Vol. 517 No. 6
6 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on the legal agreement placed in the Library of Dáil Éireann on 25 February 2000 regarding the donation by a person (details supplied) in connection with the proposed national stadium; if this represents the full extent of the agreement between the donor and his Department; the other conditions, if any, attached to the donation by the donor; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [6814/00]
7 Mr. Higgins (Dublin West) asked the Taoiseach when the legal agreement between a person (details supplied) and the State regarding the national sports stadium will be laid before Dáil Éireann. [6203/00]
8 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will lay before Dáil Éireann the legal agreement between a person (details supplied) and the State concerning the proposed national stadium at Abbotstown, County Dublin; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [7285/00]
9 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his meeting on 6 March 2000 with the Football Association of Ireland; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [7742/00]
10 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach to make a statement on his meeting on 6 March 2000 with representatives of the Football Association of Ireland. [7807/00]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 6 to 10, inclusive, together.
The private donation of £50 million from Mr. J. P. McManus towards the financing and development of Campus and Stadium Ireland has been given effect by way of a letter of assignation between Pictet & Cie, Geneva – the "Bank"– and the Department of the Taoiseach –"Beneficiary". This represents the full extent of the agreement. No other condition or consideration arises.
The document was laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas on 25 February 2000.
I take this opportunity to place on record the Government's appreciation of Mr. McManus's most generous donation.
I met a senior delegation of the FAI on 6 March. In attendance were Pat Quigley, President, Michael Hyland, Chairman, National League, Brendan Menton, Hon. Treasurer and Bernard O'Byrne, Chief Executive.
I took the opportunity to convey my view to the delegation that I would like to see them come on board with the Stadium Ireland project and my reasons for that view. I explained that the design for Stadium Ireland is for 80,000 seats built to the highest international standards. This would include 8,200 premium seats, 96 corporate boxes, each with 12 seats, four party suites accommodating 100 and a VIP box with a capacity of 200. This configuration could be changed during the design phase to suit requirements.
I pointed out that if the FAI were to avail of the Stadium Ireland facility, it would be in a position to receive the revenue from the sale of the seats and the boxes in the stadium, guaranteeing an immediate significant income stream without any risk on the part of the FAI. The FAI would be free to transfer any contractual arrangements it had entered into for Eircom Park in respect of the sale of corporate boxes and seats to Stadium Ireland. A conservative estimate of this revenue would be in the region of £40 million. In addition, the FAI would not be faced with any capital debt repayments or infrastructural costs.
I also discussed the potential planning difficulties faced by the FAI in relation to their Eircom Park proposal. Deputies will have seen the public statement issued by the Department of Defence after its recent meeting with the FAI. While this is a matter for the planning authorities in the final analysis, the difficulties facing the FAI cannot be underestimated and I considered that it was important to explain that to the delegation.
Participation in Stadium Ireland would allow the FAI to invest some £40 million to meet its stated aim of developing the game of soccer at local and community level while having a state-of-the-art facility for international games. In addition, the FAI would have available to it the funds which the Government is prepared to make available in line with our commitment to the development of sport in Ireland.
The FAI stated in response, that it intended to proceed with its project but would avail of Stadium Ireland when Eircom Park did not meet its capacity requirements. I have no information on whether that position has changed on foot of its meeting with the Department of Defence. I accept that the development of Eircom Park is a matter for the FAI in the final analysis and I respect its wishes in that regard even though I consider that my proposal is the one that makes sports and business sense.
The Government is now pressing ahead with the development of Campus and Stadium Ireland. The board of the development company had its first meeting on Wednesday, 29 March and the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Tourism, Sport and Recreation attended with me. We asked the board to press ahead with its work with all reasonable speed.
Deputies Allen, Quinn and Joe Higgins rose.
As a number of Deputies wish to ask supplementary questions and time is running out, I appeal to Deputies to be brief when asking supplementary questions I call Deputy Quinn.
With that admonition, a Cheann Comhairle, we may wish to return to this subject on another occasion. Why is it that in the letter placed in the Library of the House from the bankers in Geneva, Pictet & Cie, the name of J.P. McManus does not appear anywhere in the formal undertaking? This could be any client or any individual in the world. Mr. J.P. McManus as such is not mentioned at all in the two-page letter laid in the Library of the House and dated 8 February, which is accompanied by the statement by the Secretary General and Donagh Morgan.
I did not take any part in drawing up the legal documents with either his solicitors, my Department or the Attorney General. The discussions were between the solicitors and the Attorney General. There is no doubt about who it is – I am not sure if it refers to "our company" or "individual" but the money has been—
It says "our client".
It has been confirmed that the money has been lodged since January or February; I have the dates. The money is available for drawing down, the conditions are as laid out and that has been confirmed. I do not know the reason the name does not appear but it is J.P. McManus and it is his money.
How do we know?
I know from the legal checking. They know that the money is there and they know it is J.P. McManus's money.
(Dublin West): Is the Taoiseach in a position to indicate if Mr. J. P. McManus alone contributed the £50 million or did other contributors join him in this arrangement with the Government? Pictet & Cie refers to one of its clients which could either be a company or an individual. Is the Taoiseach aware of the source of the £50 million? Is it the fruit of speculation on the world's currency exchanges and does the Taoiseach believe it appropriate for the State to accept funds from activities which are profoundly anti-poor people and anti-social? Does the Taoiseach agree that if people such as Mr. McManus had not chosen to become tax exiles in Switzerland to avoid paying tax in this—
The Deputy should not make charges against people outside the House.
(Dublin West): I am not doing so, I am merely stating the truth.
The Deputy should confine himself to supplementary questions.
(Dublin West): Does the Taoiseach agree that if that had not happened, the £50 million would long ago have accrued to the Exchequer at a time when it was badly needed? Does he also agree that PAYE taxpayers contemplating this donation might feel justified in thinking that they are being made fools of by a man known as “Sundance” who should have been paying his taxes during the past 20 years rather than going into tax exile in order to avoid doing so?
I understand, from the legal discussions which took place in relation to this matter, that there is only one person involved, namely, Mr. J. P. McManus.
That information is not contained in the documents the Taoiseach supplied in respect of this matter. If he wishes to supply documents which contain Mr. McManus's name we would be prepared to contemplate them.
I accept Deputy Quinn's point but I am informed that the legal formalities in the agreement had to be completed by Mr. McManus's legal advisers, acting on his behalf. The Department's legal advisers had to be cleared by the Attorney General's office. There is no one other than J. P. McManus involved and I am sure Deputy Quinn will accept that I had nothing to do with drawing up the documents relating to this matter.
(Dublin West): The Taoiseach did not answer my question.
I asked the same question last month and I did not obtain an answer either.
At a press conference on 26 January, the Taoiseach announced that he would be placing in the Library, on that day, a copy of the legal agreement between his Department and the person in question. Why did it take until 29 February to place in the Library, the document which was not the one promised by the Taoiseach? Will the Taoiseach indicate the discussions that took place between 26 January and 29 February which delayed the placing of the document in Library? Did these discussions relate to the State Properties Act and the implications it has in terms of residency in this country?
Since the Taoiseach raised the point, I wish to ask a further question.
The Deputy should be brief because other Members wish to pose supplementary questions.
There are five questions being taken together.
The Chair's actions in this matter are governed by Standing Orders.
I accept that. The objection of the Department of Defence, to which the Taoiseach referred, was based on the Frederick Snow report which has been repressed. In the interests of openness, will the Taoiseach make that report available in the Library? Arising from the recent meeting with his group of experts, will the Taoiseach confirm that the project will not cost £280 million but will cost between £400 million and £500 million when the cost of the land and the necessary infrastructure, including the light rail service, is taken into account?
Will any other benefit accrue to the would-be donor in this case as a result of the State's entering into this arrangement with him? For example, is it not true that this gentleman was the beneficiary of a Finance Act introduced by the Taoiseach which conferred tax exile status on him even though he was domiciled in this country? Will that status be affected by this agreement?
Does the Taoiseach agree that we are fortunate to have in this country a man who is prepared to donate £50 million towards the construction of a national stadium without seeking any recognition for himself? Will he agree that is the main reason the legal document is drawn up in that way? Will he also agree it is grossly unfair to criticise an individual in this House without giving that individual the right to respond?
(Dublin West): He can come here any day he wishes.
A final reply from the Taoiseach. We must conclude questions.
(Dublin West): We will invite him to explain why he went into tax exile.
The Deputy should not make charges against anybody outside this House.
(Dublin West): It is not a charge, it is a fact.
Deputy Rabbitte asked if any other benefit was conferred and the answer is no. A question was raised as to whether the State Property Act should cover this issue. If it was property, it might come under the 1977 Act, a measure introduced for an individual who in 1977 gave a gift of a heritage type property to the State, which enabled them to visit the property and involve themselves in the activity of the property. I am not sure which property was involved but I am sure it had merit like many of these donations. That Act does not apply in this case. Mr. J. P. McManus has given the gift and he has no further involvement. He has attached no conditions.
With regard to Deputy Allen's query, it was the Attorney General who, for the avoidance of doubt, put it under the State Property Act. Mr. McManus wanted to just give the money and let the Government deal with it in whatever way it wished. He did not want any conditions. He was wise in that regard because as soon as the Attorney General tried to tie it down, somebody looked at the Act and tried to raise something else. I know people are entitled to do that but Mr. McManus said he did not want anything. There are no conditions and no benefit. The Minister for Finance set out the position in a reply today to a question from Deputy Allen. I do not have time to read out that reply but Deputies should look at it.
Deputy Rabbitte mentioned people who benefited from the amnesty—
No. I was referring to the special amendment on which the Taoiseach consulted myself, Deputy Noonan and the former Deputy McDowell.
About the days?
I think it was the Finance Act, 1994.
As the Deputy recalls, the tax at that time was a major issue. I tidied up the Act as best I could because there had been an enormous dispute about the number of days, who was in and who had rights. I understand the provision is being amended this year but we did our utmost in that Finance Act to streamline the number of days to ensure that people were not treated differently. As far as I know, none of the gentlemen who benefits uses that number of days by a long shot. Many people would probably say that the more days they are here, the better it is for the Irish economy.
It did benefit them.
It benefited them in that they were allowed to spend more days in this country. However, who benefits if they are allowed spend more time here? The country does because there is more money.
(Dublin West): We would benefit from more of their tax if they were not exiles.
There is nothing illegal about people emigrating from the State for tax reasons. There are many such people, entertainers, musicians, footballers and others. The Deputy wishes to castigate them as not being good Irish people because they leave the State for tax reasons. I am sure they do so for that reason and I am sure they gain as a result.
(Dublin West): It shows how patriotic they are.
There are not too many people who hand over £50 million to the Irish nation.
I take the view that Mr. J. P. McManus, like the people who gave the State an art collection recently and the people who gave the State heritage properties and so forth, does his bit. They are luckier in that they are wealthier than me or the Deputy. It is sad that when somebody does something for the State, everybody starts looking under every stone to find something they did wrong in the past. I do not know J. P. McManus – sometimes I wish I did so that I could get a few good tips on the horses – but I know of him.
Mr. Brennan can give the Taoiseach a few tips on a regular basis.
Mr. J. P. McManus has given a good gift to the State and, as in the case of all people who give gifts to the State, I as an Irish citizen, regardless of what office I hold, am grateful there are such people.
