise on its use for conferences, concerts, exhibitions and so on, in addition to its primary role of staging major athletic and sporting events. The Government are aware of the valuable contribution this centre can make not alone in fulfilling its primary role as a national sports centre but in tapping the commercial potential of sport, in reaping the economic spin-off for tourism, and particularly in view of its location, in assisting the environmental and commercial renewal of inner-city Dublin.

The Department of Education administer a capital grant scheme for the provision of recreational facilities. This scheme aims to promote greater leisure opportunities for the community by assisting local initiatives for the provision of recreational, leisure and community facilities, excluding swimming pools and environmental works. Both indoor and outdoor facilities qualify. The scheme is presently restricted to facilities being provided by voluntary community organisations. It does not assist the purchase of sites or of premises. Neither will a grant be awarded in respect of projects being grant-assisted by any other Government funding. There are stringent requirements laid down governing security of tenure, adequate local financial support and the planning, construction and upkeep of the project.

In the case of grants up to £15,000 grants are paid (a) on submission of certification that the project has been completed as originally planned or (b) on submission of certification that work to the value of twice the value of the grant has been completed in respect of the grant-aided work. For grants over £15,000 payment is made following submission of architects' certificates, builders' invoices in respect of work completed. Amounts of grant instalments relate to the value of grant-aided work completed.

Similar to the experience with the Department of the Environment scheme, there have been many hundreds of applications for assistance — more than 900 in all — under the Education scheme for the provision of recreational facilities. Given an allocation of £4 million in 1988 for this scheme, it is obvious that not all applicants can be satisfied. Nevertheless, so far over 250 projects have been approved for grants totalling almost £4 million throughout the length and breadth of the country and no county has been left out of grant allocations.

It will be obvious from what I have just said that the processing of applications is, of necessity, a detailed task requiring considerable resources in terms of manpower and back-up office systems. To the extent that this work is being done by those Departments concerned, the administrative costs of the scheme are not deducted from the lottery surplus itself, which would otherwise have to be the case and, hence, the full surplus is available for deserving projects. In addition, the expertise of the Departments who are dealing with these areas and which has been built up over the years is brought to bear on judging the most deserving of applications. I particularly welcome the fact that no Senator has questioned the entitlement to lottery funding of any of the projects being assisted.

The proposition that decisions on the allocation of the lottery surplus should be taken out of the hands of the Government and given to an independent board may have a superficial allure at first sight but it does not stand up to closer scrutiny. Under existing procedures, there are detailed rules laid down to ensure proper financial accountability. Issues from each Department's national lottery suspense account are audited in the same way as other public expenditure and are published in the Appropriation Accounts. Recipients of grants are required to submit audited accounts to the Department concerned after the end of the financial year and to provide a separate account of expenditure on the project for which the grant is given. Where the grant represents the greater part of the total income of the grantee, the books and accounts of the grantee are to be made available, if required, for examination by the Comptroller and Auditor General.

Also, each Minister is directly answerable to the Oireachtas for decisions on the allocation of lottery funds coming within his or her area of responsibility. If these responsibilities were to be passed to an outside agency or board, there would, in my view, be an unacceptable diminution in accountability to the Oireachtas for the expenditure of public funds contributed by the people of Ireland. Senator Fallon has rightly pointed to the importance of this principle.

Opposition Senators were critical of the role of Government Ministers, Deputies and Senators in contacting successful applicants. Senators Fallon and O'Callaghan have, I think, rebutted these criticisms more than adequately but let me put it on the record that my Department have confirmed with the spending Departments concerned that no successful applicant has received funding to which he or she was not entitled under the criteria for the relevant schemes.

Senators will also appreciate that the existence of an independent board to decide on lottery allocations will not of itself guarantee unquestioning acceptance for decisions on allocations. For as long as applications for support exceed the level of funding available, there will always be disappointed applicants. Irrespective of whether the deciding agency is a Government Department or an independent board, that disappointment may find expression in complaints about the decision making process. Our present arrangements ensure the accountability of Ministers to the Oireachtas for their decisions. This would cease to be the case were the responsibility to pass to an independent board. The real issue is to ensure that public support for and commitment to the lottery continues to grow so as to generate a level of funding which will enable this, and future Governments, to provide support for community based initiatives in every county and parish of Ireland.

Mr. J. O'Toole

In a discussion on something like the national lottery I do not know what is meant by an independent board. We discussed three different independent boards under various pieces of legislation over the last week, one on foresty, one on broadcasting and I cannot think of the third one and as yet I do not know what makes a board independent. As somebody on the cross benches, as it were, it is not of great relevance to me to which side of the House an independent board might owe their allegience. I am far more interested in the accountability of money spent by the State. For that reason, it is good that the discussion is taking place. It is also good that both sides of the House are having "a go" at each other about how the surplus should be spent. To me, the quote of the debate so far was made by a Government Senator who said, "You would think nobody abused the lottery except the present Government". I am not sure whether he meant to say that but that is precisely what he said at the time.

It seems that this is all about accountability. The reason we are looking for an independent board related to accountability. The case made by the Minister for Finance was about accountability, by insisting that the money of the people is properly accounted for. The argument can be made for and against what is independent and what is not independent; whether the Government are doing the right thing or otherwise. I am more concerned about accountability and also the imaginative use of the money. I want to raise a number of issues.

The Cathaoirleach will be aware that I have asked that at some time in the future — I hope tomorrow night — we should consider my proposal for the setting up of a pilot scheme for Telefís na Gaeltachta with funds from the national lottery. It is something that has been adverted to by the Taoiseach on a number of occasions since he came into office. I will leave a discussion on that topic until then. I hope it comes at some stage.

I missed part of the Minister for Finance's speech but in referring to the various Departments who were allocated money from the lottery funds, he may have referred to the Department of Communications. I have two pet interests, one I have just mentioned, Telefís na Gaeltachta, and local television of various types specifically pointed at people. The other is the setting up of a shortwave radio service. I have said on a number of occasions in this House that we have had ample discussion on radio on various things that we need but I hope that in the spending of money the Department of Communications might investigate the possibility of setting up a shortwave radio service from this country. I want to refer to some of the reasons why.

Very recently we went through the "write and invite" scheme with the Department of Tourism and Transport to encourage people to come to Ireland on holidays. A shortwave radio service which can get into people's houses, wherever they be, in Sydney, San Francisco or Moscow, could make a more direct impact. Obviously, that could be developed at length. Another reason would be diplomatic use of shortwave radio; it used to be called propaganda in the olden days and is now called diplomatic use. This could be used for diplomacy matters, for putting across our point of view. For a small nation we are very often in the focus of international attention and in putting forward our point of view on issues like Anglo-Irish affairs, the North of Ireland, the Birmingham Six and other national and international type matters, a shortwave radio service would be of immense use to us.

At a time when emigration, regrettably, is running higher than it has done for years we have discussed on numerous occasions in this House the need for setting up support and advice services for those people. Those people who are trying to protect themselves in other countries, whether it be New York, San Francisco or anywhere else, do not know where to turn for help. Very often they are afraid to go to the Irish Embassy, unjustifiably so, but they are afraid to approach authority at any level. A shortwave radio service would allow us talk to those emigrants when they have settled in other countries. We can advise them, give them support, direction and some help.

Another reason why a shortwave radio service would be useful would be to help us reach those people of Irish extraction who are in positions of power and influence or are wealthy in other countries to try to get them to re-invest here. That could be done very successfully through a shortwave radio service. I intend developing that suggestion of a shortwave radio service and putting it as a proposal to Government some time in the near future.

Within Ireland there are some fairly imaginative schemes which might be considered by the Government. In many cases this would, perhaps, make the case against an independent board, perhaps not. There is also a political element in the decisions about allocating money for any kind of a project. It is right that there should be a political element in it. I do not mean political in the sense of strokes or grafts or anything like that, but it is very often a political decision where to spend and it should be a political decision. If one takes a project like — as the Minister for Finance is in the House — the Sligo-Limerick railway line I could not stand up, put my hand on my heart and say to the Minister for Communications that we should re-invest money in that because it would be a commercially viable proposition; it would not be. However, it would be very useful from a tourist point of view and would be useful in terms of building up local communities and connections between them in that area of Connacht. Projects like that should be developed. In other words, I am referring to projects that are larger than community based ones.

I would like to expand on a point raised by Senator Reynolds in relation to support for sportspersons whether it would be through grants, scholarships or whatever. A beginning has been made in regard to this. It should be of great value. If one thinks back over the last year or so one will recognise that as a nation we have proved beyond doubt how sports conscious we are. We are absolutely indiscriminate in terms of the sports we follow. It was completely wrong of that former Member of the Oireachtas to make comments about GAA supporters. They were totally false. I am not going to develop that. However, we have seen over the year the response to an Irish cyclist in France; the response to Eamon Coughlan and other athletes; the response to the Irish soccer team and the response to people in different sports, even boxing and Barry McGuigan. A sporting success on the international front gives a lift to the nation. The neighbourhood, or the county, get a lift when their representative does well. We should look very carefully at this. We need to spend money on a number of 50-metre pools. We need to spend money on tartan tracks around the country, ones that will be used — there are a number that are not being used. We need to support all that is best in the area of sport and to direct money in that general direction.

The Minister for Finance gave details of the allocations to the different Departments, particularly to the Department of Education. I found it somewhat ironic that the Department of Education were handing out largesse on schemes which would be quite important — the Minister went through them and I do not have any objection to the areas in which the money will be spent — and that other Departments handed out money for local leisure centres which may be very good, but while all of this was happening the building fund for local schools was being halved. I find that a bit ironic and a little cynical. I would prefer to see national lottery money being channelled into the retention of local schools — when I say "retention" I mean the retention of the roofs, the walls, the ceilings, the floors, the windows, the heating and lighting of those schools. I am not talking about the retention of the teaching staff. I feel there is a great national resource there. This week I had the unpleasant duty of inspecting a school in the Dublin area which is about 30 years old. It is just falling down because of lack of support.

Looking over the various areas in which money might be spent, I do not have an objection — the Minister for Finance very cleverly said no Senator had objected to any of the projects for which money had been allocated. I am sure he is right. I cannot see any politician objecting to money being spent on his or her own constituency. I think it is absolutely incorrect — and this is the point that I would make — that the local Government politicians are informed first. I would like to hear somebody from the Government side or the Opposition side of the House justify that practice to me. It is incorrect. It is no more than buying votes. I see no justification for it. It is wrong and it should be clearly seen to be wrong. It is little more than graft. This happened in the last Government as well. I am not applying this to the Fianna Fáil Party or any particular party. This is the way Governments work. I have seen it down through the years.

It is wrong. It is not right that public representatives of the Government party should get first information on a project in order that they can go and tell those people a day or two days before everybody else so that they might get the credit for the success of that particular project. The only reason it is done is so that they claim the credit for it. If they can claim the credit for it and if they are claiming the credit for it, then the system is rotten, it is bent and it is political strokes. If it is done properly and correctly people are only getting what they are entitled to get. Then they should get it from the Department, they should be informed by the Department, and that is the line that it should go on.

For that reason, and for that reason only, I will be supporting this motion tonight, not because I think an independent board is a better way of managing the money. In fact, I think the Minister for Finance made a very strong argument that it was not the best way of managing the money. It is not for that reason, but I am sickened to my teeth of this. I see it happening in schools. A school is granted an extra teacher to which they are entitled. The local TD is told and he goes down and tells the school authorities.

Mr. Hogan

Or the local Senator.

Mr. J. O'Toole

Or the local Senator, or whatever and he tells the schools authorities. The local football club get a grant and the local TD is sent down to tell them. It demeans the job of public representative. It gives the impression that the country is bent; it is an insupportable activity. I say this equalhandedly in respect of both sides of the House. My only reason for supporting this motion tonight is because it would stop that despicable and insupportable practice.

People can make all the comments they want, but I would dearly like to hear somebody defend that. I would compliment Senator Kiely on what he said. He said it is being done by all sides. I agree with him. Is it not time to call a halt to it? This is money that is there; it is not handouts. It is not a question of the local TD grafting and giving. It was as bad in the last Government and the example was given. It is only a short step before they start handing out single pound notes and saying "There is your grant" or whatever.

It is with those words that I would conclude my remarks. I do consider it as a form of extra taxation. It is the worst kind of extra taxation. If I had my choice I would not have a national lottery at all. There should be a fair system of taxation which would pay for the proper projects out of central funds collected by due taxation. This is an attraction to the poor. The people who mainly spend money on buying these tickets are people who do not have money for other things. It creates a false hope, the illusion of sudden wealth. It appeals to the greed in people, which we all have to some extent. It worries me. I feel sad when I see people in local shops, who can ill-afford it, not spending money on other things so that they can spend a few bob on the national lottery.

An Cathaoirleach

There are 25 minutes left. May I say this? There are some occasions when I feel it is best to remain silent — at times this job of Cathaoirleach kills me. However, I am going to break all the rules that were ever made and say this. Senator O'Toole, in regard to your last remark in criticism of all of us, everyone elected, I think it is a pity we do not defend ourselves rather than criticise ourselves.

Mr. J. O'Toole

I do not recall criticising anybody.

Mr. McDonald

If this motion has served no other purpose it certainly has evoked from the Minister for Finance a very fine exposition of the programme, where the money has been spent and the general allocation of it. For that we must be extremely grateful. Personally, I have no great grouse with the Minister or the Government on the allocation of this fund. I must declare an interest, as chairman of the Ryder Foundation. We applied for two projects and we were successfully grant aided for our social development in Owning, County Kilkenny, and Ballyroan, County Laois. I very much appreciate the help and the boost that kind of funding gives to voluntary organisations. The only point that I should like to make, and make very strongly, is in regard to the distribution of the fund. The lottery fund is new, and I want to compliment all associated with the management of the lottery because it has been eminently successful. Despite what other speakers have said, it gives a great many people hope in speculating a pound on the Lotto or buying a ticket. It gives them a momentary lift, and I do not think it is that bad. Of course, if people are addicted to it and start buying strings of tickets beyond their means, then one is into a problem area. But by and large, people get a nice kick out of even the small prizes that they win.

As I said, the only reservation I have is about the distribution of the funds. I believe there should be a 100 per cent reserve to assist and encourage developments undertaken by voluntary organisations. As far as Departments and the State are concerned, lottery funds should not be allocated to health boards or local authorities to substitute for funds for the maintenance of proper services or the development of infrastructures. Such funds should appropriately come through the normal channels of taxation. I believe that, if the Government and the various Departments were able to maintain that simple rule, then I do not see how anybody could have any great objection.

I am probably the third longest serving Member in the Oireachtas at the present time and I know many politicians at every level. It is my firm opinion that no one is closer to the public or better placed to vet the effectiveness and ability and to assess the competence of local voluntary organisations than the Deputy, the Senator, the urban councillor or the town commissioner. I believe the Departments of State and Ministers should pay heed to the recommendations that come up; because, by and large, I think very few councillors or politicians of any party, or no party, will recommend a project that is not over and above board. I am convinced of that.

Why do politicians always want to take from the standing of the profession, if you would like to call it a profession? It is an honourable profession inasmuch as you have the honour conferred directly by one's neighbours and constituents and friends at whatever level. We do not take ourselves seriously enough from that point of view.

The national lottery has been a great success. It had been advocated here for many years in the House. We are all pleased that it has taken off and I would hope that it will continue to be successful. I would not like to see the allocation of the funds being handed over to an organisation, shall we say, in the capital city which could be justly accused, perhaps next year, of being remote from the needs of small, perhaps almost insignificant voluntary organisations down in the country. One meets in one's everyday life as a public representative small parish or half parish rural communities able to achieve the provision of tremendous facilities for the enhancement of the living conditions in their own communities. Over recent years the county councils have been able to undertake that provision, perhaps, of church carparks and carparking adjacent to cemeteries and there has been tremendous development of parish or community halls. These structures tend to keep local communities viable and together. They do not have to be grandiose palaces. This is not about building the kind of facility to which you can bring the top pop stars or bands in the country and accommodate several thousand people. But to have a facility where communities can plan and work together is extremely important.

There is a difficulty right across the country in raising funds, because there are so many very worthwhile causes. It is difficult to compete, and nobody can compete with the national lottery. Therefore, the funds should be very well distributed right across the country. The Government should do that and perhaps avoid the pitfalls. During the course of the debate here several instances were mentioned of organisations being grant aided without even applying, but it should be easy enough to get over those problems if they arose — and, I am sure, if they did they would not be mentioned here — and have a criteria and a system of application and nominations for grant aid.

The national lottery is a new organisation, a new phenomenon in this country, and it is possible to improve on it. I am confident that the Government can improve on the situation, and I wish them well in doing that. However, I do not, like some of my colleagues, distrust politicians; and I think that it ought to be possible to make representations to one's colleagues on the other side of the House. I, personally, have done that successfully and I would hope to be able to do that again. I ask the Minister of State present, who has responsibility for the national lottery, to consider before the next tranche of allocations are made, a system that perhaps would be very clearly over and above board. I find that people criticise the allocation of these funds. When you ask them how much they applied for they would say they did not apply or make any recommendation. I think that is unfair, because my experience has been that I have had 100 per cent success in everything I asked for and I would hope that that record would continue in the years ahead.

An Cathaoirleach

It is now 8.15 p.m. Senator Hogan to conclude.

Mr. Hogan

Senators will be aware that the problems we envisaged and that have arisen in the disbursement of finances from the national lottery have largely been brought about by its huge success rather than the disappointment of not achieving the required amount of financial aid that can be disbursed through the national lottery scheme to the many communities throughout the country that require and make application for funds. The national lottery was established in 1986 and came into operation with the funds being made available in 1987. The tremendous success of the national lottery can be attributed mainly to the gambling instinct that is inherent in most Irish people. I often hear people speaking of the problems that can arise in relation to the lower socio-economic strata whereby they might be inclined to spend all the money they have on national lottery tickets, money that should be used for their family requirements. Without being in any way uncharitable, I think that in a situation like that by and large that money would be frittered away on something else if it was not spent on national lottery tickets, because that gambling instinct is there. All of us will know of towns and cities in which most days of the week bookmakers' offices are full if there is a race meeting on anywhere.

Certainly, if you go to the greyhound racing or to a horse race meeting, you will see the very same people at practically all of those particular events within a 25 mile radius of their homes.

Mr. Callaghan

Especially Oireachtas Members.

Mr. Hogan

Senator Callaghan is very evident in his patronage of those events and I am glad he recognises that here this evening.

I want to take the opportunity of welcoming the many developments that have taken place as a result of the proceeds of the national lottery under the various headings that have been pointed out to us by the Minister for Finance in his speech here this evening. Indeed, many communities would not have had the wherewithal or would not have received the necessary financial support to embark on many ambitious projects that were needed in those communities. I want to pay tribute to Deputy Donal Creed, whose brainchild the national lottery was, and which was brought about mainly through his efforts, if you will permit mentioning one name in the House, a Chathaoirligh. He lobbied long and hard during the period of the last Government to convince the Cabinet of the day that the national lottery was certainly a scheme that was worth pursuing and that could provide much needed finance, finance that was becoming increasingly scarce, in order to fund various community projects under the many headings the Minister has outlined.

Senators will be aware that, in the sport and recreational area, in the health area, and in the arts and culture area and in local authorities, many areas of the country are embarking on projects now which they could not have done without the aid of this particular source of finance. I will refer, firstly, to the amenity grant scheme run by local authorities. The Minister for Finance spoke this evening about the surplus funds which accrued in 1987 from the proceeds of the national lottery and that applications were requested from each local authority to submit proposals whereby this money could be spent in their area. Local authorities are required to contribute funds themselves to supplement funds from the national lottery in order to carry out those projects. I am extremely concerned that local authorities would be put in a very invidious position whereby they would have to overrun their expenditure, which has not been allotted in their estimates, at the end of the financial year in order to match the national lottery funds so that the projects grant aided from the national lottery can be got off the ground. Otherwise, they would run the risk of disappointing many communities in their area who, through their local representatives, would be putting great pressure on the council to embark on those projects.

I think this is an area that the Minister would want to take due cognisance of, that planning for the year in relation to the allocation of funds to the local government amenity scheme must be done early enough in the year in order to ensure that the estimates agreed by the county councils or other local authorities would have built into them the necessary finance in order to match the lottery funds to get those projects off the ground and make sure that the amenity applications are proceeded with. That is something that has brought some local authorities into some difficult financial predicaments in the recent past, particularly in Dublin.

The concept of a lottery is nothing new. In fact, I would say — and I think everyone here would probably agree with me — that the country is presently punch drunk with the number of lotteries going on in each particular community at the moment. The country is effectively being run on lotteries of every discription. If you are building a community hall, a home for the elderly, or a sports centre a lottery is certainly the way in which the necessary financial contribution is sought from the public by each community. Therefore, the extension of that principle by providing funds from the national lottery is a natural extension of the lottery concept, and it is not so surprising then that the national lottery has been such a success. An Post, the agency through which lottery tickets are purchased, provide a ready-made vehicle for having a centre where tickets are purchased throughout every corner of the country, because An Post have offices and facilities in every community.

The core message in the motion before the House this evening is that the criteria regarding the success or failure of an application is not that evident in the areas where funds are given or where applicants are disappointed; it is this lack of communication regarding the criteria essential in order to satisfy the various headings of the scheme financed by the national lottery which brings an element of controversy into the scheme. Obviously, groups feel aggrieved if they are left out. The Minister for Finance has explained the number of applications that have been received and the number of people obviously disappointed as a result of the revelations made this evening. In regard to how they would go about making an application, it seems that it is politicised too much in the eyes of the community. It is this apparent politicisation of national lottery funds that is becoming the subject of controversy in the allocations at the moment and is certainly bringing about at local level a sense of outrage at the disbursement and allocation of those funds.

The Minister for Finance, Deputy MacSharry, has indicated that per capita the allocation of funds is evenly distributed throughout the country and that, in addition, funds are allocated to various projects in regional centres on the basis of their regional importance. I am not surprised that Sligo was one of those areas picked as a regional centre. Indeed, fair play to the Minister for Finance that he would have an input into that decision. I, or any politician or any local representative or Oireachtas representative, would do the same in order to make the best of our representations to further the interests of our own constituency. Good luck to him for doing so. but it should not hide the fact that the allocation of funds throughout the country is not done on an even-handed basis. There is disquiet, and under the surface there is concern, that, where there is greater political influence over the allocation of funds, those particular interests are getting more funds out of the national lottery than areas where there is less political influence.

I can give you examples from my own area. Take the amenity grants. Clare County Council would have received £90,000 from the amenity grants scheme to local authorities while Mayo County Council would have received £405,000 for the amenity scheme. I cannot but help come to the conclusion that the fact that the Minister for the Environment happens to be from the county of Mayo would have a bearing on the allocation of those funds to Mayo vis-a-vis the allocation we are giving to Clare County Council. If I am wrong, correct me, but I cannot come to that conclusion without having a long hard look at the situation. I know, a Chathaoirligh, you will forgive me for mentioning that figure in your own county.

Again, the amount per head in Sligo and Carlow, for example, bears no relationship at all. It is certainly completely out of proportion. In fact, Carlow has one of the lowest allocations in the country at £1.40 per head. Sligo, when you include the regional centre, works out at £23 per head. The south-east in general — perhaps we have not enough political clout in the south-east; we will have to examine our consciences further in relation to that matter — has been very much neglected when you consider the allocations that have been made in other regions. This heightens the controversy and heightens the distrust — perhaps that is too strong a word — that the public would have of allowing a political input into the allocation of funds from the national lottery.

The substitution of funds for various projects has been made following the introduction of the national lottery. This was a natural extension of what was likely to happen if the lottery was to become the success it has been. Funds are distributed through the Department of Social Welfare to many community groups, through the Department of Education under the community recreational scheme and through the health boards in terms of providing maintenance grants and capital grants for the building of homes for the elderly. It was only natural, therefore, that funds from the national lottery would supplant funds that were already being allocated through the various spending Departments to those areas initially.

There are a number of projects that the Minister would want to clarify in relation to my own area of Kilkenny. I will conclude by seeking information in relation to that matter, because it appears it is very difficult to get information from the Department of Education and the Department of Health in regard to funds, when they will be made available or what criteria are essential to get funds for those projects from those various Departments. I mention in particular the allocations that are essential for the building of a theatre in Kilkenny, the Graiguenamanagh Elderly Association are seeking adequate finance for a project, the fact that no funds have been granted from the Department of Education for Muckalee Community Centre. Those are just examples of funds that are necessary to be made available and are essential for those communities while other areas, of less importance in my opinion, have received grant aid. I will not go into the details of the areas that are of less importance.

The fundamental issue in this motion is this: there is an opinion abroad that Ministers are seeking to represent Santa Claus all the year round rather than once a year. It demeans politicians and only heightens public cynicism. The only way in which all of us can remove ourselves and distance ourselves from becoming embroiled in controversial matters and allocation of funds — funds we would like to see coming to our area but in regard to which we would be accused of having a political input over and above other areas — is to establish an independent board what would give due explanations and set down proper standards of criteria and assessment for the allocation of funds from the national lottery.

Question put.

The Seanad divided: Tá, 17; Níl, 26.

Tá

• Bradford, Paul.
• Connor, John.
• Doyle, Joe.
• Fennell, Nuala.
• Ferris, Michael.
• Harte, John.
• Hogan, Philip.
• Kennedy, Patrick.
• Loughrey, Joachim.
• McCormack, Padraic.
• McDonald, Charlie.
• McMahon, Larry.
• Manning, Maurice.
• O'Toole, Joe.
• Reynolds, Gerry.
• Ross, Shane P.N.
• Ryan, Brendan.

Níl

• Bohan, Edward Joseph.
• Byrne, Seán.
• Cullimore, Seamus.
• Doherty, Michael.
• Eogan, George.
• Fallon, Seán.
• Farrell, Willie.
• Fitzgerald, Tom.
• Fitzsimons, Jack.
• Hanafin, Des.
• Haughey, Seán F.
• Hillery, Brian.
• Hussey, Thomas.
• Kiely, Dan.
• Kiely, Rory.
• Lanigan, Mick.
• Lydon, Donal.
• McEllistrim, Tom.
• McGowan, Patrick.
• McKenna, Tony.
• Mulroy, Jimmy.
• O'Callaghan, Vivian.
• O'Connell, John.
• Ó Conchubhair, Nioclás.
• O'Toole, Martin J.
• Wallace, Mary.

Tellers: Tá, Senators Fennell and Doyle; Níl, Senators S. Haughey and M. O'Toole.

Question declared lost.