Seán Fleming (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 6, between lines 29 and 30, to insert the following:"4. The National Treasury Management Agency shall manage that portion of the proceeds from the sale of the National Lottery Licence designated for the National Children's Hospital.".

I welcome the opportunity to contribute on this topic for a third time. When I raised it on Second Stage, my understanding was that the Minister wanted to ring-fence this money for the national children's hospital. He, the Minister for Health and the Taoiseach have stated it time and again. I tabled an amendment on Committee Stage to assist the Minister in ensuring that there would be money for the national children's hospital. Doing so was necessary. Under normal circumstances, money goes into the general government coffers. When the Government sold the 4G licence last year, that money went towards reducing the national debt. I wanted to ensure that the same would not occur in respect of the funding that the Minister asserts is being raised for the national children's hospital. I wanted a mechanism to be in place to protect that money.

I have been disappointed.

I accept the Minister's good intentions but they count for nothing. When one gets to 31 December and the Department of Finance is doing its end-of-year calculations and deciding what proceeds go where, the good intentions of any individual Minister regarding the projects for which he would like to protect funds will count for nothing. Unless it is specified in legislation the Minister has no legal basis for standing up his good intentions. That is the reason I tabled the amendment on Committee Stage, at which time we had a detailed discussion. I believed we made progress on Committee Stage because the Minister appeared to be convinced of the need to examine the issue. He expanded on his commitment and how he would deal with my amendment. On the basis of the understanding I had reached with the Minister, I did not push the amendment to a vote. I listened carefully to what he said on Committee Stage and I crafted an amendment to coincide with it. I already tabled two amendments on the issue. In amendment No. 3, I sought that the National Treasury Management Agency would manage that portion of the proceeds from the sale of the national lottery licence designated for the national children’s hospital. It was an option for the Minister to consider but he did not have to specifically do it. I merely offered a helpful suggestion. I would be happy if the mechanism could be adopted but if the Minister could find a better one I am open to hearing who he decides would hold the money aside in an account.

My amendment No. 4 proposes: "The Minister shall, within one month of the enactment of this Act, bring forward a report outlining how the proceeds from the sale of the national lottery licence shall be ringfenced for the purposes of meeting the cost of constructing the National Children’s Hospital." I was happy once the Minister gave a commitment that we would have a report within one month of the enactment of the legislation on how he would ring-fence the proceeds if he did not have time to get it done between now and the final passage of the legislation through the Oireachtas. I was providing time following the enactment of the legislation for the Minister to do that. We had such a debate on Committee Stage and I believed some progress had been made in that regard.

As a result of the Committee Stage debate I tabled amendment No. 24 in which I allow the Minister more latitude to put a mechanism in place to protect the children’s hospital. The amendment states: “The Minister shall, within one month of the licence being awarded...” The licence must be awarded before the end of the year. I am giving the Minister until the end of the year to bring forward a report outlining how the proceeds from the sale of the national lottery licence shall be ring-fenced for the purpose of meeting the cost of constructing the national children’s hospital. The reason I took that approach is because of what was said during the Committee Stage debate. I have transcripts of the debate. If Report Stage is to mean anything it should follow on from the manner in which amendments were dealt with on Committee Stage. I was happy with the response to some of the amendments tabled on Committee Stage and I have not tabled them again. It was not necessary to prolong the debate on certain amendments but some issues remain to be resolved that relate to the essence of the legislation. The Minister said one of the purposes of the legislation is to get funding for the national children’s hospital.

During the Committee Stage debate the Minister said in response to a previous amendment that he had no wish to report within one month of the enactment of the legislation because he would not know how much money he would have until such time as he went through the tendering process. He then added: “Only when we conclude the sale will we know the volume of money and whether I have enough to build a hospital, whether I have a significant surplus or what the story will be. However, I would be happy to give a commitment to the committee and the Chairman, once the national lottery licence is sold, placed and taken up, to come and explain exactly what to do with the money.” Hence, my amendment today follows directly from the Minister’s own words, to bring forward a report within one month of the national lottery licence being awarded. My amendment is specifically based on the Minister's own words and commitment on Committee Stage that when he knows the proceeds he will have from the sale of the national lottery licence, he will come back with a report. I framed the amendment specifically on that basis and I expect the Minister will accept the amendment because it is not my amendment; it is the Minister’s own, although he did not table it today.

If his words mean anything the Minister must accept the amendment because since the debate began, even going back to the programme for Government, it was indicated that the proceeds from the sale of the national lottery would be ring-fenced for the purpose of the national children’s hospital. That has been said ad nauseamand as part of the good PR in terms of trying to get some traction for what we are doing, namely, selling a national asset. We will have a wider debate on other national assets on another day. Commitments have been given in the context of other national assets on how things will be protected. This is the first acid test for the Minister on the sale of a national asset, in this case the national lottery licence, which is worth hundreds of millions. It would make any commitment we would ever get on the proceeds of the sale of a national asset look shallow if the Minister could not include a commitment in the legislation for the purpose we have discussed ad nauseamfor the past two years. Reference has been made to providing funding for job creation purposes but we will not believe that if we cannot believe the commitment on funding for the national children’s hospital.

During the extensive discussion on Committee Stage the Minister said he “would be happy to give a commitment to the committee and the Chairman, once the lottery licence is sold, placed and taken up, to come back and explain exactly what to do with the money”. I made another suggestion to the Minister to make life easier for him. I said that the next time the troika is in town – it is due every three months – I would be happy for the Minister to get it to agree to a reference in the revised memorandum of understanding, as there is always an update following each visit, that the funding could be used for this purpose. Therefore, even if the Minister does not want to include such a reference in the legislation, I would accept its inclusion in an updated memorandum of understanding following the next visit of the troika. I would accept a reference to the fact that the Government could use a portion of the funding for the national children’s hospital because it would be backed up by the EU, the European Central Bank and the troika and signed off by Ministers. I would be happy with such an alternative. Perhaps the Minister will confirm whether he could do that.

When I put the suggestion to the Minister he replied that he would reflect on the matter. He said that if his bona fides are accepted, he volunteered to come back once the licence has been issued. The Minister accepted it was a good idea and that he would see if satisfactory agreement could be reached with the troika but that it was not his “normal practice to open up discussions again because one never knows where these things will meander”. He gave the impression at the committee meeting that the troika knew the money would be allocated to the national children’s hospital. I asked him to put that in writing. The Minister said then that he would not like to revisit the issue because one never knows where one might end up. To me that was an example of how genuine the commitment was that he had from the troika.

Before we concluded the debate the committee Chairman said: “Before I put the question I will clarify for the committee that, regardless of what happens on Report Stage, the Minister has made a formal offer to come before the committee after the licence has been awarded and a specific sum has been set aside. The committee will then engage with him on that issue. That is a formal proposal.” The Minister, Deputy Howlin, replied “Yes, it is.” He agreed to the formal proposal from the Chairman following the debate to come back following the awarding of the licence. Hence, my amendment No. 24, which I hope the Minister accepts because it is based on his words. I gave him every opportunity to be agreeable by using his words.

People understand simple things in terms of how they affect their daily lives. If an organisation were to go onto the streets in any part of the country today to collect funds for a worthwhile cause, let us say the national children’s hospital, and it told everyone that the money was ring-fenced for the purpose, but following the collection it did not ring-fence the money for that purpose, the Minister for Justice and Equality and the Garda Síochána would have a problem with the fact that people had said they were collecting money for the national children’s hospital but did not use the money for that purpose. I could use strong words for how ordinary people would perceive the issue.

I am worried that the Minister has said so much about this, that he is collecting this money for the national children's hospital, but we have not seen a firm commitment from him. I look forward to his response on this matter. The Minister is allegedly collecting money from the sale of the national lottery licence for the national children's hospital but we have no proof that the money will be used for that purpose. It is a simple, basic point. The people of Ireland understand the principle of people collecting money for a specific purpose but are worried that the funds will not actually being used for that purpose, having given their consent to that. I look forward to the Minister's response and will be happy if he accepts amendment No. 24, in particular, which gives him the maximum amount of time necessary. That amendment gives him until next Christmas to agree that within one month of the licence being awarded, he will bring forward a report outlining how the proceeds of the sale of the national lottery licence will be ring fenced for the purpose of meeting the costs of the national children's hospital. That is the commitment the Minister gave on Committee Stage and I look forward to his agreeing to my amendment.

See this speech in context