Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 9 Nov 1988

Vol. 383 No. 9

Irish Sailors and Soldiers Land Trust Bill, 1988: Committee Stage (Resumed).

Debate resumed on amendment No. 1:

In page 2, lines 20 to 22, to delete "disposed of in such manner as the Taoiseach, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, directs" and substitute the following:

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

—(Deputy Quinn.)

Mr. Kelly

I was speaking earlier on the five amendments put forward by representatives of all four Opposition parties. I was saying that the acceptance of any of these amendments, not distinguishing between them, would remove in greater or lesser degree the objection I see to the form of section 2 as it stands. I will briefly trace the history of the legislative technique which we have been seeing in this House in the small number of years since the second last election. We have in front of us a Bill which proposes to place at the disposal of the Taoiseach not an amazing sum of money measured by the scale of the national budget but nevertheless a substantial enough sum. I absolutely accept without question that the ministerial statement this morning indicating a destination for this money is sincere and genuine and that that is exactly where the money will go, but I have to protest, as other speakers have done, about the failure to put that in simple form in the Bill itself. That seems to offend against both the letter and the spirit of Articles 11 and 17 of the Constitution. I want to contrast that technique that has been seen here in recent years.

Infamous though the results of the National Lottery Act seem to have turned out to be, at least that Act made some pathetic, rudimentary gesture towards indicating some general purposes for which the money would ultimately be applied. The technique is that there is a lottery fund under the control of the Minister. The lottery fund, at the end of a particular period when the payments have been established, can be paid into the central fund. Section 5 of the National Lottery Act, 1986, states:

Moneys paid into the Central Fund pursuant to section 8 of this Act shall be applied for—

(a) the purposes of such one or more of the following, and in such amounts, as the Government may determine from time to time, that is to say, sport and other recreation, national culture (including the Irish language), the arts (within the meaning of the Arts Act, 1951) and the health of the community, and

(b) such (if any) other purposes, and in such amounts, as the Government may determine from time to time.

Of course, subsection (b) destroys the whole principle but at least lip service of some kind is being paid to the principle that the Dáil and Seanad should specify what this money, raised on their authority, is to be devoted to.

That does not remove the objection I voiced this morning to the creation of two tiers of revenue and two tiers of destination. It is scandalous that overseas development aid should have to lean on the national lottery. I am sorry to say that this puts it to some extent in the same category as a lawn tennis club or a golf club. It is depending on the same secondary source of funding. It implicitly devalues it to the status of something which the State will find a few pence for if it can. It puts it in the realm of State funding which is inferentially of the second rank compared with paying our salaries, for example. No one suggested that our salaries should depend on the national lottery's product. Nevertheless, with all those objections which can be made to it, the National Lottery Act as recently as two years ago still pointed out in some kind of way the sort of area to which the funds were to be devoted — sport, national culture and the health of the community.

If we go back only another two years to 1984 we come to another windfall Act which should have been incorporated for collective citation purposes today. I refer to the Funds of Suitors Act, 1984. It is barely four years since it was enacted. The House knows what funds of suitors are. Basically, large lumps of money accumulate in the High Court, paid in connection with this or that case, and they are never ultimately paid out. Payments never keep up with the volume of money coming in. When the first such distribution of surplus funds was made about 20 years ago, naturally accompanied by a State guarantee that if ever the funds should prove inadequate to meet claims upon them, they would be supplemented by the Exchequer, it was made from a fund which had been accumulating since the 1780s. The first payment into the fund which was recognisable had been made in the reign of George III. That little source of revenue having once been tapped, it quickly built up and has been tapped again. As recently as 1984 we authorised the removal of money from the funds of suitors in the High Court and we directed in the most specific way what was to happen to those funds. I will not quote the whole of section 3(2) of the Funds of Suitors Act, 1984, but I will summarise the heads. It reads:

(2) The sums paid to the Exchequer pursuant to subsection (1) of this section may be applied by the Minister as follows:

(a) not more than £600,000 may be applied for such purpose or purposes in relation to culture and the arts...

(b) not more than £600,000 may be applied in or towards the defrayal of the cost of carrying out the works specified in section 4 of this Act,

which largely consisted in renovating the Kings Inns buildings, Library and gardens,

(c) not more than £300,000 may... be applied in or towards the defrayal of the cost of the extension ... of the premises of Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann at Monkstown ...

carrying the curious name Cultúrlann na hÉireann and inviting the reflection that any culture which can think up a word like "cultúrlann" needs its credentials closely inspected,

(d) not more than £100,000 may, on the application of the Minister for Labour be applied in or towards the defrayal of the cost of the Community, Youth, Recreational and Employment Programme administered by the Minister for Labour,

and paragraph (e) set the balance that was to be applied for the maintenance in proper order of court premises — the Dublin Metropolitan District Court and the Children's Court.

We saw fit, admittedly under a very different kind of Government, wobblying and ineffective though it may have been in several respects, to maintain a certain standard in this kind of context.

Mr. Quinn

Do not ruin your contribution.

Mr. Kelly

The Government of the day did not think it beneath them to ask the Dáil to approve every one of these heads — whether this or that Deputy would agree with them is a separate matter. They were specifically authorised here. The next step downhill was the National Lottery Act where only a token attempt was made to define the beneficiaries from this fund, the size of which was not even imagined at the time. The third stage of this declension is the stage which is represented here by the Caligula factor, this is, typing up a purse and handing it to the Taoiseach.

I unreservedly accept that the object he has in mind and which the Minister mentioned this morning is a good object and I do not quarrel with it but we have to insist on the principle being upheld that the Dáil builds into the legislation authority for the disposal of windfall money.

Minister for Energy and Minister for Communications (Mr. R. Burke)

It is important to put into context exactly what we are talking about. We are talking about roughly £2.5 million in the context of the 1989 Estimates for the Public Service — the total net Estimates for supply services and non-capital services is £5,564 million and for capital services, £660 million, a total of £6,225 million——

Mr. Kelly

He that contemneth small things shall fall by little and little.

Mr. R. Burke

In the course of my contribution this morning — and I am glad Deputy FitzGerald who was Taoiseach at the time of the agreement in 1986, confirmed the point I made — I clearly indicated that during the discussions with the British Government which led up to the agreement on the repayment of the surplus funds, there was an understanding that the Irish Government would endeavour to use their share for North-South or Anglo-Irish co-operation or for projects with an all-Ireland dimension.

One project which has a clear all-Ireland dimension is the decision of the Government in regard to the Royal National Lifeboat Institution to purchase a new lifeboat for the western coastline, from Galway to Donegal, and to improve the facilities generally of their search and rescue facilities along the west and northwest coasts. That clearly meets the terms of the agreement entered into between the then Government and the British Government in 1986, and to which we are giving legislative force today.

I have before me a number of amendments. One is from Deputy Mac Giolla who specifies 30 per cent for the Royal National Lifeboat Institution — the Government have already decided they will get more than 30 per cent — and 30 per cent for the provision or improvement of living accommodation for serving and former members of the Defence Forces. I am grateful to the former Taoiseach for his clarification that that could not be encompassed within the terms of the agreement. The provision of hostel accommodation and services for ex-servicemen comes under the point raised by Deputy Quinn in his amendment and, under Deputy O'Malley's amendment, "the remaining 50 per cent of such moneys shall be paid to such ex-servicement's organisations as Dáil Éireann shall approve, by motion". All those amendments are clearly outside the terms of the agreement between the Irish and British Governments.

A number of Deputies have raised the question of defining where this money will be spent. I stated very clearly exactly what would happen. I said it would be spent on North-South or Anglo-Irish co-operation or for projects with an all-Ireland dimension. Deputy FitzGerald with Deputy Connaughton put down an amendment clarifying that and asking that the thrust of that principle be included in section 2. During the sos I had an opportunity to look at this and I will be proposing the following wording because I will not be able to accept the wording proposed by Deputy FitzGerald. I will have this amendment circulated. it will read:

In page 2, lines 20 to 22, to delete "in such manner as the Taoiseach, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, directs" and substitute the following: "for the purposes of such projects or undertakings including the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, involving co-operation between the State and Northern Ireland or the State and Great Britain, or relating to the island of Ireland as a whole, as the Taoiseach may, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, determine".

That amendment will clarify section 2, but I want to make it clear that even without that amendment that is what has been agreed between the Irish and British Governments, and that is what would be happening anyway. To remove any fear Members may have about this, and despite the fact that Deputy FitzGerald clarified that that was the basis of his agreement, that is how the money will be spent. Therefore, I will be proposing this amendment. I cannot accept Deputy FitzGerald's other amendment.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy McDowell will appreciate that the amendment the Minister mentioned will be moved on Report Stage because it was too late to have it circulated for Committee Stage.

Mr. McDowell

Listening to speeches in this debate, a few points occurred to me. The first is that Deputy Kelly's original objection to the Bill as it stood is valid. He said some barristers might take three days in the High Court debating a point——

Dr. G. FitzGerald

He said he would be happy to debate it——

Mr. McDowell

Perhaps he would, but the average judge would not allow it. He would tell him straightaway it is not lawful for this House to pass a Bill saying certain portions of Exchequer funding shall be put into the hands of any Minister of State, or any combination of Ministers of State, to do with it what they will. That infringes Article 11 of the Constitution and is something this House is not competent to do. It would not take three minutes for a High Court Judge to arrive at that conclusion. If the Attorney General went into court trying to defend such a text, he would not be given much longer than three minutes to make his case.

Mr. Kelly

I said I would get three days' fees——

Mr. McDowell

He might do something like that and if the House brought in a law of this kind we would be doing violence to the wording and intent of the Constitution, there is no doubt about that.

The Fund of Suitors Act, to which Deputy Kelly referred, said exactly what could be done with the money set aside by this House. The important point is that there is accountability. The Comptroller and Auditor General can look at what was done in the Kings Inns or in the Cultúrlann to see whether the money was spent on stocking the bar or some other project. He can see if there was a misappropriation of funds and that is the essence of parliamentary democracy and control of disbursal. The decline in standards in the House, to which Deputy Kelly also referred, is a disgrace. It is happening more and more that Ministers are given funds on which they may make discretionary decisions. I am not against discretion where it is needed but it must always be accompanied by accountability and when this House gets a fund of even a small kind relative to national figures, it must, to do justice to the people who originally brought these funds into being, apply them responsibly.

The purpose of this all-Ireland expenditure was entered into bona fide and the looseness of the agreement entered into by Deputy FitzGerald with the British Government was one in which both sides acted in good faith and accepting each other's bona fides in the matter. However, that does not mean that our law can be equally vague. When we sit down in the House to implement the substance of the agreement which Deputy FitzGerald arrived at, we should make sure that the money in question is applied exactly in accordance with the agreement. We should specify each and every purpose for which this money should be spent. Sometimes the Minister seems to think that Members of the House are feather-headed. Of course there was an agreement of the kind specified by Deputy FitzGerald but the problem is that it is not good enough to embody in our law. The House has a duty to say how all funds which form part of the Exchequer will be disbursed. That could be an academic exercise except for the fact that this is part of a slightly squalid attempt to turn the charity of a bygone day into the patronage of today——

Mr. D. O'Malley

Hear, hear.

Mr. McDowell

The Taoiseach postures as a patron of the arts and his chief contribution to them is to have a larger gallery of photographs of himself than anybody else. It is curious that a man of his political views should turn himself into a patron of culture on an all-Ireland basis using a fund which was established by the British Crown in the past to look after those who served with the British Forces and the forces of a United Kingdom of Britain and Ireland when the two countries were united.

The Minister outlined the drift of departmental thinking as to how these moneys should be applied. He said that there was a project contemplated that an anthology of Irish-Anglo literature being prepared in the city of Derry should get money from this fund. I do not know if it is a good anthology but I know one thing — there will be a photograph of the Taoiseach in the papers opening a book, looking interested in the fly page and pretending that he has in some sense, at his own patronage and discretion, arranged for this great work of culture to be put in place. I do not want to stray into the realm of the national lottery but the same wrong principle also applies there. What is legally paid into the Exchequer and what should be legally controlled being paid out of the Exchequer is instead turned into a discretionary disbursement which is dressed up as patronage. That is what is wrong with this proposal. In essence, the Taoiseach and the Minister for Finance — which effectively means the Taoiseach, especially in this Government — will determine projects relating to the island of Ireland as a whole. What could that possibly mean? Is a video of "My Ireland" a project which relates to the entirety of Ireland? How many more anthologies from Mercier Press of speeches relating to a United Ireland could come under that? It is so loose as to be virtually meaningless.

Dr. G. FitzGerald

It is the best I could do in a hurry.

Mr. McDowell

I appreciate that but we would be far better advised to say that if projects of this kind are to be funded — Deputy O'Malley's amendment had the great virtue of ensuring that the House had to be informed and give consent of the kind of project which was to be funded — we should not have the nonsense of apparent patronage being conducted out of a fund which is, in reality, nothing to do with patronage but with a surplus accumulating out of a fund originally established for charitable purposes.

I agree with Deputy Cooney, it is a charity to provide accommodation for former soldiers because anybody who has any experience of the Army — my experience is very limited — knows just how pathetic the lot is of a non-commissioned soldier who is living in the Army as an institution and coming to the end of his days as a soldier. He has nowhere or no life to go to and no accommodation to look forward to except perhaps joining the bottom of the queue as a single person in his fifties or sixties looking for accommodation from a housing authority. It is a pathetic state of affairs and it was, certainly in the case of the large standing armies that existed when this fund was established, a charity to provide them with funds for the purpose of housing.

Now, those funds put aside and provided by the Government at the time are to be converted into a discretionary fund to aid all-Ireland projects at the whim of the Taoiseach. I do not know whether it makes sense to apply them to an all-Ireland Anglo-Irish literary anthology to be published in Derry. I presume there are a lot more deserving projects on an all-Ireland basis. It is wrong that this country, which is, after all a Republic, reduces the way in which it disburses funds to a kind of Saudi-Arabian process where people turn up and sit on rugs looking for munificence from their political superiors. That is really what all this is about, people from Derry are being invited to make submissions for funding from a fund which will be disbursed on a discretionary basis and with all the appearances of patronage by the Taoiseach.

Deputy O'Malley's amendment is the most acceptable, that it is clearly seen that every single halfpenny applied to every single project comes, not as a matter of discretionary patronage, but as a matter of a resolution of this House and with the authority of law. The message is clear in relation to the national lottery and so on and it has been understood in relation to projects such as the restoration of Kings Inns and various other buildings from the Funds of Suitors Act. This kind of discretionary, arbitrary funding of cultural projects gives the average citizen the impression that politics are becoming arbitrary again and that the Executive are some kind of sovereign body who can choose this and that project, this or that poet, this or that author or this or that sculptor, for a particular amount of bounty and that this is done as a matter of convenience. This House is then given an obfuscation of an explanation as to why that is being done. It is not necessary that the Taoiseach makes the decision without any reference to this House. It is not necessary that funds which were established for a charitable purpose should in the last analysis be diverted to another purpose to be handed out in such circumstances as to give the very strong impression that it is done on an arbitrary basis at the whim of the Taoiseach and given to whatever project he feels particularly moved by at any particular time. It is shabby politics and it is shabby standards. It is shabby behaviour of a Government to say they will establish a £2.5 million fund ——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy McDowell, I think you will accept that you have been indulging in slight repetition and that you are straying beyond the normal debate that is allowed on Committee Stage.

Mr. McDowell

I am dealing with the issue involved, which is whether there should be an arbitrary or a discretionary ——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

On Committee Stage there are limits to the manner in which you can deal with it, unfortunately. On Second Stage you are free to ramble wherever you might be disposed to do so but ——

Mr. McDowell

Maybe I am not saying what you would most like to hear me say.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I would ask you to withdraw that, Deputy.

Mr. McDowell

I will not withdraw it. I am being entirely relevant and you are wrong to interrupt me.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I am the adjudictor of what is relevant and what is not.

Mr. McDowell

That is ——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Please resume your seat. If your were as practised as other Members here you would realise that in respect of a Committee Stage debate the Deputy is obliged to refer to what is in the particular amendment or section. If you, on recollection, can satisfy yourself that you have so confined yourself, then you can be happy that you are in order.

Mr. McDowell

I am so happy. I have been talking entirely about the principle of Deputy Quinn's amendment.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

In respect of Standing Orders you are out of order and if you continue I will ask you to resume your seat.

Mr. McDowell

I am talking about the principle of Deputy Quinn's amendment, which is that this House should specify the purposes and should not leave it to the Taoiseach to determine the purposes and I am giving the reasons why that is so.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

You have indulged in an amount of repetition in establishing the point that it is not allowed.

Mr. McDowell

I will avoid repetition. I think I used the word shabby three times. Maybe that is what is worrying you.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair resents very much the implication that the Chair was in any way sensitive to or conscious of any comment you are making in respect of anybody. If you have not the grace or the courtesy to withdraw it I may be obliged to watch you more carefully in the future.

Mr. McDowell

You will not threaten or browbeat me in that manner.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I am not threatening or browbeating you.

Mr. McDowell

You are.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I am not.

Mr. McDowell

You are threatening me and you are browbeating me. I am perfectly entitled to make the observations I was making. They were perfectly in line with the principle of Deputy Quinn's amendment.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy has made an accusation against the Chair which he knows in his heart is not true, and I am asking that he withdraw it.

Mr. McDowell

If I did know it in my heart I would most certainly withdraw it.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Then I am asking you to resume you seat.

Mr. McDowell

Very well then.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Thank you.

Mr. R. Burke

I have attempted to meet the wishes of the House as expressed here in quite a reasoned way by some of the contributions — not that particular contribution——

Mr. D. O'Malley

You may not——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I will take no threats from Deputy O'Malley either.

Mr. R. Burke

——in which the Deputy used the words "squalid" and "shabby".

Mr. D. O'Malley

What did I say?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

You shook your head as if to threaten somebody but you will not threaten the Chair.

Mr. D. O'Malley

Is one not allowed to shake one's head to express one's disapproval of what the Chair is doing in this House without being shouted at in that fashion?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

If Deputy O'Malley is suggesting that there was any basis for the charges made by his colleague, then the Chair is entitled to challenge him as he did his colleague.

Mr. D. O'Malley

So a Member of this House is now to be treated in this fashion because he shakes his head. I think this is going a bit further than we are used to.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair continues to carry out his duties in as impartial a fashion as he thinks is correct and in accordance with the records that will appear there.

Mr. D. O'Malley

I look forward to the day television is here and shows that somebody can be treated in this fashion by the Chair for shaking his head. I suppose it is the overflow of the Caligula factor.

Dr. G. Fitzgerald

On television you would be seen shaking your head.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Can we hear the Minister now without interruption.

Mr. R. Burke

As I have said earlier, I listened very carefully to the debate this morning. Deputy McDowell was not able to be with us for most of the discussion.

Mr. McDowell

That is not true.

Mr. R. Burke

He was here for some of it. I have attempted to incorporate the amendment in the Bill, as was specified in my speech and was the subject of the debate we had here this morning. Members were anxious that there would be a clarification or an inclusion in the Bill of the areas of understanding between ourselves and the British Government and that has been done. I have gone further than that and specified the Royal National Lifeboat Institution because again that was the one area where a clear decision has already been made.

Deputy McDowell in his speech threw around words like "squalid" and "shabby". It is a general throwing up of muck and some of it will stick. The reality is that there will be total accountability in the disbursement of this fund because it will come under a subhead in the Taoiseach's Department and as such there will be total accountability in this House as to where the funds are spent. Deputy McDowell said there is a possibility that on some future occasion the Taoiseach or some other Minister might be seen being photographed and by being so he insinuated that he would be in some way responsible for disbursement. I seem to remember pictures during the last general election of the Deputy's party leader sitting on a tractor on the Lucan by-pass wearing a Clonmel construction hat, as if the Lucan by-pass was subject to the good works of Deputy O'Malley and the Progressive Democrats. It is all right when they do that but not when anybody else does it.

There is total accountability in this regard. The amendment which I put down in the Taoiseach's name is an addition to section 2 of the Bill for the purpose of such projects or undertakings, including the Royal National Lifeboat Institution involving — this is the phraseology that was used in the agreement between the British Government and the Irish Government in 1986 — co-operation between the State and Northern Ireland or the State and Great Britain or relating to the island of Ireland as a whole as the Taoiseach may, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, determine. The thrust of the issue is that £2.5 million will be spent on the RNLI and also on projects of co-operation between the State and Northern Ireland, the State and Great Britain or relating to the island of Ireland as a whole. That was the thrust of the agreement between the two Governments of 1986.

I listed this morning in response to the Second Stage debate, in trying to be helpful, a number of the groups that have so far, without invitation, indicated that they are applying for or are interested in securing some assistance from the fund. No decisions have been made on those groups and there is no suggestion of them getting assistance. I was trying to be helpful to the House and was merely telling Deputies the types of groups that have so far applied for it. I have no doubt that when the legislation is passed there will be quite a considerable interest in the relatively small sum of money — I emphasise it is about £2.5 million and it will not get any bigger.

Mr. T. Fitzpatrick

This is a very short Bill comprising five short sections but in my opinion there is a very important principle at stake in section 2 regarding the expenditure and disbursement of State money and the accountability for such expenditure to this House. When I received this Bill in my post three or four weeks ago, I glanced through it and immediately thought that the provision of section 2 enabling the Minister for Finance to accept gifts on behalf of the State and the provision in the same section enabling the State to disburse the gift in such manner as the Taoiseach might direct with the consent of the Minister for Finance is very unusual. I stopped and read it again and considered it because to me it appeared to be something I had not come across in legislation previously either in my practice as a solicitor or in my nearly 30 years in this House. I thought perhaps I just had not noticed it and for that reason I made inquiries and was told I was quite correct, that this appeared to be a complete and absolute departure from established procedure. I was told further that it probably was not even constitutional. I admit that when I read it the lottery came to my mind immediately because it was the current topic at the time and the disbursement of a vast sum of £70 million or so seemed to be creating great disquiet and uneasiness in the minds of many citizens. Therefore, I decided I would pursue the matter further and that I would speak on the Bill when it came into the House.

I heard the Minister in the House really contemptuously brushing aside the objection because only £2.5 million is involved. I would like to see what sort of reception the Minister would get in practically every constituency if he were to brush aside £2.5 million as being insignificant at a time when so many people are deprived of the absolute necessities of life and of essential services of one sort or another. I will not trot them all out here now, but I note that the Minister proposes to put down an amendment. I will not go into the merits or demerits of the purpose for which the Minister tells us the Taoiseach intended to expend the money because I am only dealing here with the principle involved. There may be only this paltry sum of £2.5 million in the Minister's mind today but it may be £100 million next year. It is an undesirable, bad principle following on the principle of the lottery. I sincerely hope it is not a case of cattle getting a taste of fresh grass and pursuing the matter having seen the plentiful supply or acquiring an appetite for more and more of the same sort of conduct as the abuse of the lottery funds. For my purposes I would be satisfied if something was written into the Bill directing what this money was to be spent on. Indeed, we could have a debate as to whether it was a worthy object or whether there could be a more worthy object, but at least it would get over the difficulty of accountability.

I have looked at the Minister's amendment. I know it will not come up until Report Stage, but the Minister has used it in argument on this Committee Stage, therefore it is not out of order for me to refer to it also.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Sorry, Deputy Fitzpatrick. I indicated to the House that the Minister was referring to it now but I hoped it would be debated at the appropriate stage.

Mr. T. Fitzpatrick

I am just going to make one shortish reference to it. The Minister proposes to substitute for one of the other amendments the following: "for the purposes of such projects or undertakings including the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, involving co-operation between the State and Northern Ireland or the State and Great Britain..." That is quite understandable and sets some criteria for what the moneys should be spent on, but in my opinion the next few words negative the whole thing and destroy the other part. I quote: "or relating to the island of Ireland as a whole as the Taoiseach may, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, determine". What in the name of all that is right and holy does that mean? He can spend it on anything that has to do with the island of Ireland or any part of it or on any activity going on therein. It is not intelligible.

Mr. Quinn

The trouble is it is far too intelligible.

Mr. T. Fitzpatrick

That could be another way of looking at it. It negatives the other part of the amendment which talks about co-operation between the State and Northern Ireland and the State and Great Britain. That is all I want to say about that.

I am very glad that this point has been taken up in the House and I hope it will be taken as a serious point, a very serious point of procedure and accountability. It cannot be unrelated to the lottery or to the expenditure of other sums. I remember quite well the funds of suitors legislation and I have certain reservations about the use of that money, but I suppose it could be said it is better to spend it on something useful that leave it lying there to rot where it could be of no use to anybody or anything, so long as there is a guarantee that if the suitors ever come up the State will pay. That Bill went to the trouble of including very precise directions as to what would be done with the money and there was a debate in this House about it. There should be an amendment to this section directing what should be done with the money. In my opinion the Minister's amendment is absolutely useless. Perhaps I will say more about that on Report Stage.

Tomás Mac Giolla

I am still very unhappy about section 2 of this Bill. The Minister has now told us that a number of organisations, without invitation as he said, have expressed an interest in these funds and have applied for funding from them. That is very interesting because I would like to know how these organisations found out there were funds that it would be appropriate for them to apply for. Even if they happened to locate this Bill in the last few weeks there is nothing in it to indicate to somebody in Derry or wherever that funds would be available for them by reason of this Bill or that theirs would be a suitable project. There is nothing of that in any section. How do these people know that there is money there, that they should start applying and that the Taoiseach is ready to hand it out?

Dr. G. FitzGerald

They were tipped off.

Tomás Mac Giolla

That is precisely so. The point I would like to make is that I contacted the Organisation of National Ex-Servicemen during the lunch break and they were not aware that such a Bill existed, that such funds existed; they knew nothing whatever about it, and they would be very interested in applying and probably will be applying now. I am worried also about the former Taoiseach's statement and the Minister's statement which seem to make the situation worse in regard to ex-servicemen of the Army here and the possibility of their getting any funds from it. From statements that have been made now it seems that they are about the only ones who are excluded from any possibility of getting any funds as a result of this Bill. Almost everybody else can find some reason, some sort of Anglo-Irish co-operation, to apply. The GAA could apply for this and probably will, too, and get it for that matter. Ex-servicemen of the Irish Army are the only ones who have been specifically excluded. That is absolutely outrageous.

In the Bill itself, in the Minister's speech, in the discussions which led to the agreement and the amendments put down by Deputy FitzGerald which the Minister proposes to accept on Report Stage, I see nothing to exclude ex-servicemen of the Irish Army. I see nothing that indicates that the Irish Army are not involved in co-operation between the State and Northern Ireland. They are very much so involved and between the State and Great Britain. They go over to train in Great Britain and to buy arms from Great Britain. There is complete co-operation. In relation to the island of Ireland as a whole, I see nothing to exclude ex-servicemen of the Irish Army from benefiting from the funds in this Bill.

I understand that in regard to the British side and their 60 per cent, they have allocated 40 per cent of it for charities relating to ex-servicemen North and South. The other 60 per cent is for whatever they like. It goes into the Exchequer and could be used for an attack on Dublin if they so wished. There is nothing in the agreement which excludes them from using the balance of that money for any purpose they wish. I would like the Minister to clarify this and to indicate that ex-servicemen of the Irish Army are not excluded by anything in any agreement from benefiting under this Bill. As Deputy Fitzpatrick pointed out, the amount of money is by no means insubstantial and the Organisation of National Ex-Servicemen would not be looking for a million. They would be very happy with anything they could get out of it. All they are looking for immediately is a hostel for ten or a dozen people. I do not know how much that would cost but I imagine £100,000 would make them happy. The suggestion that something or other excludes them from benefiting really worries me. I would like the Minister and Deputy FitzGerald, the former Taoiseach, to clarify that, that if it is provided in section 2 that it applies to those involved in co-operation between the State and Northern Ireland and the State and Great Britain that that will include the Army as well as a whole lot of other organisations.

Mr. R. Burke

Deputy Fitzpatrick commented on my own amendment. I know the Chair is anxious that we discuss this on Report Stage but the Deputy finds some fault with the wording. I would draw his attention to the amendment in the name of Deputy FitzGerald. Deputy FitzGerald was Taoiseach in 1986 when the agreement was reached. It referred to those issues that are included in Deputy FitzGerald's amendment and in my own amendment. Deputy Fitzpatrick seemed to think that the wording "co-operation between the State and Northern Ireland and between the State and Great Britain or relating to the island of Ireland as a whole" was meaningless. If this were not in, it would not, for example, be legal to help bodies such as the RNLI which is organised on a 32 county basis. The lifeboat is for use throughout the island, not just the North. It will be in the west and north west area but it will also obviously go around the north coast.

In regard to the money going into the Exchequer, we are specifying here that the money will be spent for the purposes of the projects as outlined and putting into the Bill what was the agreement between the two countries.

In regard to Deputy Mac Giolla's point as to how anybody knew about these funds, I would remind him that the British brought legislation through before their general election in 1987. In about April, 1987 it was debated, and it was referred to here this morning by another Deputy in relation to the debate in the House of Lords, so it is common knowledge that this funding was available.

Dr. G. FitzGerald

To all who read the Lords' debate.

Mr. R. Burke

In addition, the Taoiseach publicly announced that the RNLI were to be assisted. To save Deputy McDowell coming back in on this later, there was probably a photograph of the Taoiseach making the announcement in relation to the RNLI. He is the Taoiseach of the land and the media like to be present on a public occasion when the Taoiseach is there. It is well known that this fund is available.

Mr. Quinn

I will try to expedite matters. May I take it that the principle that was referred to repeatedly, that responsibility for the disbursal of this money would be transferred to the Department of Foreign Affairs and not to that of the Taoiseach, is not acceptable to the Government?

Dr. G. FitzGerald

We have not come to that amendment yet.

Mr. Quinn

It is implicit in my amendment. In fact it is explicit in my amendment because there are the four points in relation to it. I can see that the Minister has indicated that on Report Stage he will attempt to meet what we are trying to do, but I have to say that I am still unhappy and still opposed to section 2 as it would be amended on Report Stage.

Mr. D. O'Malley

There is an enormous difference between Deputy FitzGerald's amendment and the Minister's proposed amendment that he has now circulated for the Report Stage. The Minister seeks to give the impression that because some of the wording is the same the effect is much the same but it is not. Deputy FitzGerald was trying to limit the expenditure to certain areas and to specify that it could not go beyond certain areas. What is most striking about the amendment being put forward for Report Stage is the following wording:

...for the purposes of such projects or undertakings... as the Taoiseach may, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, determine.

That type of phraseology is not normal in legislation. To have that amendment is better than to have the section in the bald fashion in which it appears in the Bill but it is still far from satisfactory and will not improve the position to any great extent.

Before lunch Deputy Kelly dealt with the effect of Article 11 and I had hoped he would develop that. In a later contribution he went on to different aspects of the Constitution. Article 11 states:

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

In other words, the Constitution compels the House not to appropriate money, to use the wording in the Constitution, for a purpose unless it is determined and imposed by law. If this section is not amended along the lines of the amendment put forward by Deputies Quinn, Mac Giolla and myself we will be appropriating the money but saying that the appropriation shall not be in accordance with specific purposes; the law shall be that the appropriation shall be as the Taoiseach may determine. The Constitution did not envisage that. The Constitution envisaged something specific being said. It may not have laid out every brick on which it was to be spent but it envisaged that the overall purpose for which it was being expended had to be determined and imposed by law. It did not envisage that handing the money over to the Taoiseach for disbursement by him was determining it by law.

One could argue that creating the law in that fashion is making law at least but it certainly could hardly be described as being within the spirit of the Constitution. In my view it would be open to challenge. I had hoped that we might hear more on this from Deputy Kelly because his book does not deal with that point, presumably because no case has arisen. No case had arisen up to 1984 and I did not see a case on this point in the supplement.

Dr. G. FitzGerald

Yet.

Mr. D. O'Malley

We may well have a case following this. However, we do not need a case because in my view the article is quite clear. I note that Deputy Kelly has circulated an amendment which seeks to add the words, "as the Dáil may approve". In substance that is on all fours with what I have been suggesting and meets the point. If that is added it will suffice because it then becomes determined and imposed by law. There is an exact parallel, and one cannot get away from it, in the lottery syndrome. It has become popular, unfortunately, and people seem to be unwilling to tear themselves away from that.

I have quoted Article 11 which states that all revenues shall be appropriated for the purposes ...determined by law. I should like to draw the attention of the House to the purpose as set out in the Supplementary Estimate before us. The purpose of that Supplementary Estimate is to determine by law what these moneys shall be spent on. What does this determine? It determines that they shall be spent on the Irish Sailors and Soldiers Land Trust. However, the Irish Sailors and Soldiers Land Trust is where the money came from. This must be the first Estimate in history in this or any other country where the donor of the money is, in fact, specified as the payee. Clearly, it could not be the payee, the Irish Sailors and Soldiers Land Trust, because the legislation, among other things, sets up a procedure to dissolve that trust.

We have been told that certain purposes relating to the Royal National Lifeboat Institution and other cross-Border or Anglo-Irish purposes are in mind but they should be specified and not the place where the money is coming from. If an Estimate does not specify where the money is to be expended it seems to me to be in breach of Article 11. If it is in breach of Article 11 I do not see how any disbursement can be made under it because it is open to challenge.

It appears that some people did not know about this. That does not surprise me because they are not regular readers of Hansard or other journals which would contain this information. Those people will know about this as a result of this debate and I am sure many of them will be applicants. One of the most obvious ones, as I indicated in the course of my Second Stage speach this morning, are the different ex-servicemens' associations. I have included them in my amendment. I suggested in it that roughly half of the money should go to the lifeboat institution and roughly half to ex-servicemen. Obviously, they will apply and it may be, if they are so advised, that they may try to set this aside. It seems to me to be a very defective Supplementary Estimate and it is clearly open to serious question.

Dr. G. FitzGerald

The Supplementary Estimate is clearly absurd and I presume the Minister will modify the wording. He can hardly expect the House to approve a Supplementary Estimate which is clearly nonsense. I wonder why it takes that form. I am wondering what the reason is for disguising it in this wording which, obviously, has no real meaning. I suppose that the problem may have been that originally the money was to have been disbursed as part of a subhead of the Vote for Foreign Affairs for Anglo-Irish and North-South co-operation, but when it was moved back to the Taoiseach's Department for reasons for which we can only speculate, they could not very well duplicate it and have two such headings, so by using this curious and inappropriate wording they sought to disguise what was happening. Basically, the Minister's acceptance of the thrust of my amendment is something I welcome. In the haste in which I prepared it, I did not adequately cover the point that Deputies O'Malley and Kelly have made and Deputy Kelly's amendment to my amendment meets that point. If we add the words "and as the Dáil may approve", I think we will have covered the constitutional point. If we do not, we may not possibly have covered that point. I am sure the Minister will want to consider that amendment on Report Stage. It would overcome the difficulty.

With regard to the wording relating to the island of Ireland as a whole I take Deputy Tom Fitzpatrick's point, but I do not think that it is well based. Originally, when we were discussing this matter with Lord Killanin we were trying to see the purposes the money could be put to, which would be likely to assist him in getting the money from the British Treasury. I have explained why the agitation by certain people about the whole question of commemorating the dead of two World Wars prejudiced the question of it being for ex-servicemen. They achieved by their agitation in this respect the opposite presumably of what they had intended. They made it politically impracticable, in my judgment to apply the money for the purpose which first came to mind. I am sorry that was the case, but I did not think we could get involved with the kind of debate we would have had if we had applied it to ex-servicemen generally. We would have had people coming in and asking whether this meant that the UDR and the British Army in Northern Ireland would benefit? To drag the issue to that level, which people were trying to drag the commemoration down to, was something I did not want to contemplate. In my judgment the British Government would not easily have accepted the exclusion of British ex-servicemen and the money being applied only to Irish ex-servicemen. For that reason the ex-servicemen element was dropped. I accept that it may have been a wrong judgment on my part, I am fallible and perhaps I was wrong but that is why it happened. That having happened, I was concerned that the money be applied to purposes appropriate to a fund relating to the people of the whole island of Ireland. Projects like the Royal National Lifeboat Institution and the Royal Irish Academy and institutions of that kind which are all-Ireland institutions and have survived 65 years of the division of the island were chosen. I would have thought, but I am open to correction, that the wording I chose for my amendment and which I took straight from the Minister's speech, wording that the Minister now has in his amendment, "projects relating to the island of Ireland as a whole" limits it in that way. Money provided to any institution or object which is confined to this State would not be covered by this and the money could not be provided. The amendment limits the fund to a relatively small number of institutions or objects which relate to the island as a whole. That is what I intended to do, but if my wording is defective, and Deputy Fitzpatrick proposes better wording that is fair enough.

What is now required is, first, the addition of Deputy Kelly's amendment to make the legislation constitutional and, second, some rewording of the Supplementary Estimate to make it make sense which it does not at present.

Mr. McDowell

A Leas-Cheann Comhairle, I wish to withdraw any suggestion that the Chair was other than impartial in its treatment of us.

Acting Chairman (Mr. J. Leonard)

I thank the Deputy for that remark.

Mr. R. Burke

I thought the Deputy was going to withdraw the amendment. Deputy O'Malley made the point that it was necessary to specify the constitutional purpose for which the money was to be expended. This Bill was drafted in the normal way by parliamentary draftsmen, the various heads of the Bill went through them and through the Attorney General and the Bill was printed. I have now published an amendment to it to try to take account of the spirit of the debate we had earlier and to include in the Bill the purposes for which the fund could be expended. I have made provision for that in the Bill which has been drafted and checked and which seems to be accurate. It specifies the purposes of such projects or undertakings, including the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, involving co-operation between the State and Northern Ireland or the State and Great Britain or relating to the island of Ireland as a whole. That clearly sets out the purposes for the expenditure. However, I am no constitutional lawyer and if Deputy O'Malley or some of his legal friends wish to bring it to the Supreme Court I am sure they will get a decision on it. I would not claim to be a constitutional lawyer but I can say the Bill was drafted in the normal manner and consequently will be found to be constitutional. In so far as the wording of Deputy Kelly's amendment is concerned, "as the Dáil may approve", the Dáil will approve a subhead of the Taoiseach's Vote. The Dáil will have a full opportunity in the debate on the Estimates to discuss the disbursement of funds——

Dr. G. FitzGerald

But not to decide them.

Mr. R. Burke

They will have an opportunity to vote on the subhead and if they disagree with the subhead they can vote it down. They can vote down the Estimate. The Taoiseach and every Minister has to come to the Dáil with his Estimates and put the Estimate before the House, and the Estimate and every subhead in it has to be voted on. Every Member of the House will have the opportunity to put down questions with regard to any subhead to find out what is going on. The Estimates and expenditure activities of any Minister are already covered by the laws of the land.

Dr. G. FitzGerald

The Minister has exposed the weakness of his position.

Tomás Mac Giolla

Will Deputy FitzGerald give us further clarification? In view of the fact that he was Taoiseach at the time of the negotiations of this agreement, and he has confused me somewhat, does Deputy FitzGerald think that the British Government allocation of 40 per cent of their funds for the support of ex-servicemen's charities North and South is against the principle of the agreement or is in accordance with the principle of the agreement?

Deputy FitzGerald made some comment about the UDR but the UDR is part of the British Army and naturally it would come under the heading, ex-servicemen's charities North and South, and would be catered for under the British legislation. I would like the Deputy to clarify why we were forced to exclude ex-servicemen here from the agreement when the British Government have specifically given money for the support of such charities?

Dr. G. FitzGerald

I have already clarified that matter twice and I am not sure I can clarify it any more. The problem was to enable Lord Killanin to argue a case with the trustees in the British Treasury to get some of the money for us. To enable that to be done a proposition had to be put as to what we would use the money for to enable him to succeed in securing that money. If a proposition was put that it would be used for Irish ex-servicemen only, a proposition that the British Parliament would have difficulty in accepting in relation to a fund which was designed for British ex-servicemen, but if you added, in relation to our disbursements of the moneys, all ex-servicemen, we would have been likely to have had the kind of row we had from the people who objected to the commemoration. It seemed better to avoid that kind of conflict. Perhaps I was wrong. The Deputy may well think I am wrong but he is entitled to think that. I have explained three times the reasons for being in the position we are in now. We have to proceed from there. I might add that we still have my amendment in relation to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, which is in line with the wording of Deputy Quinn's amendment and also of Deputy Kelly's amendment, to deal with.

Tomás Mac Giolla

Whether the Deputy was right or wrong is irrelevant now. Does he think that we are excluded from assisting charities relating to Irish ex-servicemen?

Mr. T. Fitzpatrick

In his last intervention the Minister emphasised on a couple of occasions that the Bill was drafted in the normal manner. That is just the trouble, the Bill was not drafted in the normal way and the abnormality sticks out like a sore thumb. That is what has us here. The section of the Bill which is abnormal is directing that the moneys shall be expended as the Taoiseach shall direct. That is not normal procedure, that is the abnormality which any law student reading the Bill would stop and look at and look at again. Any parliamentary draftsman would see that it is not normal.

I would still say that the safeguard that has been put in is so vague as to give the Taoiseach unlimited discretion in one way while in another way it might confine his discretion. It is not good enough that some provision should be put in in the Taoiseach's amendment defining what the money is to be spent on and what he can appropriate it to. The Minister should take the Bill away and have another look at it and come back with proper protection in the section. He could deal with the whole thing by saying that the money should be paid over for the benefit of the Exchequer when it would become part of public funds and would have to be expended and accounted for in accordance with the law.

Mr. McDowell

The Minister has told us that there will be full accountability and that the fund will have to be accounted for in the same way as other moneys paid out from the Exchequer are accounted for. When we look again at the Estimate which the Minister is putting before the House we see that £750,000 is required to be spent before the end of the year on this project. He has told us that £600,000 is going to the Royal National Lifeboat Institution before the end of this year. The Minister will not tell us what the £150,000 is required for. That is the reality of the accountability we are getting here today. The Minister is saying he wants £150,000 and that he has a number of things in mind but he will not tell us what they are. When he is pressed on them he says they are all up in the air and that no decisions have been made. How can the Minister say that money is required for something on which he has not decided? When it comes down to it there is no accountability. If £150,000 is to be paid to the RNLI — it may be £100,000 because from memory I cannot remember whether the Minister said it was £600,000 this year or £650,000 next year or vice versa— but certainly £100,000, one way or the other, is going astray. On the day the Minister comes seeking that authority he is unable to tell this House what he is going to spend the money on. He said it may be on a publishing project in Derry and it may be somewhere else but he said he was only telling us that in order to be helpful and to encourage us in this matter.

Dr. G. FitzGerald

What about the last time funds went astray?

Mr. McDowell

Exactly, all-Ireland projects of £100,000 on various projects have a bad history but I do not want to be bitter or angry. I should like to suggest that this Minister is now coming into the House with what I consider to be a remarkable request, that we give him £750,000; he will tell us what he proposes to do with £650,000 but he will not tell us what he proposes to do with the £150,000. He said it is all required to be paid out by the end of this year. It clearly shows that the accountability which Deputy Kelly's amendment — which he will be moving — seeks to put in place is that Dáil approval of the actual purpose is necessary because the Government have on their own admission, by tendering this Estimate and by saying that £650,000 of it is the only purpose which we will hear about, asked the Dáil for another £150,000 for innominate projects on which we will decide on a discretionary basis between now and the end of December. I do not accept that that is accountability. That is the very opposite to accountability, that is blank cheque politics. There is no basis on which it is proper for this House to say to any Member of the Government: you may have £150,000 for various projects which fit into as rapid a category as Deputy Fitzpatrick pointed out, even as proposed to be amended. Because of the very terms of the Supplementary Estimate before the House the case is proven QED that this House should approve each and every purpose for which this money is spent and the accountability to which the Minister refers, being the Estimate procedure, is not accountability in any real sense because on this occasion the Minister has told us, in effect, that he wants £150,000 for projects which he cannot now name and does not yet know the identity of. That proves clearly that there is no accountability in respect of these moneys.

Mr. R. Burke

The Deputy is bordering on the level of nonsense at this stage. I am trying to be helpful to the House on this matter. I am trying to be as helpful as I possibly can when we get reasoned and satisfactory contributions as distinct from some others. I can agree to change the wording from "the Irish Sailors and Soldiers Land Trust" in the Estimate to read: "Proceeds from Irish Sailors and Soldiers Land Trust", at least it will give a clear indication as to what is intended. So far as the sum of the Estimate is concerned, every single penny can and will be accounted for in this House under the terms of the Bill. The first and only allocation that has been decided on by the Government is to the Royal National Lifeboat Institution. As others come forward they will be published, they will be public, and this House will have an opportunity of debating it when the Estimates of the Taoiseach are being debated, the same as any other Estimate of any other Minister. The Dáil will have the right to either approve or reject the Estimate. That goes on in this House year in year out. That is what this House is there for, to keep an eye on expenditure.

Mr. Connaughton

The problem is that that is exactly what is wrong with this Bill, because the Minister or the Taoiseach will have the money spent before we will get an opportunity of saying what is going to happen. Between all the legal eagles we have here today on this matter two main problems arise. One is — and the Minister has referred to it — that as far as the parliamentary draftsman is concerned and so far as this Bill is flawless in legal terms, I understand that his remit is to carry out the instruction of the Minister who proposes the Bill. I assume that is what the parliamentary draftsman is there for, so there is not much point in blaming him for what has appeared here.

Mr. R. Burke

I am not blaming anybody.

Mr. Connaughton

That is how it came across to me. I assume, in simple language, that he did what he was told to do. Why has the Minister such a hang-up of not allowing the Dáil to debate where those moneys are proposed to be spent? That is the reason we are here today.

Mr. R. Burke

I have no hang-up about it. I have nothing further to add.

Acting Chairman (Mr. Leonard)

Is the amendment in the name of Deputy Quinn moved?

Mr. D. O'Malley

He has moved it, Sir. He has had to go out for a few minutes.

Acting Chairman

Is the amendment being withdrawn?

Mr. D. O'Malley

I think he wants to press it.

Question put: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand".

The Committee divided: Tá, 68; Níl, 26.

Tá

• Abbott, Henry.
• Ahern, Dermot.
• Andrews, David.
• Aylward, Liam.
• Barrett, Michael.
• Brady, Gerard.
• Brady, Vincent.
• Brennan, Matthew.
• Browne, John.
• Burke, Ray.
• Byrne, Hugh.
• Calleary, Seán.
• Collins, Gerard.
• Conaghan, Hugh.
• Connolly, Ger.
• Coughlan, Mary T.
• Cowen, Brian.
• Daly, Brendan.
• Davern, Noel.
• Dempsey, Noel.
• Dennehy, John.
• de Valera, Síle.
• Doherty, Seán.
• Ellis, John.
• Fahey, Frank.
• Fahey, Jackie.
• Fitzgerald, Liam.
• Fitzpatrick, Dermot.
• Roche, Dick.
• Smith, Michael.
• Stafford, John.
• Swift, Brian.
• Treacy, Noel.
• Tunney, Jim.
• Flood, Chris.
• Flynn, Pádraig.
• Foley, Denis.
• Gallagher, Denis.
• Gallagher, Pat the Cope.
• Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
• Hilliard, Colm Michael.
• Jacob, Joe.
• Kirk, Séamus.
• Kitt, Michael P.
• Kitt, Tom.
• Leonard, Jimmy.
• Leyden, Terry.
• Lynch, Michael.
• Lyons, Denis.
• McCarthy, Seán.
• McCreevy, Charlie.
• MacSharry, Ray.
• Mooney, Mary.
• Moynihan, Donal.
• Nolan, M.J.
• O'Dea, William Gerard.
• O'Donoghue, John.
• O'Hanlon, Rory.
• O'Keeffe, Batt.
• O'Keeffe, Ned.
• O'Leary, John.
• Power, Paddy.
• Wallace, Dan.
• Walsh, Joe.
• Walsh, Seán.
• Wilson, John P.
• Woods, Michael.
• Wright, G. V.

Níl

• Bell, Michael.
• Clohessy, Peadar.
• Colley, Anne.
• De Rossa, Proinsias.
• Gibbons, Martin Patrick.
• Howlin, Brendan.
• Kavanagh, Liam.
• Keating, Michael.
• Kemmy, Jim.
• Kennedy, Geraldine.
• McCartan, Pat.
• McCoy, John S.
• McDowell, Michael.
• Mac Giolla, Tomás.
• Molloy, Robert.
• O'Malley, Desmond J.
• O'Malley, Pat.
• O'Sullivan, Toddy.
• Pattison, Séamus.
• Quill, Máirín.
• Quinn, Ruairí.
• Sherlock, Joe.
• Spring, Dick.
• Stagg, Emmet.
• Taylor, Mervyn.
• Wyse, Pearse.

Tellers: Tá, Deputies V. Brady and D. Ahern; Níl, Deputies Howlin and Quinn.

Question declared carried.

Amendment declared lost.

An Ceann Comhairle

Consequent on the loss of that amendment, amendments Nos. 1a and 1b cannot be moved. We will now proceed to deal with amendment No. 1c in the names of Deputies Connaughton and FitzGerald.

Amendments Nos. 1a and 1b not moved.

Dr. G. FitzGerald

I move amendment No. 1c.

In page 2, line 22, after "directs" to insert "provided that the objects to which it is applied shall be related to co-operation between the State and Northern Ireland, between the State and Great Britain, or to projects relating to the island of Ireland as a whole".

An Ceann Comhairle

Is the Deputy pressing that amendment?

Dr. G. FitzGerald

No.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

An Ceann Comhairle

We now come to amendment No. 2 in the name of Deputy Des O'Malley.

Mr. D. O'Malley

I move amendment No. 2:

2. In page 2, between lines 22 and 23, to insert the following new subsection:

"(2) 50% of such money shall be paid to the Royal National Lifeboat Insititution. The remaining 50% of such money shall be paid to such exservicemens' organisations as Dáil Éireann shall approve by motion".

The amendment, which was the first one put down on this Committee Stage, is similar in intent though not in wording to Deputy Quinn's amendment which has just been voted on. In those circumstances I do not propose to insist on it. I will not press the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Dr. G. FitzGerald

What about amendment No. 1b?

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy FitzGerald, I have already announced that consequent on the decision in respect of Deputy Quinn's amendment, No. 1, amendments Nos. 1a and 1b cannot be moved.

Dr. G. FitzGerald

Will the Chair explain that ruling? The section as it now stands following the defeat of Deputy Quinn's amendment contains a reference to the fact that the sums shall be disposed of in such a manner as the Taoiseach and the Minister for Finance direct. My amendment was to change "Taoiseach" to "the Minister for Foreign Affairs". Why should that be ruled out?

An Ceann Comhairle

The amendments were very closely related and the decision of my office is that consequent on the decision in respect of amendment No. 1 amendments Nos. 1a and 1b cannot be moved.

Dr. G. FitzGerald

I think the Chair should reconsider that. There is no relationship here. There are two quite different issues. One issue relates to the purposes for which the money is spent and the other relates to what Minister is responsible and that issue is now before the House. I do not see how it can be ruled out of order. I would like to have the amendment discussed. On reflection the Chair will see my point.

An Ceann Comhairle

I do not mind if the House wishes to discuss it, but my advice is that it cannot be moved.

Mr. V. Brady

It is out of order.

Dr. G. FitzGerald

I would like to move the amendment and I would like the Minister's explanation of the grounds for switching this money from the Department of Foreign Affairs to the Taoiseach's Department.

Mr. V. Brady

The Deputy is out of order.

Dr. G. FitzGerald

It is not out of order.

Mr. V. Brady

The Deputy is out of order. The Chair has ruled him out of order.

An Ceann Comhairle

The words included the word "Taoiseach".

Dr. G. FitzGerald

What words?

An Ceann Comhairle

The words proposed to be deleted.

A Deputy

Even a novice TD can see that.

An Ceann Comhairle

——and those words stand, including the word "Taoiseach".

Dr. G. FitzGerald

It is a very curious parliamentary event, if that happens, but we can take it then on Report Stage, if that makes you happy.

An Ceann Comhairle

It is the normal procedure. There is no ambiguity in my mind or in the minds of my advisers in respect of this matter.

Question proposed: "That section 2 stand part of the Bill".

Mr. D. O'Malley

I oppose this section as it stands without amendment. An amendment in the Taoiseach's name put forward by the Minister is proposed and if that amendment is accepted plus the amendment in Deputy Kelly's name to make sense of it, is likewise accepted, then the section becomes acceptable. On the other hand, the section as it stands now is clearly objectionable and would give rise to a great deal of concern and criticism afterwards, particularly by organisations who will be aggrieved by their inability to get money from this fund. It will be the same as the aggrieved lottery applicants, of whom there are thousands, if not tens of thousands. If one were not taking account of what has been put down for Report Stage, it would be appropriate to oppose this section but taking account of that and in the hope that the second part of the amendment in Deputy Kelly's name will be accepted in order to make sense of it, I will not oppose this section. Otherwise it is entirely deserving of opposition because it is simply a variant of the lottery syndrome which was described this morning as the Caligula factor.

Question put and agreed to.

Section 3 agreed to.

SECTION 4.

Question proposed: "That section 4 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. D. O'Malley

I should like to draw attention to the fact that under this section the expenses incurred in the administration of the Act shall, to such extent as may be sanctioned by the Minister for Finance, be paid out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas. That is a normal provision. This must be contrasted with the unique provision in section 2 where for the first time, to my recollection and that of others, moneys will be paid out in such manner as the Taoiseach, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, directs. There is a great contrast between these two sections. Section 4 is perfectly normal and usual. It is a provision whereby the normal controls would apply. By contrast they do not apply in section 2. It is interesting that the expenses involved in the Administration of the Act have to be provided for out of moneys that will be raised by revenue and voted and provided by the Oireachtas, whereas the other money can apparently be disbursed at the personal whim of the Taoiseach if the earlier section is allowed to stand. It is not out of money provided by the Oireachtas but there is no accountability to the Oireachtas for the manner of its expenditure. As section 2 stands, the Taoiseach has absolute discretion to pay out the money any way he likes. Section 4 follows the normal procedures. The great pity is that section 2 does not do the same.

Mr. R. Burke

Deputy O'Malley is working on the theory that if you repeat an untruth often enough it will eventually be believed. There is full accountability in relation to this disbursement of funds. There is a subhead in the Estimate for the Taoiseach's Department. In the normal course of events the Taoiseach's Estimate has to be approved on an annual basis, just as the Estimates of all other Ministers have to be approved. If there is to be a Supplementary Estimate it has to be brought before the House and discussed. Every item in the Estimate can be argued and a Member of the House has the right to vote against it. Apparently Deputy O'Malley, despite all the clarifications, does not want to accept that. He wants to have it on the record that there is no accountability and there is some sleight of hand. There is total accountability in relation to this legislation. There is a Supplementary Estimate to be moved at the end of this debate.

I have bent over backwards in clarifying the agreement which was entered into by Deputy FitzGerald's Government and the British Government in relation to this fund. I have included an amendment in the Bill. Yet Deputy O'Malley continues to have his remarks written into the record, in the hope that they will be repeated in the media, implying that the Taoiseach is attempting some impropriety. It is not true. It is not the fact of the situation. There is total accountability for every penny that will be spent under this Bill. It is a windfall to this State. The Royal National Lifeboat Institution are already benefiting and other organisations can come in under the criteria laid down in the arrangements between Dr. FitzGerald's Government and the British Government. My amendment will be written into the Bill and it is totally incorrect for Deputy O'Malley to try to get his message across in a vain attempt to increase from 7 per cent in the polls by besmirching the character of the Taoiseach.

Mr. T. Fitzpatrick

The difficulty here is that normally a payment out is vouched by reference to some authority which has previously been given by this House. That has to be vouched to the satisfaction of the Comptroller and Auditor General, who is responsible for auditing all the accounts. In this case the only voucher to which the Comptroller and Auditor General will be entitled will be a certificate that the Taoiseach so directed. If that is so, this House cannot question it afterwards. We are in the process of making a law whereby the money is to be disbursed completely or within very wide criteria at the direction of the Taoiseach. Once that is so, it cannot be questioned by the Comptroller and Auditor General or by this House. It may be criticised by the House but not questioned.

This is a dangerous departure, a dangerous precedent which can be followed in other Bills. This Bill will be referred to in years to come. That is the principle at stake here and it is not a petty one. It is a major principle which bears on the accountability of the Executive to the Dáil.

Mr. R. Burke

On the question of accountability, the Comptroller and Auditor General will still have exactly the same role in relation to any other funds expended by any Minister under the authority of the Dáil. An amendment has been put down in my name for the purpose of clarification in an attempt to assist this House and on the basis of the agreement entered into by the previous administration and the British Government that the funds should be disbursed for the purpose of such projects or undertakings, including the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, involving co-operation between the State and Northern Ireland, the State and Great Britain or relating to the island of Ireland as a whole. This money can be spent only for such purposes or projects. It is subject to the Comptroller and Auditor General and subject to the vote in this House. If any Member does not agree with the way the money is spent it is his or her right to vote against the Estimate containing this subhead. To say anything else is to try to turn the truth on its head.

Mr. McDowell

With the greatest respect, the Minister is very far from the truth when he accuses Deputy O'Malley of misrepresenting the facts. The record of this House should show unequivocally that the Minister is moving a Supplementary Estimate for the Department of the Taoiseach tonight. The fact is he is asking this House to give him authority to disburse £750,000 in this financial year. The fact is he will not tell the House the purpose for which those moneys are being spent. He told the House approximately £600,000 will be spent this year on the RNLI and a sum slightly in excess of that next year. The fact is that £150,000 is being given to the Taoiseach to apply at his discretion to projects of an all Ireland character as long as the Minister for Finance agrees with him. Those are the facts that no amount of blustering, puffing or looking slightly ratty can change. The simple fact is that this House is being asked to vote to create a fund of £750,000 to be disbursed by the Taoiseach on projects he will choose because the Bill is open to virtually every project of an all Ireland character the Taoiseach could contemplate.

The Minister in his remarks on section 4 has chosen to suggest that there is full accountability. That is not so because this Estimate means that tonight the Taoiseach gets authority to spend between now and December moneys for purposes on which we have no information. That is a fact and no amount of posturing can get behind that fact. If the moneys are spent, for instance, on cross-Border projects or on all Ireland projects chosen on a discretionary basis by the Taoiseach, nothing any of us can say will undo that fact, and the Comptroller and Auditor General has no come-back and cannot challenge anything as long as the project came within the very wide parameters of sections 2.

If we are talking about facts, if we are talking about misrepresentation and putting things on the record of this House, as the Minister has chosen to do, then let us be clear about this. Today he is looking for £750,000 but he will not tell us the purposes for which some of that money is being spent. Today the Dáil is being asked to sign a blank cheque allowing the Taoiseach to spend that money between now and the end of the year. Those are the facts.

Deputy Kelly's careful and clever argument on constitutionality is not just so much academic theorising. It is to ensure one thing, and that is, that the projects the Taoiseach has in mind, and which the Minister told us were candidates for this kind of patronage, must be brought before this House and approved. That is the principle of parliamentary control. If the record of this House is to show what the facts are as opposed to misrepresentation, it is very clear that there must be accountability or that the Comptroller and Auditor General has some real function in determining whether these funds were spent in a particular way. If they are spent in any cross-Border project chosen by the Taoiseach, after tonight's vote there is nothing anybody in this House can do to reverse that, to change it or to suggest it should have been done in another way. The Minister knows that and there is no point in pretending otherwise. Those are the facts.

Mr. R. Burke

This is similar to every other piece of legislation which gives powers to a Minister when setting up State organisations. All legislation provides that the Minister involved must have the approval of the Minister for Finance. As Minister for Energy or Minister for Communications I may spend money subject to the approval of the Minister for Finance. This is then brought before the Comptroller and Auditor General, and is voted in this House when we discuss the Estimates for my Department. At that time each subhead is looked at. That is reality.

This afternoon Deputies implied that there would be some impropriety so far as these projects are concerned. I cannot say this often enough. The Irish Sailors and Soldiers Land Trust is being wound up. Thanks to the great efforts of Lord Killanin, the Taoisigh's representative since 1955, an agreement was reached in 1986 between the British and Irish Governments and this Bill gives legal effect to that. This matter was debated this morning and to try to help the House and to ensure that the Bill would show the purposes mentioned in the 1986 agreement, I suggested an amendment: "for the purposes of such projects or undertakings (including the Royal National Lifeboat Institution) involving co-operation between the State and Northern Ireland or the State and Great Britain or relating to the island of Ireland as a whole as the Taoiseach may ... determine". That is the purpose of the project and there is full accountability in this House.

If any Member is not satisfied how any group secures assistance, he will have the right to come in and question it, and vote against it. That is his right, it is his power and it is his duty as an elected Member of the House. To try to colour that concern with the level of insinuation we have had in this debate, does not do justice to Members.

Dr. G. FitzGerald

The Minister has made the same speech three times but he is not addressing the issue. Why are the Government not prepared to allow the Dáil to determine the specific objects of expenditure as we did in the Fund of Suitors Bill which laid down that not more than a certain sum should be spent on certain items? The Minister's Report Stage amendment will allow the Taoiseach to supply the money, subject only to the approval of the Minister for Finance, to any object in the framework of the three headings which the Minister is incorporating in the Bill. Whether this money goes to a book of poems in Derry or to the Royal Irish Academy would be at the discretion of the Taoiseach. The Dáil took a very great interest in the Fund of Suitors Bill, which had a very difficult passage through the House. I am not complaining about that but we stated specifically how the money was to be provided, not more than so much for the Kings' Inns, and not more than so much for other purposes, and the Dáil was very demanding and insistent that they must have that control.

Instead of making the same speech for the fourth time, would the Minister tell us why in this instance he is not prepared to adopt the same procedure with this money coming from a fund outside the Exchequer as we adopted with the Fund of Suitors Bill? If he would answer that question instead of going off at a tangent, we would make more progress.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I ask Deputies to direct their attention to section 4 and maybe we could discuss other matters at Report Stage. In my view we have had a discussion on section 4 which is not really in order. Maybe I could put the question——

Dr. G. FitzGerald

As the Chair felt it was appropriate that the Minister should make that speech again on this section, perhaps for the first time I could make a speech in reply.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputies will accept that matters which were not appropriate have been covered in the debate on this section. I was not in the Chair all the time but perhaps Deputy FitzGerald would accept that these matters could be more relevently discussed at Report Stage.

Mr. T. Fitzpatrick

May I ask one more question?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Does it refer to section 4?

Mr. T. Fitzpatrick

I think it does.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

If Deputy Fitzpatrick says he only thinks then I know——

Mr. T. Fitzpatrick

Could the Minister tell the House whether section 4 coupled with section 2 would have the effect of watering down the authority of the accounting officer in the Department, usually the secretary who has control over expenditure? This Bill will have the effect of shifting the discretion of the accounting officer to the Taoiseach or political head of the Department, which is a move in the wrong direction.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Fitzpatrick will accept that the hypothesis expressed by him does not seem to have any direct reference to section 4. Perhaps he will allow me to put the question: "That section 4 stand part of the Bill"?

Question put and agreed to.

Section 5 agreed to.

Title agreed to.