Deputy Taylor is in possession and he has 15 minutes left of the time available to him.
Private Members' Business - National Lottery Funds Disbursement: Motion (Resumed)
The following motion was moved by Deputy Shatter on 19 June 1990:
That Dáil Éireann calls on the Government to implement the recommendation of the All Party Working Group on National Lottery Funding that the allocation of moneys for specific recreational and amenity projects be made by local authorities and not by the Minister for the Environment and deplores the failure of the Government to implement this recommendation.
Debate resumed on the following amendment:
To delete all words after "Dáil Éireann" and substitute the following:
"welcomes the Government's decision to
(a) amalgamate the amenity grants scheme with the recreational facilities scheme in order to have a single consolidated scheme for this sector,
(b) have all the applications for national lottery funding from the new scheme processed by the local authorities,
(c) have the moneys allocated from lottery funds for health projects run by local voluntary bodies allocated by the health boards,
(d) have grants for arts related projects administered by the Arts Council, and
notes the major review of Local Government, currently underway, the aim of which is to strengthen local democracy and to devolve additional powers to local authorities where practicable".
——(Minister for the Environment)
Subject to the approval of the House, I should like to share my remaining time with Deputy O'Shea and Deputy Ryan.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
When the debate adjourned last night I was making the point that the lottery funds will continue to be disbursed in the manner most politically advantageous to Fianna Fáil. That is not new and there is no reason to believe that any of the minor changes in the scheme which have been brought in will change that one iota. There have been some trimmings round the edges of the scheme but the bottom line remains, that the Minister for the Environment, Deputy Flynn, has retained unto himself the sole authority and power to disburse the lottery grant money to all applicants. It is ridiculous when one thinks about it — 4,000 applications to be dealt with by the Minister's office and to be disbursed by him alone, when local authorities who are involved in the counties and towns have knowledge of their areas which they could usefully apply to making an assessment which would be fair, just and equitable.I do not say that that would be a perfect system but it would at least appear to be just and equitable.
On what basis will the Minister distribute the funds to the 4,000 applicants? Has he laid down any criteria? Will any conditions or tests be applied? All the arguments which roundly condemned the system of leaving the power in the hands of the Minister for the Environment and which were so forcefully made on the Private Members' Bill introduced by Deputy Harney still apply. Nothing has changed in that regard. It is incredibly cynical of the Minister, Deputy Molloy, to come into the House and say that what happened in the meantime has made all the difference to the position which the Progressive Democrats Party will take on this occasion.
The Minister, Deputy Molloy, said last night that at least the new measures would bring some transparency to the situation.The only transparent thing I can see is the about-turn which the Progressive Democrats have made for no other reason except that they hold Cabinet positions as part of the Coalition Government.Their attitude is a pathetic apologia for what is going on; it is an immortal situation, the kind that brings politics and politicians into disrepute. It must be accepted that the regard and esteem in which politicians are held is at a very low level and the conduct on the question of disbursement of lottery funds is the kind of thing that brings this House and politicians into disrepute. It is time that we introduced morality to the issue and we should realise that local involvement is essential for the effective disbursement of funds.
In supporting the motion, I should like to make one observation regarding the conduct of the national lottery: I have serious reservations regarding the introduction of a Wednesday lotto as well as the existing Saturday draw. My reservations are based on the fact that quite a lot of people choose the same numbers week in, week out. Many of them are on very low incomes as they are unemployed or senior citizens. There is now very strong pressure on them to participate twice in the one week because of the fear that their numbers could come up on the Wednesday, with the result that they would lose their golden chance.
We are talking about a very substantial sum of money. The surplus from the national lottery in 1987 was £42 million; in 1988 it was £37 million and in 1989 it was £44 million. As Deputy Taylor said, none of us knows what criteria are involved in disbursing the money, but I strongly feel that the local authorities are in the best position to assess the needs and projects which deserve funding, as they are close to the people. The Minister is laughing but, nevertheless, I am speaking the truth. Local councillors are accountable to the people and they receive representations from them. As the Minister said last night, some of these representations are passed on by public representatives. I accuse the Minister of indulging in a very cynical exercise last year — and early this year — of sending forward the lists of projects for approval because the false impression was created that the local authorities had some say in how this money might be disbursed. In fact, the various applications were forwarded to the local authorities who sent them on to the Department of the Environment.
Many people were under the mistaken impression that the local authorities could prioritise the applications but that was not the case. The list was sent from each local authority and 4,000 applications are involved. With the best will in the world how can the staff in the Minister's Department process those applications objectively in terms of local need? It just cannot be done. Obviously what will happen is that political decisions favourable to the Government will be taken with regard to the allocation of national lottery moneys. Indeed, one wonders why we have not seen lottery moneys for quite some time. It is a long time since allocations were made. I must stress that while money is being allocated on criteria of which even we, the Members of this House, are not aware, at the very best that constitutes strong grounds for suspicion. At worst — which is the real position — political decisions will be taken by the parties in power.
Deputy Taylor spoke of the profound change in attitude emanating from the Progressive Democrats now that they have seats at the Cabinet table; accountability, democracy and equity of distribution no longer appear to be the prevailing criteria. Now the attitude is, we are in Coalition we will go along with such decisions and, if there is political advantage to be gained from the manner in which national lottery moneys are allocated, so be it.
There is a recommendation in the interim report relating to sports grants, a proposal that the VECs should disburse such grants. There is a lot of sense in that proposal because the VECs have been doing so over many years; they have been disbursing youth and sport grants. The VECs now have youth committees with representatives of the various youth organisations within their areas. These VECs have garnered a great deal of experience over the years and have undertaken, at first hand, a comprehensive assessment of what are their local needs.
Fundamental to all of this exercise are the words "democracy" and "accountability", both of which should be made abundantly clear and visible to everybody.This Government are not prepared to ensure that that is the case. Therefore, the motion before the House calling on them to do so is deserving of all our support. Nonetheless, when it comes to voting, the Government party Members will troop through the lobbies, supporting the status quo. I am sure they perceive the opportunity as a welcome electoral addition in the forthcoming Presidential election and in the local elections if they take place next year, as scheduled.
One final point I might make is relevant to other discussions which took place in the House today, that is with regard to the Taoiseach's commitment to establish Telefís na Gaeltachta. One of the recommendations of the all-party committee in this respect was that national lottery allocations for once-off projects in the Irish language area should continue to be administered by Roinn na Gaeltachta. The fact that that Department are at present promoting Telefís na Gaeltachta, seeking subventions from RTE and the national lottery, means that the interest of the Government and the Fianna Fáil Party in the Irish language has been shown for what it is. Moneys from the national lottery going to that service will not become a reality because — bearing in mind the measures now being implemented against RTE — they will not have the wherewithal to set up this important station which, in many ways, will represent the last chance for the Irish language. There is no doubt that the Irish language is in decline in the Gaeltachtaí. It is all the more important that young children there have available to them Irish language programmes properly and professionally produced rather than be exposed continuously to English language programmes. We are talking about a two-hour daily service. I shall conclude and allow my colleague, Deputy Ryan, to contribute.
I had not been notified at the commencement that it was the intention that Deputy Ryan would share in the time. I should have been notified about this.
Deputy Taylor asked that he be permitted to share his time with both Deputies.
Not to my knowledge; he asked that he share his time with Deputy O'Shea. I am not aware of any other Member having been mentioned.
In your absence, a Cheann Comhairle, it was agreed by the House that that would be the position at the commencement of the sitting.
The present occupant of the Chair was here at the beginning of the sitting. However, I take it the House would not disagree that the time remaining be given to Deputy Ryan. There is hardly a minute left. But I must be notified in advance of the sharing of time. Otherwise it takes the function out of the hands of the Chair. I cannot and will not tolerate that.
Once again the Government have failed to listen to the people's voices. In the run-up to and following the last allocation of national lottery funds people were appalled, and rightly so, that the Government of the day had used national lottery funds in a political manner. In fact, they have not been the only Government to have done so. The clear impression was given that, if a local organisation submitted an application through their local politician, whether he be a Minister, TD, or councillor, it would be successful. That was a scandalous position, leading to highly organised pressure groups and so on. We have seen golf clubs throughout the country receive national lottery funding while many local groups in deprived areas, particularly in those with high unemployment, were left without any.
The Minister maintains that he has improved the position. That may be his view but is not the case. I would not be in favour of giving priority to any application if, at the end of the day, it was left to the Minister to make the final decision. Pending the next allocation I regret that members of Fianna Fáil nationwide have been asked to identify suitable groupings in their areas. That is morally wrong, should not be allowed to continue. The only way in which to deal with it, to remove the suspicion of political patronage from any allocation, is to establish an independent committee to adjudicate and recommend such allocations in a fair, impartial way.
At the outset, I want to notify the House that I shall be sharing my time with Deputy Roche.
Is that satisfactory?Agreed.
Since its launch in 1987, the national lottery has gone from strength to strength. Public enthusiasm for participation in national lottery games, encouraged by good marketing and product development, has ensured its continued success. Last year the company recorded sales in excess of £140 million. This represented an increase of 27 per cent, on the previous year. Over the past three years hundreds of thousands of adults from every part of Ireland have won prizes totalling £160 million.
The success of the national lottery is measured not on sales alone, but on the benefits to the Irish community which arise from people's participation in the national lottery. In order to sustain that success, the business must be carried out in a way which reassures players that the integrity, accountability and professionalism of the operation is beyond question. The national lottery's success in achieving these objectives is reflected in the fact that the people are now comfortable with the games and service provided by the national lottery. It is particularly noteworthy that the performance of the lottery has received recognition from state lotteries throughout the world. Over the past three years representatives from state lotteries as far away as New Zealand and as near as France, have all visited the national lottery to examine and, in some cases, copy the systems and procedures in place.
The primary purpose of the national lottery is to generate funding to support programmes which have been designated in accordance with the procedures set out in the National Lottery Act, 1986. In this the lottery has succeeded on a scale well beyond our most optimistic expectations. As I indicated in a reply to parliamentary questions in the Dáil yesterday, £101 million was paid out over the three-year period 1987-89 to approved projects. This year the Government have announced further lottery allocations totalling £72 million.
This adds up to a total commitment to-date of £173 million over the period 1987-90 for the following programmes: youth, sport and recreation — including amenities — £78 million; arts and culture and the national heritage, £48 million; the Irish language, £14 million; health and welfare, £32 million and Dublin Millennium, £1 million.
To my mind this is the real success story of the lottery. It should be a source of satisfaction to us all that, during a period of severe restraint on public spending, the operations of the lottery enabled us to allocate funds to support many worthwhile community-based projects throughout Ireland. Details of each individual project assisted were published in a beneficiaries compendium which was published in February 1989. Deputies will be glad to learn that the updating of this compendium is now nearing completion and that a revised and expanded compendium will be available shortly.
Let me select at random from the listing of approved projects to illustrate the very diversity of the lottery's interventions.In the realm of health and welfare, funds have been allocated to hundreds of projects dealing with the old and the mentally handicapped. Does any member in this House suggest that that money should not have been allocated? Anyway it is not open to question.
If the Minister had had his way no money allocated would have been there.
Would Deputy Farrelly mind having some manners and listen to the facts? We all know the tired old arguments which the party opposite present in here. Is Deputy Farrelly saying that projects in health and welfare should not have received moneys? Is that what the Deputy is saying? If that is what he is saying, he should say so out straight and not be engaging in innuendo.
(Interruptions.)
The interruptions will cease forthwith.
As regards youth, substantial funds have been made available for programmes to assist disadvantaged young people. For example, Fr. McVerry's organisation in Ballymun has been allocated close to £200,000 in support of their work with homeless boys. Is this an area that should be scrapped? Tell us whether or not it should be scrapped.Gary O'Toole, who won a silver medal in the European Championships last year, received an outstanding sportsperson's grant under a grant scheme funded by the national lottery. Ken Doherty, the world amateur snooker champion, Eoin Casey, the young tennis player, and Niall O'Toole, the rower, also received grants. Practically every sporting organisation in Ireland has received an allocation from the national lottery. This totally unnecessary debate has been initiated by Fine Gael in an attempt to extract political capital from the success of the lottery——
(Interruptions.)
Please, Deputies.
——by seeking to reopen issues which were fully debated in this House in November 1988. It was following that debate that an all-party Dáil working committee was set up to advise the Government on the effective and accountability disbursal of the lottery surplus. This committee recommended the following main changes in the procedures for allocating lottery funds. As regards amenity grants, block grants were to be allocated by the Department of the Environment to local authorities, which would then process applications and decide on individual grants.
That is not true.
Deputy Farrelly, no more interruptions from you.
Take no notice of him.
This information is taken from the recommendations of the committee, and if Deputy Farrelly wants a copy, we will send it to him. As regards recreational facilities, block grants should be made by the Department of Education to VECs, which would then decide on individual applications on the advice of their sports advisory groups. As regards health, it was recommended that lottery funds should be administered by health boards who would receive block allocations from the Department of Health and would then deal with applications for voluntary and local bodies. On welfare, the lottery-funded scheme of grants to voluntary bodies at present operated by the Department of Social Welfare should be administered by health boards who would receive block allocations determined by the Department of Health. Grants for arts organisations should be allocated by the Arts Council. In other areas, the committee expressed themselves as being satisfied with existing arrangements. Most of these areas seem to be acceptable.
Except the environment.
The Minister did not adopt the recommendations.
Deputy Sherlock, please desist.
For the record of the House, I am quoting exactly from the recommendations of the committee. If the people opposite who were on that committee and put their names to it do not want to accept responsibility for it, that is their business. I am quoting exactly from what they recommended.
Why was it necessary in the first place?
I will tell you why I did not accept all the recommendations.
There are very good reasons for not accepting them.
Having reflected at length on these recommendations, the Government took the following decisions: (i) that the amenity grants scheme administered by the Department of the Environment and the recreational facilities grant scheme administered by the Department of Education should be amalgamated into a single scheme; that grants under this scheme would be allocated by the Minister for the Environment to projects recommended by local authorities, who would be responsible for processing applications; (ii) that the Minister for Health would allocate block grants to health boards, to be assigned by them to local voluntary bodies; national programmes funded from the lottery allocation for health purposes, such as the AIDS prevention programmes will continue to be operated by the Department of Health; (iii) that grants to voluntary bodies in the welfare area would continue to be administered by the Minister for Social Welfare — I do not hear any complaints about that; (iv) the grants for the arts would be administered by the Arts Council with the exception of allocations to the arts falling within the areas of responsibility of: the Taoiseach, the Minister for Education, the Minister for the Environment, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, and the Commissioners of Public Works; and (v) as recommended by the working group, there was to be no change in existing arrangements for administering lottery funds allocated for youth, Irish language projects, and for current sports expenditure, while the Minister for Education will retain responsibility for the national, regional and local sports centres.
These decisions were announced by me in the Dáil on 24 October 1989. Opposition speakers last evening focused on the arrangements for processing grants under the revised amenity grants-recreational facilities scheme. It was singularly depressing to have to listen to a regurgitation of the same tired old arguments which were trotted out by them in November 1988. They had nothing new to say, but this is hardly surprising as no grants have yet been announced under the new arrangements and they are not even prepared to wait to see how they operate in practice.
It was very tiresome.
The Minister for the Environment, in his contribution last night, explained in detail the reasons the Government felt unable to accept some of the recommendations of the all-party committee in relation to the amenity grants scheme. If I had the time, I would spell out his points again, which were quite clear and unequivocal. The first one, and the one that seems to be causing all the political furore, is the question of the grants to be administered by his Department. Did anybody in that committee give serious consideration to how the block grant was going to be devised? Had we not the experience of grants being allocated to local authorities in the previous Government, the Government who introduced the lottery, and what happened? Were 11 local authorities not penalised? They got nothing. Did somebody seriously suggest to me——
Punished, I would say.
——that that recommendation could be taken to mean that everything would be given to Dublin and nothing to the country. Is that what the committee wanted? If not, they should have spelled out quite clearly what they did want.
You wanted no lottery.
I do not know what you wanted because you did not spell it out.
Mr. Right.
Basically what we are saying at the end of the day is that allocations for the amenity-recreational facilities over the four-year period represents just 10 per cent of the entire lottery.Another debate focused on the 10 per cent and therefore I have to assume that the 90 per cent is acceptable because I did not hear any criticism of that.
A political end.
Now at least we have the truth. It is a political debate and has nothing to do with this matter.
I am sure the Minister knows a little about that.
An Cheann Comhairle, I cannot continue——
Deputy Farrelly, please desist. If Deputy Farrelly finds it difficult to listen to the Minister's speech——
If the Deputy does not stop interrupting, the reporters will not even be able to record it.
They are not interested in listening to your rubbish.
If Deputies find it difficult to listen to the Minister's speech, they have a way out. There are many exits from this Chamber.
Although the new arrangements which are now in place provide for processing by local authorities of all grant applications and specify that the Minister for the Environment may allocate funds only to those projects which have been recommended for local authorities, the figures presented by the Minister for the Environment show that local authorities did not exercise selectivity in their processing of projects. It seems clear they did not consider themselves bound in any way by the constraint that the total amount available for allocation on a nationwide basis is £6.5 million.
On a point of order, the local authorities were given two days to make up their minds.
Deputy Farrelly.
Two days.
There is no use appealing to the Deputy. There is a time limit on this debate, Deputy. If you interrupt once more, I shall insist on you leaving the House.
It is no wonder——
Deputy Farrelly, leave the House, please. Deputy Farrelly, leave the House. Deputy Farrelly, for the third time, I ask you to leave the House.
It is no wonder some of the members of the press do not want to listen. They heard it all before.
Deputy Farrelly withdrew from the Chamber.
While I am on this point, I would like to draw the attention of the Dáil to arrangements which I introduced this year to improve accountability.
The IQ of the House has now risen.
On a point of order——
Please, points of order——
The Deputy opposite made a most disparaging remark——
I heard no such remark.
He said on the record of the House that on Deputy Farrelly's departure, the IQ of the House had increased. I think that is a most unfortunate remark which should be withdrawn.
Deputy Shatter, allow this debate to proceed in an orderly fashion.
That remark should be withdrawn. As the Deputy refuses to withdraw the remark, I call for a quorum.
Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted and 20 Members being present,
The Minister to continue.
There seems to be a determined effort here to ensure that the facts are not put on the record of the House. I know the truth always hurts. While I am on this point, and I want to come to a conclusion as quickly as I can despite so much of my time being wasted. I would like to draw the attention of the Dáil to the arrangements I introduced this year to improve accountability for this system. Since the inception of the national lottery in 1987, provision had been made for the spending of the national lottery surplus by means of a subhead in the Finance Vote, from which issues were made as required to suspense accounts operated by the spending departments. This system was appropriate for a start but I have now introduced a change which makes it relevant, totally transparent and available for debate in the House. I totally reject Deputy Taylor's assertion that this is a minor change. Now there will be greater transparency; the Book of Estimates show how lottery funds are being used; the Dáil votes on the allocation of funds for the various purposes; there is greater accountability and Ministers and accounting officers responsible for spending programmes are clearly and fully responsible for the use of lottery funds, rather than having them accounted for by the Department of Finance.This change is reflected in the revised Estimates for the public service of 1990 and onwards. That is transparency, that is accountability and that, indeed should suffice for any Member of the House who is interested in hearing the truth about the lottery. We saw the experience of the previous Government. This Government would never try to attempt to play that game so I will share my time with Deputy Roche.
This Government brought in the patrons of the entire country.
I am surprised at the antics of Deputy Shatter and his colleagues in trying to close out the truth.
We are asking for an apology to Deputy Farrelly.
I will deal with Deputy Shatter now. Last night Deputy Shatter had the brass neck to raise the issue of gombeenism. I actually asked my local newspaper office to fax me on some material just to deal with the issue of gombeenism and Deputy Shatter and his antics. It is not so long ago, November 1986 and I have a good memory that we had the spectacle in the constituency of Wicklow of a Minister dealing in the kind of politics that Deputy Shatter sought to impugn us for last night. The argument was made by Deputy Shatter and others — not only in this debate but in the previous debate in November 1988 — that Ministers on this side of the House had personalised the distribution of lottery funds. Deputy Shatter in his contribution last night, much of which was drivel, dealt with the issue by referring to the whole distribution of lottery funds as gombeenism. The same allegations——
On a point of information to the Deputy I was merely reciting what Deputies Harney and O'Malley had said about——
I accept Deputy Shatter's point. He is correct. Shibboleths, even when they are repeated, do not improve. They did not improve. Their truthfulness is not improved by repetition.
I was referring to what the Deputy's colleagues in Government had said.
A lie remains a lie no matter how often it is told. The only difference on this occasion is that the shibboleths, the arguments and the untruths are being propagated by Fine Gael. The charge has not been improved by being recycled. That argument about gombeenism was untruthful but was deliberately put forward in November 1988, I said so here then and I say so again now. It remains a deliberate untruthful distortion at this time. The only difference is that anybody with a good memory would recognise that there is a certain irony in the allegation being made now by Fine Gael. As it happens I have a good memory. It is not so long ago in my own constituency that we had a disgraceful example of gombeenism.A Minister came into the constituency to deliver cheques to community groups. This was not just a Minister being careful with public funds. This was not a Minister who was concerned about the post nor was it a Minister wanting to make sure that the community groups got their cheques on time. This Minister instructed her departmental officials — public servants — that they should telephone the community groups in question and that they should arrange a series of "cheque presentation ceremonies".
A Deputy
That was not done by Fine Gael.
Was that in Sligo?
Strange enough when this same person came to regale us of all the pressures of Government we did not see any indication of problems in regard to what I have outlined. The point I am making is that this went on throughout my constituency. I want to make it absolutely clear because there are still Deputies here who represented that party that I exonerate completely Deputy Timmins and Deputy Kavanagh from what happened. A Deputy to whom Deputy Shatter was very close engaged in this thing of debased politics in Wicklow for four years and debased ministerial office. If one looks at the Wicklow People——
On a further point of order——
Please, Deputy Shatter this is deplorable.
(Interruptions.)
You are not entitled to disrupt the proceedings of the House in this fashion. It is disgraceful.
The Deputy is making debasing remarks against someone who is not a Member of this House.
I see that Deputy Shatter recognises the ex-Minister I am referring to. I have not chosen to name her.
The Deputy is attacking someone who is not here to defend herself.
I am making the point that gombeenism was rampant when Deputy Shatter's party were in Government.If the Deputy finds the practice offensive now where was he then?
I find——
The Deputy brought this on his own head. I had Deputy Fergus O'Brien in my area.
I would ask Deputy Shatter where he was then. He was as quiet as a little mouse.
Deputy Shatter was a member of a party to the most corrupt Government this country has ever known.
In 1988 when another party was making the same baseless allegations I challenged Deputies to produce one example of that type of disgusting behaviour and not one was produced.
What party was that?
I am reminded of the antics that took place when Deputy Fergus O'Brien, who is still in this House, was a Minister of State. One recalls the circulation of lists in constituencies here in Dublin.
At least, none of the cheques bounced, as happened in Sligo.
Deputy Shatter should not come in and try to wash his hands of all this. Because he was silent then and because he says that the practice is odious now he may have co-equal responsibility for it. I see that I have touched on a matter of some sensitivity so I will pass on.
There are issues relating to the lottery that should be dealt with in debate in this House. I am concerned and, indeed, I compliment another speaker from the Labour Party in raising the question of the mid-week draw. I am concerned, for example, about the fact that 77 million lottery scratch cards were imported here, that not one job was created here in that respect. I am concerned about the social impact of the lottery. Those are issues which should properly be dealt with in this House if we had sufficient time. The facts are that the party opposite and Deputy Shatter in particular, are not in the least interested in the working of the lottery. Lest I be portrayed as being a person who is opposed to the lottery or view it as being less than successful, I put it on the record that I pay public tribute to those involved and will do so again next week when we publish our report on the lottery. However, there are issues about the lottery which deserve serious debate. A serious debate is something we would not have here because of the antics of Deputy Shatter and his cohort. The fact is that over 90 per cent of the proceeds of the national lottery has been allocated without a political eyebrow being raised or concern being expressed. The Minister outlined the figures in some detail earlier tonight and I ask Deputy Shatter to indicate if he is concerned that 47 per cent, or £78 million, of the proceeds of the national lottery has been allocated under the heading of youth, sport and recreation. I have no such concern.
Tell us about the Department of the Environment.
Is the Deputy concerned that funds have been allocated under the heading of arts and culture and that £32 million has been allocated under the heading of health and welfare? Again, I have no such concern. A lot of nonsense and tripe was spoken about the national lottery. I am a member of a local authority and I do not believe that any of the local authorities covered themselves in glory in the recent past. They could have indicated that at least one scheme out of the 4,000 applications was not worthy of consideration. I all probability there is at least one such scheme but all of them were endorsed with some of the bundles being sent back to the Department without coming under scrutiny.
Most of the local authorities are dominated by Fianna Fáil.
We can deal with that rubbish too.
Most have Fianna Fáil majorities.
I do not believe the public interest or the interests of the local authorities would be best served if we were to move in that direction. Let me make one final point. If the all-party committee felt very strongly about these issues, why then is the report strangely silent on them? There is no indication as to how the block grant would be allocated among the local authorities. Therefore, we could see a return to the disgraceful position when Fine Gael were in office——
Not true.
——with all the money going to a handful of projects and none to the remainder.
That is baloney.
With the permission of the House I would like to share my time with Deputy Sherlock——
May I say before the Deputy commences that the bells were rung inadvertently for a quorum. In fact no quorum is required for dealing with Private Members' Business. I apologise to the House.
I wish to share my time with Deputies Sherlock, Rabbitte and Byrne.
Is that satisfactory?Agreed.
I deliberately interrupted my speech as I understood that the time it took to call a quorum came out of my time.
One would not call that a speech, it was diatribe.
Let us not waste time now, there may be a little time left.
(Interruptions.)
I am sorry Deputy Roche, I have called the Deputy and he is in order.
Whatever about the time it took to call a quorum coming out of Deputy Roche's time I do not want it to be taken out of mine.
Wise man.
The motion before us proposes that the national lottery moneys for amenity and community facilities should be allocated and distributed by the local authorities, as recommended by the all-party group in their report issued almost 18 months ago. This was the approach favoured by the Progressive Democrats while in Opposition when they introduced a Private Members' Bill on this issue. However, if we are to judge on the basis of the Minister for Energy's speech last night, this will be the Progressive Democrats' approach again some time in the future but not tonight when a vote is to be taken on the issue.
This approach has been rejected by the Government. Last night the Minister for the Environment offered an interesting explanation for not trusting local authorities with the disbursement of lottery funds. The same explanation was given tonight by the Minister for Finance. We were told that the disbursement of these moneys could not be left to local authorities because to do so would be to transfer controversial decision making from the Government to local councils. We were told tonight that there is no guarantee that the local authorities would give due recognition to the interests of the many small voluntary groups in their areas.
Given the Government's stated intention to reorganise local government, the Minister's statement of last night requires some parsing. The Minister should explain what he meant by it. Is he, like some benign patriarch, trying to protect councillors from controversial local decision making? This is hardly the case since he showed no such tenderness for councillors when, following a series of expenditure cuts, he exposed them to the making of water charges and the cutting of local services. Is he saying that councillors are not responsible enough to disburse lottery funds, that they may make the wrong decisions, favour council sponsored projects rather than community sponsored projects and be partisan in their decision making? That would be a remarkable revelation of the low esteem in which the Minister for the Environment holds democratically elected local councillors, the majority of whom are members of his own party. This does not suggest to me, whatever emerges from the Government committee on local government, of which the Minister for the Environment and the Minister for Energy are members, that it will increase the powers and role of the local authorities.
Deputy Roche said tonight that he is a member of a local authority. I, too, am a member of a local authority and I must say I am not familiar with the approach to which he made reference tonight. The local authority of which I am a member pruned the applications before them and eliminated some of them. They also approved amounts smaller than the ones being sought by the applicants concerned.It seems the Minister has given a lame excuse tarted up with some familiar flamboyant rhetoric. The fact is that the disbursement of national lottery funding is too attractive a form of political patronage to be delegated to the uncertain but democratic decision making of local councils.
The Minister has indicated that there are almost 4,000 applications, seeking £160 million on his desk and that he has £6.5 million to disburse. He also indicated that he is going to give careful consideration to each of these and to the volumes of representations accompanying them. What a load of nonsense. It would not be physically possible for the Minister, given his many commitments, to plough through 4,000 applications. Does anybody seriously believe that the Minister is going to embed himself in the Custom House with 4,000 lottery files to weigh up the respective merits of a GAA pavilion in County Donegal, a park in County Kerry, a running track in Dún Laoghaire and a local environment scheme somewhere else? The answer is that he will not. Does anyone seriously believe that the small number of staff available to the Minister is in any position to form a judgement about the respective merits of 4,000 projects from community groups they have never met in locations they have never seen and about which they have only paper knowledge.
How will the Minister make his decision? He will decide on some crude carve up of the money between the various constituencies, perhaps with some loading for political marginality or the likelihood of a by-election. He will then have his cards marked for him by the Fianna Fáil Deputies for the constituencies concerned. There will be no conflict between council or community sponsored projects. The only question will be whether it is Fianna Fáil sponsored project. That is the way in which I and the public think national lottery money will be disbursed. The Minister for the Environment or the Minister for Finance have said nothing which would dispel that view.
We have been given no inkling of the criteria which will be used. How will the Minister decide between local authority schemes and community schemes? On what geographical, population or social basis will decisions be made? How will the Minister decide between major projects and small projects? No answers have been given to these questions and I am becoming more and more convinced, given the way in which the debate has degenerated into a slagging match across the floor of the Chamber, that the national lottery money is to be dispensed like political soothers.
The logical and fairest way of disbursing the money is to let the local authorities do it from block grants. They have the local knowledge, know the projects and the project sponsors. They are in the best position to assess the relative merits of projects and the extent to which the funding would contribute and integrate with other community and amenity initiatives.It would still not be an easy task.
In my own constituency of Dún Laoghaire 54 projects have been submitted for funding totalling approximately £2 million. I know the groups and the projects but even with my local knowledge it would be a difficult task to judge between them. I do not see how the Minister can make a judgment without having local knowledge of the projects.
It is now four months since the closing date for the receipt of submissions. What we are talking about is the distribution of 1989 lottery funds. Many of the groups who made submissions are being disadvantaged by the delay in allocating funds. Groups who are anxious to develop or improve their areas made submissions in good faith. Not only is the method of distribution unfair but the length of the delay is seriously hindering the work of local community groups. Why is the Minister waiting? Is he trying not only to reap the benefit of political favour for the disbursement of the money but to do so at the best possible time to give him the best possible political advantage, even though that may cause enormous problems for the groups concerned?
There were 4,000 applications and this shows the considerable enthusiasm there is among local community groups. The fact that communities have applied for 25 times the amount of money available raises questions about the amount of money that is available. The £6.5 million which is available for this scheme is the petty cash of the national lottery. This year £72 million is being distributed and the Minister for Finance is wrong when he says that there was no criticism made about the other 90 per cent of the funding.The criticism is this: most of the remainder of the funds which are not distributed through this scheme are being used to plug gaps in Government expenditure and to do things which in the normal way would be funded through departmental Estimates.
I do not wish to cast reflection on any of the fine projects which are being funded by the national lottery. In the list we received on 21 November, £1.1 million was supplied to the Office of Public Works for the restoration of stone work on the Custom House, a fine project in its own right. If the Minister for the Environment wants to give a facelift to his own office block surely it should be possible for him to find the resources to do so in his Department's Estimate rather than plundering the national lottery and leaving short the amount of money that could go to community groups.
In 1988 there was very serious public disquiet about what was happening with lottery funds. People said that the way national lottery funds were handed out was nothing short of scandalous.The momentum for change had built up to such a degree that we had a debate here. The Government defused the situation by agreeing to set up an all-party committee. The committee was chaired by Deputy Desmond. The former Fine Gael TD, Donal Creed, Deputy Harney, myself and the Leas-Cheann Comhairle who made a very good contribution over a period of time, were members of the committee. There were seven meetings of the committee and they undertook an investigation of the system of the allocation of national lottery funds. We know from the Act that the national lottery surplus funds are brought to the Exchequer as non-tax revenue.
The Minister for the Environment said that the proposals of the all-party committee in relation to amenity grants were extremely vague as regards the method of determination of block grants. Recently, local authorities were asked for their recommendations and they devoted a lot of time and energy to making assessments and so on. I have in my possession an assessment for the area I represent. There are two electoral divisions and under the heading "Details of Proposed Work" there is the total estimated cost of the work, the total expenditure to date, the amount raised locally and the grant now sought. If the Minister thinks that is not detailed enough he would want to think again. As a result of his statement this evening he has cast a vote of no confidence in local authorities. He has as much as said to members of local authorities that he does not see them as being capable of administering grants.
The Minister spoke about the likely undue favouritism that would be shown to the most densely populated areas in the distribution of block grants. The all-party committee looked into the history of the allocation of funds over the years and noted that certain areas did not receive any national lottery funding. That would not be the case if the responsibility for distribution of the funds lay with local authorities. Each area has its own local authority and the members are in touch with the local community.
The committee wished to record as their view that lottery funds should not be used as a substitute for funding previously provided for from normal Exchequer sources or to finance programmes which are the responsibility of the various Departments. The amenity grant scheme funded from the national lottery should in future be operated by local authorities from the total amount allocated by the Government for this purpose. Block grants should be made by the Department of the Environment to local authorities at the time the authorities' estimates for the year were being set. In determining the level of lottery funds for each authority, consideration should be given to the population of the area, the programme of amenity work submitted by the authority and the amount already allocated to the area. Each authority would then be responsible for processing applications from local organisations, making allocations to voluntary and community groups and for projects undertaken by the authority itself. They would also have to account for and issue payments.This would avoid duplication and remove any degree of perceived patronage which could have an adverse effect on the lottery. Local authorities are best placed to ensure that funds are provided where they are most needed.
The group noted that under the present amenity grant scheme local authorities are required to approve and recommend projects. They would tend to be as objective about approving them as if the grants were paid out of their own budgets. It was recommended that the grants should continue to be made by the national governing bodies of sports, Cospóir and vocational education committees.
An issue which needs to be addressed is that the capital expenditure on regional and national sports centres should continue to be the responsibility of the Minister for Education. In view of the very substantial capital commitments involved, the group considered that the Government should review the question of the provision and maintenance of centres to ensure the optimum use of existing and planned facilities. The group were also of the view that priority should be given to the development of a national sports centre. High-cost projects are being undertaken and the question then arises as to how the running of these facilities is to be funded. The sports recreational capital expenditure grant scheme should be administered by the vocational education committees, on the recommendation of their sports advisory groups. These groups have local expertise and would be able to ensure that facilities were provided where most needed and that the projects chosen for assistance were viable. The Department of Education should determine the block allocation to the VECs. There should be co-ordination of the recreational facilities scheme and the amenity grants scheme to avoid duplication. There is also reference to the arts and to the Irish language.
Local communities want their local authorities or VECs to be in charge of allocating grants. They do not want handouts from the dispensers of patronage, the Fianna Fáil/PD Government. The people do not want patronage from the messenger boys of Fianna Fáil. They want what is theirs and they want their local authorities to be in charge of it.
While all areas have their own claims and entitlements to funding for amenity and recreational schemes, as a Deputy and a councillor representing some of the most deprived urban areas in Dublin, including the inner city, I see on a daily basis the incredible input and the uphill struggle by voluntary community activists, youth leaders and ordinary men and women who are the unsung heroes with the thankless task of trying against all the odds to organise for the amenity and recreational needs of their communities. We in Dublin City Council have the best of staff available in our area community officers and field staff and workers in our community development departments who are trained to impartially grant-aid suitable projects. They are the men and women of Dublin Corporation who know the projects most deserving of support, which would be forthcoming if they had the block grant allocation from the national lottery, as was intended by the all-party committee.
Dublin Corporation have submitted a total of 182 projects requiring only £4.6 million. We scrupulously stuck by the Minister for the Environment's directive on how to process applications. We had to reject dozens of the most genuine applications from the most deserving quarters desperately in need of financial assistance because of the disgracefully unfair and discriminatory clause inserted by the Minister who demanded that those most deserving must have at least 30 per cent of the cost of the project already collected. I invite the Minister for the Environment to accompany me any day on a walk in my city so that I can show him what I am talking about. It is a moral disgrace that the Minister should retain to himself the power to decide politically whom he will assist financially.
The combined applications from Dublin Corporation and Dublin County Council amount to 342 for projects costing about £9 million. The Minister claims that he must distribute the available sums on an equitable basis to all areas of the country. Earlier tonight he implied discriminatory remarks against Dublin by the Minister for Finance, Deputy Reynolds. Let us consider the Minister's record in regard to the building of local authority houses. He built more houses in his own county, Mayo, than in the whole of Dublin city and county last year. I have no doubt that the capital city, with nearly one-third of the total population, will yet again be neglected by this Minister.How can Dublin Corporation and Dublin County Council Scrupulously apply the scheme outlined by the Minister in his directive on how to process applications and produce a list of projects needing funding of £9 million, while County Mayo managed to make 246 applications for projects costing £9.791 million? County Mayo is making a greater demand for funds than the whole of Dublin city. If local authority house building programmes are anything to go by, I am desperately worried that the capital city will once again be neglected.
I am worried that you may lose the popularity you enjoy with your colleague, who has only a few minutes left.
If there are gombeens in this House they sit on the other side and come mainly from Mayo, as represented by the Minister.
Even by the flexible standards of politics applied in this country the turnabout by the Progressive Democrats on the abuse of the national lottery is breathtaking. I represent a constituency which badly needs the funding available from the national lottery and I thought we were fortunate to have three Deputies who were opposed to the disgraceful abuse: none more loudly than Deputy Harney who, on 18 November 1988, appropriately haloed and oozing self-righteousness, proposed a Private Members' Bill with the stated purpose of ending "the appalling abuse by Fianna Fáil of the national lottery by putting in place a new independent process for the disbursement of lottery funds". Fianna Fáil, the Teflon lady of Irish politics told the House, have engaged in the most despicable exercise in gombeen politics ever seen in this country. I have no stomach for that kind of political invective but my constituency colleague, Deputy Harney, went on to state as follows:
The behaviour of this Government is seriously jeopardising the future of the lottery itself and leading many people to the view that Fianna Fáil see the lottery as merely a re-election slush fund. I know many people who tell me that when they buy a lottery ticket they feel they are directly contributing to Fianna Fáil party funds.
Deputy Harney went on to describe what she called a national scandal and to give specific instances of abuse, stroke politics and examples of needy and worthy organisations who could not receive funding and examples of organisations who did not make application receiving funding. She called for the setting up of an independent board chaired by a High Court judge who would make a report that would be accountable to the Dáil through the Public Accounts Committee.
The Progressive Democrat leader on the following day declared:
It is gombeenism gone mad. It evokes the unsavoury world of nods, winks and political backhanders.
In Deputy O'Malley's view it is improper that Irish citizens should have to "act like 19th century peasants approaching a gombeen-man with their cap in their hand, virtually on their knees begging and pleading as a favour to them from an omnipotent and omniscient TD that they should be entitled to some kind of financial assistance for some project that they and others are pursuing in their own locality."
I agree with the then Deputies Harney and O'Malley. I know, as does the Minister of State, Deputy Harney, as a member of Dublin County Council, that nothing has changed and that the disbursement of lottery funds is still disgracefully open to abuse and political jobbery. Why would the mould breakers of Irish politics have changed their minds? Why now suddenly should stroke politics, gombeenism, nods and winks, ministerial abuse, pipe band parades and national scandals be acceptable to those who are whiter than white, but, alas, are not in our midst tonight? Could it possibly be because the PDs in Government now also have their fists in the honeypot and would betray their principles for a mess of national lottery? I find it hard to believe this would be the case.
Deputy O'Malley gave several examples from the Limerick Leader. He said in County Limerick in particular where there were two security Ministers at the time their criss-crossing of back roads in County Limerick with a retinue of security people in tow reminded one of a NATO manoeuvre rather than simple messenger boy politicians going about to bring the good news to the peasants. I cannot believe the party who were born to bring integrity into Irish political life, who stand for all that is good while the rest of us do not have a great many virtues going for us, would tonight go against the very principles of their own Private Members' Bill and come into this House and vote down this motion. I must believe the Progressive Democrats will stand firm by the principles on which they were founded. I look forward to that.
I understand I have only three minutes. I would like to stitch into the record that the statement issued in this House last night by Deputy Shatter left me feeling very sick indeed. I have been in this House 25 years and I have not yet seen the like of the hypocrisy and cant of his performance. A former Minister of State in my constituency, Deputy Fergus O'Brien, who is still a Member of this House, sent out letters on 9 March, two days before the general election of 11 March 1987, directed to promoters of various projects telling them grants totalling £275,000 were being given to 11 different projects in my constituency.Letters from his Department issued not only to promoters but every single house in the 11 areas received them. If that was not political corruption in its worst form I do not know what is.
I put down a question on Thursday, 2 April 1987, as recorded in the Official Report, column 1360, volume 371 asking the Minister for the Environment the number of approvals for community grants made by his predecessor in the constituency of Dublin South-Central; to whom these grants were made payable and the amount paid; the dates of approval in each case; the number of these grants that had been paid and the proposals he had for those organisations who had borrowed money on the basis of these approvals and had commenced work. Many of these organisations borrowed money on the strength of these letters. The reply I got was:
The allocation of grants under my Department's amenity grant scheme for 11 projects in the Dublin South-Central constituency was notified to the local authorities concerned on 9 March 1987. All allocations under the scheme were withdrawn on 23 March...
when we came into office and had to look at the way in which these schemes were being operated.
At least the Deputy got a reply to that question. I put down 20 questions last week and got no reply.
Deputy Shatter in his ignorance had not even the guts to say it in this House and he is lucky we do not have the power to call quorums on this side of the House or we might well have invaded their time. We have one-and-a-half hours of Private Members' Time, half-an-hour of which belongs to the Government, and they will not even give us that because we have been giving it to them good and hard. I feel completely and utterly dismissive and contemptuous of The Workers' Party because they can promise anything they like anywhere they want and they will never have to deliver on it, and everybody knows them for what they are. They are all things to all men——
The Leas-Cheann Comhairle was a member of that club.
——but between them in their own small way, small as they are, they closed enough factories to make the people think about them.
(Interruptions.)
Deputy Briscoe has less than a minute left.
They cannot take it. It is time Deputy Shatter caught himself on and stopped bringing this House down to a new low every time. The record is there for people to see exactly what they did and if any of the people in my constituency happen to read any of my remarks they will know the truth of the statements I have made in this House tonight.
Deputy Deenihan to conclude.
With the agreement of the House, may I share my time with Deputy Creed and Deputy Shatter?
Is that agreed? Agreed.
I fully support this motion that Dáil Éireann calls on the Government to implement the recommendation of the all-party working group on national lottery funding that the allocation of moneys for specific amenity and recreational projects shall in future be allocated by local authorities and not by the Minister for the Environment. This was the most important recommendation of the all-party group who included two members of the present Coalition Government, yourself, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, and Deputy Harney. The group recommended that from the total amount allocated by the Government for this purpose block grants should be made by the Department of the Environment to the local authorities at the time the authorities' estimates for the year are being set. This would avoid duplication and remove any degree of perceived patronage which could have an adverse effect on the lottery. The group concluded that local authorities are the best placed to ensure facilities are provided where most needed.
At this time this Government are trying to stimulate a national debate on the future operation, relevance and reform of our local authorities. By accepting this motion, I tell the Minister, he would demonstrate his goodwill and commitment to local government reform. However, by rejecting this motion he is showing, together with the Cabinet, a total lack of confidence in county councillors and county councils and, indeed, county managers.
The figure of £6.5 million which has been made available under this scheme is derisory when you consider that the total grants applied for amount to £163.073 million. It would take 25 years to clear the present applications with this type of grant. Kerry alone submitted 138 applications amounting to £5.854 million. It would take almost the entire allocation this year to satisfy the demands of Kerry alone.
I do not envy the Minister his task of deciding which applications will be grant-aided.I hope he will judge them fairly and impartially and will not be guided by political considerations and advantage, which would be nothing new to his party, especially his colleagues in Cabinet. His partners in Government, the Progressive Democrats, did a very good exposé on his abuse of the national lottery in the National Lottery (Amendment) Bill, 1988. Deputy Shatter, and tonight Deputy Rabbitte, referred to the various contributions from the Progressive Democrats on that occasion.
Seeing I have little time, I would like to refer to youth and sport which the Minister for Finance mentioned here tonight. As a spokesperson for youth and sport I am very disappointed with the progress in sport areas from lottery funding.The principal motivation behind the establishment of the national lottery was the construction of a national outdoor sports stadium. However, this concept seems to have been totally shelved by the Government. An unacceptable and unreasonable approach was made by the Minister of State, Deputy Fahey, to the GAA to have Croke Park designated as out national stadium. For very good reasons his approaches were rejected. However, Liam Mulvihill, Director General of the GAA, reopened the debate in April when he proposed that the new national stadium be built by the main sporting organisations. I believe his proposal merits in-depth consideration. We should plan now for a new outdoor stadium.
The Coalition Government of 1983-87 set up a committee to report on the provision of a national indoor stadium and regional sports centres. They produced their interim report in 1986 and a full report in 1987. The Fianna Fáil Government of 1987-89 accepted the report and agreed to implement its recommendations but despite several announcements and three years of a financial bonanza from the lottery very few of their recommendations have been put in place to date.
The national indoor stadium is very much in a limbo at the moment and the site has not been fully acquired. In reply to a parliamentary question on 30 May 1990 the Minister stated that 68 per cent of the 12 acre site had been acquired and that the acquisition of the remainder of it was the subject of a compulsory order. The outcome of the public hearing on the CPO which was held in February 1990 is expected shortly. From reports in the media, the owner of the site, irrespective of the outcome of the CPO, is going to take a constitutional action against the Government. This process could take years. The estimated cost of the new stadium is £35 million but from information I have received the cost could be in the region of £100 million. It is time to have a re-think on this project; we should be thinking more in terms of an outdoor rather than an indoor stadium.
While the proceeds from the lottery have continued to grow the allocation to the youth services has decreased from £10 million in 1988 to £8.7 million in 1990. In other words, the youth services' slice of the lottery cake has decreased while the size of the cake has grown. National youth organisations still do not know their allocations for 1990, and this is nearly July. What other sector would put up with this treatment? Is this what our youth services deserve? The Minister has no difficulty in flying to Italy to sort out accommodation problems. Yet he cannot sort out a problem which has been on his desk of the past four months.
The Minister's attitude and commitment must be questioned. As Deputy Sherlock has said the conduct of the Fianna Fáil Party in the disbursement of national lottery funds has been nothing short of a national scandal. The current European philosophy is towards the devolution of power to local authorities and by rejecting this motion the Minister will be expressing a vote of no confidence in our county councils.
I should like at the outset to recommend this motion to the House. We are not debating the success of the national lottery in this Private Members' motion, as evidenced by the figures quoted ad nauseam both last night and tonight, but what is at issue is the future success of the lottery. There is ample reason to suggest that the public are seriously concerned about the alleged abuses in the distribution of funds under the recreational and amenity grants scheme.
Nobody on this side of the House is saying that those who have benefited already should not have done so; what we are clearly saying is that the system which is being currently used lends itself to political abuse and a more favourable system is available to the Minister. Next Friday I will attend a meeting of the Bandon electoral area of Cork County Council. Given the scarce resources available to Cork County Council we will be distributing at that meeting amenity grants which have been provided for by our county manager in our annual estimates.These seven councillors will assess the merits and demerits of individual projects.We have manageable administrative procedures, unlike those which prevail in the Custom House where, by the Minister's own admission, there are 4,000 applications valued in excess of £163 million and not enough staff to process them.
They will manage.
On what criteria?
(Interruptions.)
We agree that no system will give universal satisfaction but a system which removes the decision-making from the realms of party political patronage and gives local authorities a real input will ensure the continuing success of the national lottery.
The Private Members' motion put down by the Progressive Democrats in 1988 also dealt with this issue and their attitude to this motion, as evidenced by the contribution of the Minister for Energy, Deputy Molloy, last night is beyond comprehension. The Progressive Democrats now use the argument that the reform of local authorities is necessary before our proposal can be implemented. It appears that the futility of consistency affects everybody who sits on the benches opposite. If the Minister for Energy, Deputy Bobby Molloy, is really serious about local authority reform then he, as a Cabinet Minister, should resign his seat on his local authority before he lectures this House on the necessity to reform local authorities so that they can be trusted to distribute the surplus funds from the national lottery. It appears from the attitude adopted by the Progressive Democrats to this motion that the more things change the more they stay the same.
First, I should like to thank all the Members on this side of the House for the support they have given to this motion. I intend to ignore the rather lame and pathetic excuse the Minister for Energy, Deputy Molloy, gave last night for not supporting this motion. There is no doubt that if the Progressive Democrats were on this side of the House they would have been most articulate and vehement in their support for such a motion.
The contribution of the Minister for Finance this evening in which he tried to put a gloss on what the Minister for the Environment said last night, was not worthy of that Minister. One would expect a more substantial explanation from him on why the recommendation of the all-party working group that amenity and recreational grants be allocated by local authorities has not been implemented. I want to refer briefly to the reasons he gave for this.
He said that the proposals in the working group were extremely vague as regards the method of determination of block grants by the Department of the Environment. They were equally vague in determining how the Department of Health should make block grants available to the health boards. Yet the Department of Health and the Minister for Health, in all praise of the Minister for Health, had absolutely no difficulty in working out how to make a block grant to the health boards who would then designate funds for local projects within a health board area. The Minister gave an utterly spurious reason for not implementing that proposal.
He went on to say that the amenity grant programme was too small from year to year to merit this degree of bureaucracy and that undue favouritism would be shown to the more densely populated areas. How could one have a greater degree of democracy than every local authority examining 4,000 applications and passing them to the Department of the Environment who, according to the Minister for the Environment, will apparently re-examine them all over again? That is bureaucracy run mad and it makes absolutely no sense at all.
The Deputy should not worry about it; they will all be well examined.
As I have said, the Minister told us that undue favouritism may be shown to the more densely populated areas in the determination of block grants by local authorities. Why would the local authorities show any more undue favouritism to densely populated areas than would the Minister for the Environment? None of that makes any sense.
The Minister said also that there was no guarantee that the local authorities would give due recognition to the interests of the many small voluntary groups in their area. What in the name of heavens does that mean? Is there any guarantee that the Department of the Environment in examining 4,000 applications, the capital value of which is £163 million, will give due consideration to the recognition of the interests of small voluntary groups?
When did Deputy Shatter become the champion of local authorities?
The five reasons given by the Minister for Finance are a nonsense and both he and the Minister for the Environment know it. It is a gloss put on a system which is designed to perpetuate a system of political patronage distributed through the Department of the Environment to keep the people on the back benches and a few of the Ministers' ministerial colleagues happy so that they can go around their constituencies during the summer months handing out cheques.
The Minister has shown very poor faith in local councillors. He has even shown poor faith in the councillors who are members of his party who have majorities on local authorities——
We will continue to have majorities.
Not if there is another election.
(Interruptions.)
The Fianna Fáil Party have a majority on the majority of local authorities at present. The reason the Minister gave for not trusting——
The Chair indicated to Deputy Shatter last night that he was not entitled to barrack at the Minister. The Minister understands the reversal of that tonight.
Deputies
Hear, hear.
The reason the Minister gave for keeping his hands on the grants was that he cannot trust his Fianna Fáil councillor colleagues in the local authorities.Will the Minister write to each Fianna Fáil councillor and explain why he does not trust them with recreational amenity grants? Will he talk to his colleagues on local authorities who are greatly embarrassed by his delay in making allocations?
May I answer the Deputy's questions?
Will he explain to them why he will not provide allocations to most of the groups and people for whom they want allocations? The allocations are going to depend largely on who whispers in his ear in this House on days when the Dáil sits to satisfy their perceived constituency needs. The Minister really knows what is going on here because it was already well highlighted in the reply he gave on 26 April. Is it not curious that in the context of Dublin city and county the Minister has received applications for grants, the capital cost of which if they were all granted, would come to about £8 million, while for County Mayo the Minister has received applications for grants, the total capital cost of which is slightly below £10 million?
Is it that the Fianna Fáil councillors in Mayo know something we do not know? This side of the House will be watching how much political patronage is distributed and the Minister knows that. The self-satisfied look of the Minister about that is part of what is wrong with our political system. It is that sort of approach that does damage to politics here as does the approach of Deputy Roche. He engaged in the most disgraceful diatribe of a personal nature against a person who is not a member of the House and against a backbench Member of our party who was leaving the House. He conducted a personal attack on him and he did not have the decency to withdraw it.
The Deputy should not be so sensitive.
It was a disgraceful personal attack. The House should support the motion and if it does not we will be back to this issue next autumn after the allocations have been made.
Amendment put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 77; Níl, 72.
Tá
- Ahern, Bertie.
- Ahern, Dermot.
- Ahern, Michael.
- Andrews, David.
- Aylward, Liam.
- Barrett, Michael.
- Brady, Gerard.
- Brady, Vincent.
- Brennan, Mattie.
- Brennan, Séamus.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Browne, John (Wexford).
- Burke, Raphael P.
- Calleary, Seán.
- Callely, Ivor.
- Fitzpatrick, Dermot.
- Flood, Chris.
- Flynn, Pádraig.
- Gallagher, Pat the Cope.
- Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
- Harney, Mary.
- Haughey, Charles J.
- Hillery, Brian.
- Hilliard, Colm.
- Hyland, Liam.
- Jacob, Joe.
- Kelly, Laurence.
- Kenneally, Brendan.
- Kirk, Séamus.
- Kitt, Michael P.
- Kitt, Tom.
- Lawlor, Liam.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Leonard, Jimmy.
- Lyons, Denis.
- Martin, Micheál.
- McCreevy, Charlie.
- McDaid, Jim.
- McEllistrim, Tom.
- Clohessy, Peadar.
- Collins, Gerard.
- Connolly, Ger.
- Coughlan, Mary Theresa.
- Cowen, Brian.
- Cullimore, Séamus.
- Daly, Brendan.
- Davern, Noel.
- Dempsey, Noel.
- Dennehy, John.
- de Valera, Síle.
- Ellis, John.
- Fahey, Frank.
- Fahey, Jackie.
- Fitzgerald, Liam Joseph.
- Molloy, Robert.
- Morley, P. J.
- Nolan, M. J.
- Noonan, Michael J. (Limerick West).
- O'Connell, John.
- O'Dea, Willie.
- O'Donoghue, John.
- O'Hanlon, Rory.
- O'Keeffe, Ned.
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Toole, Martin Joe.
- Power, Seán.
- Quill, Máirín.
- Reynolds, Albert.
- Roche, Dick.
- Smith, Michael.
- Stafford, John.
- Tunney, Jim.
- Wallace, Dan.
- Wallace, Mary.
- Walsh, Joe.
- Woods, Michael.
- Wyse, Pearse.
Níl
- Ahearn, Therese.
- Barnes, Monica.
- Barrett, Seán.
- Barry, Peter.
- Bell, Michael.
- Belton, Louis J.
- Boylan, Andrew.
- Bradford, Paul.
- Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).
- Bruton, John.
- Bruton, Richard.
- Byrne, Eric.
- Carey, Donal.
- Connaughton, Paul.
- Connor, John.
- Cotter, Bill.
- Creed, Michael.
- Crowley, Frank.
- Currie, Austin.
- D'Arcy, Michael.
- Deasy, Austin.
- Deenihan, Jimmy.
- De Rossa, Proinsias.
- Doyle, Joe.
- Dukes, Alan.
- Durkan, Bernard.
- Enright, Thomas W.
- Fennell, Nuala.
- Ferris, Michael.
- Finucane, Michael.
- Flaherty, Mary.
- Flanagan, Charles.
- Foxe, Tom.
- Gilmore, Eamon.
- Gregory, Tony.
- Harte, Paddy.
- Higgins, Jim.
- Higgins, Michael D.
- Hogan, Philip.
- Howlin, Brendan.
- Kavanagh, Liam.
- Kemmy, Jim.
- Kenny, Enda.
- Lowry, Michael.
- McCartan, Pat.
- McCormack, Pádraic.
- McGahon, Brendan.
- McGinley, Dinny.
- Mac Giolla, Tomás.
- McGrath, Paul.
- Mitchell, Jim.
- Moynihan, Michael.
- Nealon, Ted.
- Noonan, Michael.
- (Limerick East).
- O'Keeffe, Jim.
- O'Shea, Brian.
- O'Sullivan, Gerry.
- O'Sullivan, Toddy.
- Owen, Nora.
- Pattison, Séamus.
- Quinn, Ruairí.
- Rabitte, Pat.
- Ryan, Seán.
- Shatter, Alan.
- Sheehan, Patrick J.
- Sherlock, Joe.
- Spring, Dick.
- Stagg, Emmet.
- Taylor, Mervyn.
- Taylor-Quinn, Madeleine.
- Timmins, Godfrey.
- Yates, Ivan.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies V. Brady and Clohessy; Níl, Deputies J. Higgins and Boylan.
Amendment declared carried.
Question put: "That the motion, as amended, be agreed to."
The Dáil divided: Tá, 75; Níl, 72.
Tá
- Ahern, Bertie.
- Ahern, Dermot.
- Ahern, Michael.
- Andrews, David.
- Aylward, Liam.
- Barrett, Michael.
- Brady, Gerard.
- Brady, Vincent.
- Brennan, Mattie.
- Brennan, Séamus.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Browne, John (Wexford).
- Burke, Raphael P.
- Calleary, Seán.
- Callely, Ivor.
- Clohessy, Peadar.
- Connolly, Ger.
- Coughlan, Mary Theresa.
- Cowen, Brian.
- Cullimore, Séamus.
- Davern, Noel.
- Dempsey, Noel.
- Dennehy, John.
- de Valera, Síle.
- Ellis, John.
- Fahey, Frank.
- Fahey, Jackie.
- Fitzgerald, Liam Joseph.
- Fitzpatrick, Dermot.
- Flood, Chris.
- Flynn, Pádraig.
- Gallagher, Pat the Cope.
- Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
- Harney, Mary.
- Haughey, Charles J.
- Hillery, Brian.
- Hilliard, Colm.
- Hyland, Liam.
- Jacob, Joe.
- Kelly, Laurence.
- Kenneally, Brendan.
- Kirk, Séamus.
- Kitt, Michael P.
- Kitt, Tom.
- Lawlor, Liam.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Leonard, Jimmy.
- Lyons, Denis.
- Martin, Micheál.
- McCreevy, Charlie.
- McDaid, Jim.
- McEllistrim, Tom.
- Molloy, Robert.
- Morley, P. J.
- Nolan, M. J.
- Noonan, Michael J. (Limerick-West)
- O'Connell, John.
- O'Dea, Willie.
- O'Donoghue, John.
- O'Hanlon, Rory.
- O'Keeffe, Ned.
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Toole, Martin Joe.
- Power, Seán.
- Quill, Máirín.
- Reynolds, Albert.
- Roche, Dick.
- Smith, Michael.
- Stafford, John.
- Tunney, Jim.
- Wallace, Dan.
- Wallace, Mary.
- Walsh, Joe.
- Woods, Michael.
- Wyse, Pearse.
Níl
- Ahearn, Therese.
- Barnes, Monica.
- Barrett, Seán.
- Barry, Peter.
- Bell, Michael.
- Belton, Louis J.
- Boylan, Andrew.
- Bradford, Paul.
- Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).
- Bruton, John.
- Bruton, Richard.
- Byrne, Eric.
- Carey, Donal.
- Enright, Thomas W.
- Fennell, Nuala.
- Ferris, Michael.
- Finucane, Michael.
- Flaherty, Mary.
- Flanagan, Charles.
- Foxe, Tom.
- Gilmore, Eamon.
- Gregory, Tony.
- Harte, Paddy.
- Higgins, Jim.
- Higgins, Michael D.
- Hogan, Philip.
- Howlin, Brendan.
- Kavanagh, Liam.
- Kemmy, Jim.
- Kenny, Enda.
- Lowry, Michael.
- McCartan, Pat.
- McCormack, Pádraic.
- McGahon, Brendan.
- McGinley, Dinny.
- Mac Giolla, Tomás.
- Connaughton, Paul.
- Connor, John.
- Cotter, Bill.
- Creed, Michael.
- Crowley, Frank.
- Currie, Austin.
- D'Arcy, Michael.
- Deasy, Austin.
- Deenihan, Jimmy.
- De Rossa, Proinsias.
- Doyle, Joe.
- Dukes, Alan.
- Durkan, Bernard.
- McGrath, Paul.
- Mitchell, Jim.
- Moynihan, Michael.
- Nealon, Ted.
- Noonan, Michael.
- (Limerick East).
- O'Keeffe, Jim.
- O'Shea, Brian.
- O'Sullivan, Gerry.
- O'Sullivan, Toddy.
- Owen, Nora.
- Pattison, Séamus.
- Quinn, Ruairí.
- Rabbitte, Pat.
- Ryan, Seán.
- Shatter, Alan.
- Sheehan, Patrick J.
- Sherlock, Joe.
- Spring, Dick.
- Stagg, Emmet.
- Taylor, Mervyn.
- Taylor-Quinn, Madeleine.
- Timmins, Godfrey.
- Yates, Ivan.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies V. Brady and Clohessy; Níl, Deputies J. Higgins and Boylan.
Question declared carried.