When the
Irish Minister of Health included two facilities within his own constituency in
a list of proposed new primary care centres he was accused of “stroke politics”.
This is the practice of “stroking” or currying favour with constituents in
order to improve a politician’s chances of re-election. He was similarly
accused when it was revealed that his constituency had received an
extraordinary amount in grants from the national lottery.
Of course
it is an important part of the function of a public representative at what ever
level, from Parish Council to European Parliament to act as an advocate for his/her
area. He or she would be failing in his or her duty if he or she did not put
forward as vigorously as possible the case for new or improved facilities – or against
the closure of existing facilities – in his/her area. But every good
representative will also be aware that, however hard he or she battles for a
cause sometimes someone else’s case will prove to be stronger when measured
against realistic criteria. His or her constituents may be disappointed but,
provided the criteria are clearly stated, the representative ought to be able
to explain why, on this occasion, they lost out. That, too, is part of the job.
Fear or
Favour
What if the
representative also happens to be in a position where he or she is responsible
for making the decision? Surely it is – or ought to be – a condition of holding
such an office that he or she makes his or her decisions “without fear or
favour”. Failure to do so ought to lead to his or her dismissal or resignation.
Interestingly in Ireland
it was the minister’s deputy who resigned over the primary care decision which
she could not stomach.
But Irish
people take for granted, even expect, that when a representative from their area
is promoted to a position of influence he or she will use that influence to
their benefit. It is even taken for granted that ministerial appointments are
made in such a way as to ensure a fair geographical distribution regardless of
competence.
All of this
is, you might say, understandable when the source of the funds being
distributed in this way is general taxation. But should the same degree of
arbitrariness apply to lottery funding? Remember that, whereas taxation is more
or less progressive with high earners contributing more than those on low pay, in
the case of the lottery people on low pay contribute a far greater proportion
of their income than do high earners. So the distribution of funds to good
causes ought to favour projects of benefit to such individuals.
Lottery
Funds Should be Free From Ministerial Influence
That result
can only be achieved if the organisations distributing funds on behalf of the
National Lottery are not subjected to ministerial influence and the criteria
used to approve projects for funding are clearly understood by those making
applications.
The time is
right now to make that happen as the Bill to establish a new National Lottery passes
through the Oireachtas. The Bill can be amended if enough people write to their
TDs. Tell them you don’t like the system that enables a minister to use lottery
money to stroke his constituents.
