Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 24 Feb 2005

Vol. 598 No. 4

Dormant Accounts (Amendment) Bill 2004 [Seanad]: Second Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Mr. Healy

The background to the Bill is the Dormant Accounts Act 2001 and the Life Assurance Policies Act 2003. The legislation introduced a scheme for the disbursement of funds that were unlikely to be reclaimed and covered three categories of funding: for those who were socially and economically disadvantaged, those who were educationally disadvantaged and persons with a disability. Responsibility for overseeing the disbursement of the moneys for those purposes was with the Dormant Accounts Fund Disbursements Board established under the legislation.

In December 2003, the Government reviewed the arrangements in regard to dormant accounts and decided to make significant changes. We now have the Dormant Accounts (Amendment) Bill 2004 which commenced in the Oireachtas in June 2004. It proposes to amend the existing dormant accounts legislation principally in regard to decisions on disbursements from the dormant accounts fund and the role of the Dormant Accounts Fund Disbursements Board.

The objectives underpinning the disbursements from the dormant accounts fund remain the same as previously, that is, to assist those who are socially, economically or educationally disadvantaged and those persons who have a disability. The Bill proposes that the existing board be abolished and reconstituted. The board will have responsibilities similar to those in the past. It will have responsibility for the preparation of a disbursement plan and will periodically review and assess the effectiveness of the plan and the extent to which the objectives have been achieved. It will prepare reports on the additionality of the spend and comprise 11 members, with knowledge or experience relevant to the board's functions, and be appointed by the Minister.

The Minister stated that the changes being introduced to the scheme will provide for the disbursement of these funds in what he called a more focused and effective way for the purposes of tackling disadantage. That sounds fine but the fact is the changes are being made to the legislation at an early stage. Given that the Bill seeks to amend an Act which was passed as recently as 2001 it is clear the Dormant Accounts Fund Disbursements Board and the manner in which the funds were discharged was too independent for the Minister and the Government. This Bill is putting in place a politically motivated fund which is part and parcel of an attempt to buy the next general election in 2007. It is a politically motivated amendment Bill and is one with which I and most of the Opposition disagree and will oppose.

I draw attention to the voluntary and community sector and the use of legislation and funding such as this on a once-off basis to fund the sector. This is unacceptable. What is needed is general funding on a multi-annual basis to ensure community, voluntary and disability services are provided on an ongoing permanent basis at a high level. I draw attention to the lack of that type of funding. I am director of an organisation called Cuan Saor, based in Clonmel, which covers the constituency of Tipperary South. It is a women's refuge and support service for women affected by domestic violence. That organisation wrote to me recently as follows:

Cuan Saor would like to draw attention to the fact that there has been no increase in funding to the Violence Against Women services sector since 2002. The VAW services right across the country cannot continue to provide much needed support/information and Refuge accommodation to women and children who are experiencing domestic violence, unless the effective decrease in funding is addressed immediately. The groups involved represent two national helplines, 15 rape crisis centres and 38 refuges and domestic violence support services which between them support many thousands of victims annually. Domestic violence services continue to provide a vital service to women in desperate situations, however limited resources affects the capacity to meet the need. It is totally impossible for the inadequate funding of 2002 to sustain services with the increased running costs of 2005.

This effective cutback in funding comes at a time when more and more women are accessing services. In 2004 Cuan Saor provided emergency accommodation for 90 women and 131 children. Cuan Saor took 1,067 helpline calls from women seeking support and information and provided 727 drop-in support and information sessions.

Staff in Cuan Saor work alone from 5 p.m. to 9 a.m. carrying responsibility for all of the services provided by the organisation, back up for this service is provided by senior staff on a voluntary basis. Lack of funding is crippling to the development of our services ie outreach services. We feel there is a growing need to expand our services to outlying towns and villages to make our services more accessible to families in our rural communities.

I wish to highlight this issue in respect of this legislation. These services are funded on an ad hoc rather than on a regular general or multi-annual basis, which is essential if the vital services being provided by organisations such as Cuan Saor women’s refuge are to be provided on a proper professional and ongoing basis. The use of money coming from the dormant account fund is not the way to deal with ongoing funding of areas such as this.

The funding made available through the last disbursement of funds from the disbursement board was welcome and it benefited many areas throughout the country, including parts of my constituency. It funded local authority play areas in RAPID areas such as Clonmel, Carrick-on-Suir and Tipperary town and this is to be welcomed.

The fact that the Minister will in future be enabled to change the disbursement plan drafted by the board, that he will be in consultation with other Ministers and will make recommendations for the disbursement of these moneys, means that these funds will be used in the next two to two and a half years to buy votes. This has been the case in the disbursement of sports capital grants and national lottery funding which tend to go mainly to the constituencies of Ministers and Ministers of State.

I demand a totally independent method which will ensure that organisations, particularly those dealing with the disadvantaged and those with disabilities, be given a fair crack of the whip and that the allocation of funding to those sectors would not be dependent on which Minister, Minister of State, Government Deputy or Department raised the issue. This funding should be independently allocated. The Bill is a step backwards.

Mr. F. McGrath

I welcome the debate on this important issue which is also crucial for the future. This legislation has potential for more investment to benefit the weaker sections of society.

The Bill forms part of the debate on disadvantage even though many people in this House and outside it seem to think this debate is over. I remind all Members that poverty still exists in our society and people are still being left behind. In parts of the north side of Dublin, unemployment is at 16% in some housing estates. This is unacceptable when the national rate is down at less than 2% or 3%. The reality must be faced that society still has a significant problem and this should be acknowledged when dealing with this Bill.

I pay tribute to the Northside Centre for the Unemployed in Coolock which is doing an excellent job of providing support and social services for the weaker sections of society. It is important to acknowledge the work of the centre. A substantial minority in society believes it is being left behind economically, socially and politically.

This legislation allows the House the opportunity to put forward more progressive ideas, new policies and allow the Minister use some of the resources to serve and support the most needy. It is an opportunity to share the extra wealth being created.

The Dormant Accounts Act 2001 and the Unclaimed Life Assurance Policies Act 2003 were enacted to address the issue of dormant accounts in financial institutions. The main purpose of the legislation is to reunite account holders with their dormant funds held in such institutions, which is a fair provision. The legislation also introduced a scheme for the disbursal of funds that are unlikely to be reclaimed, for the purposes of assisting three broad categories of persons: those who are socially or economically disadvantaged, those who are educationally disadvantaged and persons with a disability. Responsibility for overseeing the disbursement of moneys for the above purpose rests with the Dormant Accounts Fund Disbursements Board which was established under the legislation.

This legislation will provide a glorious opportunity. It can no longer be accepted that children are still going to school hungry and are not receiving proper nutrition. Early intervention is the means of tackling educational disadvantage. This point has been made in the House by many Members to the Minister for Education and Science and I hope she will take heed. I acknowledge some resources have been targeted at the most needy in society and these progressive steps are to be welcomed.

Section 3 of the Bill refers to those with disabilities. I welcome much of the progressive investments and policies announced in the Budget Statement by the Minister for Finance, Deputy Cowen. However, there are still 3,000 people with an intellectual disability on residential, respite and day care waiting lists. The money invested in these services must be spent wisely.

Many people have concerns about the manner in which the money is distributed into the system because the people on the ground do not receive the service. This is a constant complaint which I hear from parents and from those who work with people with intellectual disabilities. An organisation may be allocated €5 million but the same organisation may have 300 people on a waiting list. It is a question of the management of services.

Another factor to be considered is that people with disabilities and their supporters and advocates must be included as part of the management structures. Any radical reform in the Health Service Executive and other service providers must ensure that the voices of disabled people are heard on these boards. The people leading the disability movement are quality people and this must be unique when compared with other countries. People who have a disability in many cases have significant talent and constructive ideas to offer society. I would like to see them directly involved in the management of the services. I do not wish a situation where money is wasted and mishandled in the services. The extra moneys could be used and targeted for worthwhile projects.

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy McGrath, I note from my list of speakers that you shared time with Deputies Boyle and Crowe at the commencement of this Bill. Therefore, it is not appropriate for you to speak a second time on Second Stage.

Mr. F. McGrath

My apologies, Ceann Comhairle.

An Ceann Comhairle

I ask you to give way to Deputy Carey.

Mr. F. McGrath

I apologise, Ceann Comhairle. I did not realise my mistake.

There are some constructive ideas in this Bill and I hope the money is used wisely.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy should conclude.

Mr. Carey

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the legislation before the House, which is concerned with streamlining an important process, namely, the disbursement of the dormant accounts fund. To understand the importance and relevance of the Bill, one must consider the areas to which these funds are being allocated and the impact they are having.

The purpose of the dormant accounts fund, as set out in current law, is to assist persons who are socially, economically and educationally disadvantaged and persons with a disability. All Deputies welcome the use of unclaimed moneys for the betterment of the less well-off. While we all talk about major economic progress, regardless of how much progress is made, there will always be people who seem to fall between the cracks. This money is ideal for use in this regard, a position that will remain unchanged in the new Act.

To date the dormant accounts fund has had a significant impact in many communities, including mine, and it is right that such work on behalf of the public good be continued. Nevertheless, it is always possible to do more, not only by increasing the amount spent on programmes and projects, which the Government has already done. Rather, for numerous reasons connected with governance and public policy, organisational changes are required to ensure the money in the dormant accounts achieve maximum benefit and impact on communities.

We are all aware of the emerging scale of the fund, which currently stands at €250 million. We are all agreed that the scale of such moneys, held in public trust, requires commensurate arrangements to support and oversee disbursements. However, when the original legislation was introduced it was not envisaged that the fund would be so large. Current legislation in this area is fundamentally deficient in terms of governance structures and organisational arrangements. For example, it makes no legal provision for a proper organisational structure for the board and, instead, provides only for an ad hoc arrangement for the secondment of staff from Departments. Given the emerging scale of the fund, such an arrangement is not tenable in the longer term.

Furthermore, current arrangements require a part-time chairperson of the board to assume responsibility for disbursement decisions with a potential spend in excess of €250 million and to be held accountable to the public by the Committee of Public Accounts for all the board's decisions. That is wholly inappropriate.

Questions also arise from a public policy point of view. We are all serious about tackling severe disadvantage so it follows that the State must use all resources available to it for this purpose in a focused and sustained manner. It is doubtful whether current arrangements for these funds can secure the optimal effect in this regard.

Members of the Opposition may argue that the reasons I have outlined would suggest that a new organisation should be established with a permanent administrative support structure. I am not convinced of the merit of such a move as it would ignore the finite nature of the fund, squander significant funds on organisational costs and, crucially, overlook the expertise and knowledge available in public bodies in regard to tackling disadvantage in our communities. That is, after all, our purpose.

The general basis of the legislation is broadly similar to the administration of the sports grant scheme. Irrespective of who makes the final decision, the Government will ensure that grants to the determinative communities will be systematised and codified. I do not want the dormant accounts fund to be viewed simply as an extension of departmental programmes or another part of public expenditure. It offers an exciting new opportunity, especially for those involved in voluntary community groups who are tackling social exclusion.

While I want the voluntary and community sector to have some sense of ownership in this matter, it is necessary to ensure the funds are equitably distributed on the basis of need and that is provided for in the legislation. The purpose of the Bill is to strengthen the link and co-operation between Government and the community sector. The thrust of the proposed legislation is concern with the need for the Government to take responsibility for implementing the strategies for which it is elected. This is precisely what the Bill proposes.

The job of Deputies is to make representations on behalf of constituents, follow up on cases and hearings and ensure that those whom we represent get their fair share. We have an opportunity to inquire into the work of all Departments. The proposed legislation strengthens this system, thus ensuring that we can secure more for our communities.

I realise the legislation governing the dormant accounts fund and its board has only been in place for a few years. If problems arise, however, it is important to address them as soon as possible. After all, it is the responsibility of the Government to make appropriate changes and use proper procedures for so doing. The proposed system will be seen to be fair and transparent and will take on board expertise on disadvantage and disability, in Departments, the Health Service Executive, previously health boards, and other State agencies.

The Bill takes timely steps to rectify imminent problems which, if not tackled now, would get worse in the future. If the scale of the fund continues to increase, we will have further reason to stabilise and structure the system of allocating funds and developing a more accountable process. The proposed legislation introduces the more accountable process we all seek.

When one observes the effects of the dormant accounts fund on the various schemes and considers similar previous schemes, it is clear that areas of particular disadvantage have benefited significantly. Communities have benefited on the ground, particularly in areas designated under the RAPID and CLÁR programmes. If we spent substantial sums administering these schemes, I would have to tell constituents, for example, parents seeking a playground so that their children do not have to play on busy roads, that the money was spent on administration. I am not prepared to do that and, therefore, it makes sense to deal with the fund by means of administrative arrangements already in place in Departments. Such a system has worked well with the national lottery allocations to those entitled to lottery funding. The arrangements proposed in the Bill demonstrate the Government's commitment to a structured, transparent and effective system of funding for all voluntary and community groups. I congratulate the Minister on the Bill and welcome it to the House.

Mr. Haughey

I pay tribute to the Minister of State, Deputy Noel Ahern, on the work he is doing in the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs. He is known as a straight talker who adopts a pragmatic approach to the issues of the day. He has introduced practical measures to address the issues for which he has responsibility and, as a Deputy for Dublin North-West, with my colleague, Deputy Carey, he is very familiar with the position on the ground, particularly with regard to disadvantage.

The Minister of State will be remembered for his pragmatic approach to the new scheme under development in the Ballymun area. It will become a tribute to him and the Taoiseach, both of whom have invested a great deal of time and effort in improving substandard flat developments throughout Dublin city and beyond. When the history of the period since 1997 is written, the commitment made by Government to replace substandard flat schemes, particularly in the inner city, with much higher quality housing will feature prominently. This has been done quietly by the local authorities with Government support. All of us will benefit when the various projects are brought to conclusion.

I served with the Minster of State on Dublin City Council when he was chairman of its housing committee. His pragmatism, evident to all during that period, is again evident in the approach he has taken to drugs, housing and other issues in his current portfolio. The Residential Tenancies Act, for example, is practical legislation which has resulted in improvements in the private rented sector.

The Dormant Accounts Act 2001 and the Unclaimed Life Assurance Policies Act 2003 were enacted to address the issue of dormant accounts in financial institutions. The dormant accounts fund is managed by the National Treasury Management Agency, while disbursements of the fund is the responsibility of the Dormant Accounts Fund Disbursements Board, established on 5 June 2002. The board prepares a disbursement plan, presents its objectives in making disbursements and the strategy for achieving them and sets out the priorities for each of its areas of activity. Money is spent on persons who are economically, socially and educationally disadvantaged and those who have a disability. The board's plan sets out disbursements to RAPID, CLÁR and drugs task force areas and it has been engaged in this activity since its establishment.

The Minister announced a change in regard to the Dormant Accounts Fund Disbursements Board last year. However, the Government is committed to maintaining an open, transparent and accountable process for dealing with applications for dormant accounts funding. That commitment is honoured in this legislation in various ways, which I will outline if time permits.

Area Development Management Limited was hired by the Dormant Accounts Fund Disbursements Board to undertake the job of evaluating and processing applications against certain criteria. The board does not currently have its own structure and staff. Staff have been seconded from within the Civil Service and the chairman is part-time. This situation is unsatisfactory. Under this new legislation, however, the board will still have a major role to play in tracking Government decisions, accessing allocations and reporting on its activities. The Government can bring the expertise of the entire system to bear on this process under the new arrangements set out in this Bill, by involving all State agencies in the advisory process.

I welcome that the current ad hoc arrangement will be put on a statutory basis. It is proper that the Government should allocate funds. We live in a democracy and the elected Government is accountable to the Oireachtas. I make no apologies for the changes announced in this Bill, which will bring a greater efficiency and comprehensive thinking to the process of allocating funds having regard to the policies of the various Departments. Under these new arrangements, the costs of distribution will be kept to a minimum. Government schemes administered by the various Departments will benefit in this regard. The Government is ultimately responsible for implementing strategies and it is welcome that this fund will feed into the overall system in a joined-up manner.

In my constituency, the structures in place to deal with disadvantage include a RAPID programme in regard to the Bunratty Road Maisonettes, the Dublin north east drugs task force and the Northside Partnership. These three groups do tremendous work in tackling disadvantage in this area. As a member of the board of the Northside Partnership, I have experienced at first hand the work done in co-ordinating policies to tackle disadvantage in parts of Dublin North-Central.

Another body contributing to this work is the Young People's Facilities and Services Fund, which has successfully brought forward many proposals that would not otherwise have come to fruition. The services provided by the community development programme are of absolute necessity in areas of disadvantage and I welcome the expansion of that programme over the years. Behind all this is the national anti-poverty strategy into which the policies of the various Departments fit and which is working well.

Some say the Celtic tiger has not benefited all areas. However, the effectiveness of the RAPID programme in the Coolock area, for example, disproves this contention. A site in this area was completely derelict some years ago and two schools located on that site were forced to close because of a shortage of pupils. The condition of that site today is indicative of the moneys that have been spent under the various programmes over several years.

The Northside Civic Centre was established through a grant of approximately £6 million from the OPW. Another development is the Coolock Development Centre, in which enterprise units were established through substantial funding from Enterprise Ireland and money was provided to expand the buildings of St. Michael's House. President Mary McAleese yesterday officially opened the offices of the Northside Community Law Centre, formerly the Coolock Community Law Centre, in the Northside Civic Centre. Several State agencies are also accommodated in that centre, including Dublin City Council, FÁS, the Money Advice and Budgeting Service and a social welfare office. The local community radio station is also housed there.

That once derelict site with two empty schools is now thriving with economic and community activity. This happened over the short period since 1997 and proves that the structures to tackle disadvantage are working. I am sure there are other parts of the city and country where more needs to be done but I acknowledge and welcome what has been achieved in this particular RAPID area.

The structures in place to tackle disadvantage must always be open to review. In this regard, I welcome the commitment in the agreed programme for Government, published in August 2004, that the boundaries of these structures will be kept under constant review. I will have suggestions in this regard in due course. There is a case for examining the structures to discover whether there is some duplication or overlap of activities and whether amalgamation or further co-ordination is required.

An extensive section of the programme for Government relates to the building of an inclusive society and deals with such issues as health, education, crime, older people, pensions, children and child care, disability and caring, supporting diversity and tolerance, asylum and immigration, equality and law reform, tackling drug abuse and regenerating disadvantaged communities. While the much abused phrase, "A lot done, more to do" is somewhat appropriate, progress has been made in the regeneration of disadvantaged communities. I call for full implementation of the various measures announced in the agreed programme for Government. This Bill is necessary as the time has come to review disbursements from the dormant accounts fund. It will bring about increased co-ordination in Government policies aimed at tackling the plight of the disadvantaged in society.

Ms Lynch

No Member disagrees with a review of the disbursements mechanism. As projects come on stream and additional moneys are made available, common sense dictates that matters be reviewed. People's needs change, if not on a weekly basis, on a yearly one, so that one will always have to deal with different sets of circumstances. However, Deputy Haughey's claim that this legislation is necessary is not true. It may be necessary from the viewpoint of a Fianna Fáil backbencher or Minister.

The Bill was introduced because the Government was clearly surprised at the amount of moneys available from the dormant accounts fund. Initially it was believed the fund would only amount to a once-off €100 million. Now it appears it will reach an excess of €225 million, not including the life assurance policies upon which the Government is now about to lay its hands. In the same context as the taxpayer contributes to the public purse, these moneys do not belong to the Government. These moneys were scraped together by people on average incomes, put into accounts to ensure a decent burial for themselves and in the hope that in the event of a posthumous debt, it could be claimed by their dependants. In some instances, there were no dependants; in others, they did not know about the funds. No matter what efforts are made to track people down, there will always be the untraceable individuals.

Taking these factors into account, where is the best place for the moneys? It is disingenuous for the Minister of State, with a troop of backbenchers behind him, to tell us that the best place is in the Government's coffers, as a little slush fund for it to dish out before the next election. Will the Government Members hold their hands up to admit the Bill is simply a mechanism for them to get their hands on money to win the next election? It is a return to the old style politics of cap in hand. Instead of applications being made and then assessed by an independent board, groups will now have to go to their local Government Deputies to ask them to put in a good word with the relevant Minister.

I do not deny that the projects are deserving. In 2001 the then Minister for Finance, Mr. McCreevy who subsequently went to a better job, introduced the first Dormant Accounts Act. He stated on Second Stage:

To get away from the problem of having the Government blamed of having a slush fund, it has been decided to establish a board of trustees. The board will distribute the money, subject to guidelines and without direction from the Government. . . .

[I think this is] the best approach . . . to give the power to distribute it to a disbursals board and not the Minister.

However, in this amending legislation, the power will be given to Ministers. The then Minister for Finance recognised the inherent dangers in allowing the Government to distribute these moneys. At that time, the fund was put at €100 million. Now, the fund has risen to €225 million, set to rise again due to annual interest on the fund of €4 million. One must consider this in the context that the disbursements board has only distributed €5.6 million, despite the torrent of applications, and the original legislation has not changed in respect of the groups being funded.

Before the last general election the then Minister of State with special responsibility for local development, Deputy Eoin Ryan, now gone to warmer climes, introduced a new programme known as RAPID. Clearly marketed, its very name captured its intention to front load plans for disadvantaged communities above all other local authority plans. Areas that had suffered large degrees of disadvantage were to receive investment for plans the residents believed were necessary. I was part of a group, that sat for nights on end, that involved every local group such as the nuns, the shopkeepers, the people who cleaned the church and the priests. They genuinely became involved in the projects. Their application did not, as the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs, Deputy Ó Cuív often claims about these projects, include everything and the kitchen sink. They had realisable goals for necessary improvements to their community. Some were small, such as pedestrian crossings; others large, such as community centres. However, as soon as the general election was over, the RAPID programme stopped. If it were not for the continuous hard work of a small group of people who push to have little improvements made to their communities, none would occur. However, the large funds from the RAPID programme did not come through.

Yesterday, every Member received the National Roads Authority's plans for roads, bypasses and ancillary works. I noted funding designated for Blackpool in Cork city that should have been put in place four years ago by the National Roads Authority. It was to include ancillary works when the bypass was completed. However, this year it will be completed under the RAPID programme. It is not RAPID funding. The Minister of State and I know it is not. However, that is how it will be advertised. If a bollard is erected to stop cars from mounting a footpath, it is now put down to the RAPID programme, when the funding really comes from ongoing National Roads Authority projects. The RAPID programme was designed to be additional funding and not a replacement of local authority funding.

When one sees what has happened to national lottery and RAPID funding, the Bill's intentions are clear. The original Bill's intention was far-seeing, particularly considering the current crises in health care, child care and services for people with disabilities. Several Members claim streamlining the administration of the dormant accounts fund through the Department will reduce costs and be more effective. The running costs of the board of the dormant accounts fund was €148,000, including set up costs. Anyone who says the reason it is being moved is for reasons of cost and efficiency——

Mr. N. Ahern

No one did.

Ms Lynch

The Government backbenchers did. Anyone who says that is telling lies. Government backbenchers have much speedier access to the type of information I have in front of me. Administration and costs are not the difficulty. The reason it is being moved is that the Government did not realise how much this fund held. In its first report, the dormant accounts fund board said it had no concept of how much the fund held. The Government saw this and simply could not resist it. It said "Good God, what are we doing allowing these people to disburse this fund when we could do it better." That mindset must be overcome. In many ways, Deputy Haughey said that, but not very clearly. This money will become Government funding. Instead of being additional funding to areas of disadvantage, it will now become the Government's contribution to areas of disadvantage for which it was never intended.

If we could hear the opinion of those whose money it is, that is, people who are long gone, they would agree it should go to child care, people with disability and to disadvantaged areas. I can only speak for Cork but child care in Cork city is in crisis. Meetings are being called and faxes are being sent because the funding for workers is being cut, yet this fund is supposed to be for child care. Child care is the last remaining barrier to women's full participation in society, yet funding for child care is being cut.

I was at a meeting last Monday night of a job search group in the Ard Bhaile complex in Mayfield, which is not a very affluent area. It was originally funded by FÁS and was set up by partnership. The funding is gone but the group needs an additional €51,000 to keep the doors open. For the past five years, the group has helped people from that area to find employment. It is making a contribution to the central purse and to society, yet it is being closed down. However, we constantly hear how great this Government is and of the progress made. It is easy to show progress starting from a zero base.

The Centre for Independent Living in Blackpool operates out of a former haberdashery shop which is totally unsuitable. We all know the difficulties people with motorised wheelchairs face. The centre has no other premises yet it must operate and provide a service to people with a disability in that north Lee area. It must meet certain people in hotels because it cannot bring them to the centre. Why has that problem not been resolved?

In regard to schools, I can only tell the Minister of State about one school, although I have a list of about 20. A school close to where I live has three prefabs which it has been using for the past 20 years. One of them is simply falling apart and cannot be repaired. The school applied for funding under the dormant accounts fund but since only €5.6 million was allocated last year and the board was swamped with applications, it was not even considered and was asked to apply again.

To say the dormant accounts fund is being subsumed into the Department because the board has a part-time chairperson and an insufficient number of staff is the lamest excuse I have heard in a long time. Surely, if someone is to do a critical job for the Government, he or she should have a sufficient number of staff. If the board needs a full-time chairperson, it should have one. The school I mentioned is in a RAPID area and serves three schools designated as disadvantaged. It is not as if it is outside the loop or does not qualify. I am not surprised the board has been unable to allocate more money because clearly the problem is an insufficient number of staff to process applications.

On 14 February last I attended a St. Valentine's Day ball, and I know the Minister of State will say "Isn't it well for you". It was a lovely night but that ball was a fundraiser for a school dealing with children with autism. The parents who attended had a difficult job trying to attend that night. Why must these people fundraise? Do they not have enough on their plate dealing with a family and a child with difficulties? Why must that school fundraise if so much progress has been made? Everyone who visits the school, including Deputies from the Minister of State's party, says how wonderful it is. Why do we not encourage such people? Why did they need to make an application for a pre-school of which no one appears to be taking any notice? Why is the Asperger association in Cork looking for a second level school? The dormant accounts fund was supposed to help people with intellectual disability or people with disability so why must they still fundraise? Why is no one taking any notice of their proposal for a pre-school and second level school? One father said to me that by the time they get the second level school his child will be too old, yet we have this fund which is supposed to fund such initiatives.

I am sure, like me, the Minister of State gets at least five telephone calls per week asking how people will manage an elderly parent who must go into full-time care. In Cork places for the care of the elderly are so limited that they are like gold. It has driven people to lengths to which they thought they would never go. A geriatrician, who sat on the board which produced the Hanly report, told people that they are in need of full-time care and attention, that they must not go home from hospital and that they must go into residential care but as they walk out the door of the hospital, they are given the forms for subvention for private nursing home care. Surely, this is a disadvantaged group. In future very few of us will be able to afford to pay fully for the type of care we need if we suffer dementia, Parkinson's disease etc., which is why we pay taxes and yet this is what is happening.

The care of the elderly is a boom industry in Ireland. The legislation before us will result in nothing more than a slush fund. It has been introduced because the Government did not realise the scale of what was available to it and now it intends to also raid live policies. I think the Minister of State is wrong and should not proceed for the sake of politics.

Mr. Mulcahy

While not particularly welcoming the Bill, I welcome a second major piece of legislation dealing with dormant accounts funds. The only element of the previous speaker's speech with which I agree is that nobody anticipated the extent of funding that would become available as has happened with many recent financial issues. Nobody, not least the Department of Finance, has quite understood the extent of growth in the economy and the amount of money in financial institutions. For whatever reason I do not believe anybody fully understood the nature and sheer scale of funds that would become available from dormant accounts.

We should acknowledge that the dormant accounts structure is a dual structure. The primary purpose of dormant accounts legislation is to enable individuals or in the case of deceased people their estates to apply to financial institutions to reclaim their money, which has been lying dormant. To this extent nobody can deny that the original legislation has been extremely successful. The total amount of money reclaimed to date by people with dormant accounts is approximately €265 million, which represents an extraordinary benefit to those who have got their money back. An old provision existed whereby people with life assurance policies or pensions bought an annuity from the life assurance company and if the person died one year into their pension, the entire benefit of the pension was wiped away. A change was made in one of the Finance Acts to remedy this anomaly. I put this legislation into the same bracket. On the first strand of its activities it has been a great success.

I am sure the Minister of State agrees that the jury is still out as to whether the grant-in-aid that has been made to many worthwhile organisations through the various disbursements under the second strand, which is for want of a better phrase the charitable end, has been successful. I have never seen a comprehensive review assessing the effectiveness or otherwise of these moneys — perhaps it is still too early. I have the benefit of a very comprehensive list of the recent grant allocation of approximately €41 million made to 420 different organisations, which results in an average grant of approximately €100,000. The taxpayer is entitled to know whether the State has got value for money. While I do not say this in any critical sense and I believe there is scope within the Bill for this, among the most important work the Minister of State and his Department could do would be to evaluate as quickly as possible the effect of these grants in RAPID, CLÁR areas and other disadvantaged areas.

From reading the list my impression is that it has been a broad sweep and I am sure every county has been looked after. However, it seems to be somewhat of a scattergun approach. The moneys have been directed geographically and by social group. However, what is the broad policy thrust? Are we really trying to target youth groups, disabled groups and other forms of disadvantaged groups? Quite a disparity is apparent between the average capital amounts allocated to various counties. Carlow got an average of approximately €52,000, Kildare got €140,000 and Roscommon got an average of €91,000. Wicklow had only eight projects and got €1.286 million which gives an average of approximately €160,000. Dublin got an average of €101,000 for its projects and was nearest to the mean national average. No consistency is apparent in the average net grant which groups in any part of the country received. I would like to see more thought put into the matter. Should we give more grants that are smaller? Should we focus our attention on flagship projects? Should every county get just one, two or three major grants? I am not convinced that sufficient thinking has gone into the allocation rationale.

I am disappointed at the general tenor of all the Opposition speeches regarding the approach to the Bill. They seem to suggest we should continue with the existing process whereby the money is distributed by ADM, which is a sort of semi-State organisation, and politicians should have no say in the matter. I simply do not accept this argument. Under the Constitution, as politicians we are ultimately responsible for the disbursement of all moneys. The Minister is responsible to Members of this House for the disbursement of all moneys. Most grants are distributed by Departments, including the well-known example of sports capital grants. If a club wants to build a new clubhouse, it applies to the Department of Arts, Sport and Tourism. Rigorous criteria are applied and points are allocated for social disadvantage, contribution by the club, private fundraising, public access etc. Committees of experts examine all the applications to determine whether they meet the criteria and ultimately the Minister decides. The Minister is then answerable to this House for that decision. I challenge the Opposition to tell me why it should be otherwise. Where is the benefit in, if one likes, letting politicians off the hook? Where is the benefit in allowing an unelected body make all these decisions?

I do not agree with everything in the Bill. I ask the Minister of State, Deputy Noel Ahern, to consider some suggestions for its improvement. The Government engaged ADM Limited to process and evaluate applications for grants under the dormant accounts fund. I do not know whether ADM has contacted other politicians to ask their opinions on the 420 projects that have been approved. I have never received a letter or a telephone call from ADM, asking me for my opinion on the matter.

I was elected to Dublin City Council in 1985 and served for 17 years until I had to resign in 2002 after I was elected to this House. I have also served as a Senator and as Lord Mayor of Dublin. I know my constituency intimately. I have a good working relationship with almost every organisation in my constituency that will receive grant aid under this scheme. I was not consulted by ADM, however, and I presume that none of my fellow public representatives was either. Is it not evident that a local politician would be one of the best people to consult about the value of projects in a given constituency? Have politicians joined the class of untouchables to the extent that their opinion no longer counts?

I challenge bodies like ADM Limited to talk to local public representatives so that our genuine and democratic voices can be heard. When I contacted ADM Limited on one or two occasions, I found that its officials were courteous and provided as much information as they could. I never found that they were overly flaithiúlach with such information, however. As ADM's evaluation process was not particularly transparent, I was not in a position to evaluate its evaluation of the projects. One of the most important challenges the Minister of State and the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs faces is to review the success, or otherwise, of the grants allocated so far.

As a Deputy on the Government side of the House, I wish to state clearly that of the 420 projects funded under the dormant accounts disbursement system many should have been funded by the Exchequer through the departmental Vote system. Moneys from dormant accounts should not have been used in many cases, such as for youth facilities and bus services for disabled people. Funds to support such projects are required and properly payable under various departmental headings. Therefore, such funds should be made available through a departmental Vote.

I was under the impression that moneys from dormant accounts would be used to fill gaps in areas generally untouched by normal Government expenditure. That should be the case. When allocations are being decided on in the future, funds should be made available for exceptional matters, such as new and positive developments to support the weakest and poorest in society. I suspect the Minister of State might share my view that the Exchequer should have funded many of the projects essentially funded by ADM.

I understand the system will have two phases. The Dormant Accounts Fund Disbursements Board will prepare and submit to the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs its plan for the disbursement of the moneys acquired from dormant accounts. Having received the plan, the Department will decide, in accordance with a transparent set of criteria, whether various projects should be grant aided. I do not see any problems with such a logical system. Independent bodies should have set out a comprehensive policy framework. It would be good for democracy to ensure that the Government and the relevant Minister are responsible for making decisions about the spending of every euro. They should be accountable to this House for such decisions.

I am sure the Minister of State agrees that we are adopting a centralised approach to the distribution of these funds. After the Dormant Accounts Fund Disbursements Board has prepared a plan outlining its policy objectives and philosophy, perhaps we should give the funds to the local authorities, in the same proportion as they receive funds from the local government fund, to be distributed as they see fit. The area committees of the local authorities could be charged with dispersing the funds in accordance with the philosophy outlined by the disbursements board.

We have a tendency to over-centralise matters in this country. Given that local authority officials and politicians are responsible people who are in touch with their communities, there is a strong argument for allowing them to distribute the funds accruing from dormant accounts. Such people are closer to what is happening at local level than those at departmental level. They operate under strict ethical guidelines and are accountable to the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. We are too keen to adopt a centralised approach to the management of our affairs, by and large. Although Ministers meet deputations, etc., they cannot be expected to have an expert knowledge of every project in every corner of the country. Who has a better knowledge of such matters than county managers and regional officials working on the ground in local areas, or councillors who live and work in such areas?

There is a bad and dangerous tendency in society and in legislation to write politicians out of the picture. We no longer seem to have the right to be consulted or to sit on State boards. It has gone too far. If we do not restore politicians to the middle of the picture and make them accountable, there will be a decline in democracy and sovereignty. In such circumstances, supremacy will be retained by the unelected Government of Ireland — civil servants who are not accountable to the public, are rarely if ever fired and do not face election every five years.

Despite my criticism of certain aspects of our handling of this matter, I welcome the Bill before the House as a fresh approach to the distribution of a fund that is much larger than we initially thought possible. I hope the Minister of State will consider my comments on the Bill as it progresses, for example on Committee Stage.

Mr. Deenihan

I am glad to have an opportunity to speak on this Bill. As someone who is involved in at least ten voluntary organisations, I am aware of the value of the funds available from various sources for voluntary and community initiatives throughout the country, particularly in north Kerry.

Deputy Mulcahy queried Opposition speakers' questioning of the integrity of Ministers' expenditure of public money. He should note that people mostly refer to the national lottery in this regard. There are many controls over everyday Government spending but the national lottery was certainly abused in many instances over the years. I recall a famous case in which a Minister not only announced a grant to a successful club but insisted that he be played into the town in question by a band while waving the cheque. This was the wrong way to do business. It created the wrong impression of how politicians handle public money and created the perception that they abuse the disbursement system for their own electoral gain. Unfortunately, this has happened to some extent regarding the disbursement of national lottery funds.

The present system is working quite well, by and large. There is a system whereby applicants can find out why their applications failed. For instance, they might not have provided the matching funding or targeted the marginalised or socially disadvantaged, or they might not have had proper plans in place or received planning permission. The present system is more transparent than the previous one although the Minister has some discretion and the Minister's county always seems to do better than other counties. As a fellow county man of the present Minister, I am not complaining that County Kerry is doing quite well at present.

When the former Minister for Finance, Mr. McCreevy, was setting up the structure pertaining to the dormant accounts fund, he emphasised that he was transferring responsibility from the hands of politicians to an independent board. His reasoning was that, irrespective of whether a politician's decision on funding is correct, questions are always asked when he or she has a say in how a grant is to be allocated and spent.

I do not want to dwell too much on this subject because the Bill is a now a fait accompli, but it must be noted that the impression of community groups and the Opposition is that the Government will use the dormant accounts fund in a similar way to the way in which the national lottery fund may have been used as a type of slush fund. Members on the Government benches would also hold this view if they were on this side of the House. I appeal to the Minister, for whom I have great admiration, to ensure he will administer the fund very fairly and that the Opposition will not be in a position to accuse him of the contrary and of being politically motivated in the disbursement of funds. To ensure transparency and obtain support from all sides of the House, perhaps the Minister will consider consulting Members on all sides of the House. Perhaps he could consult the Oireachtas committees for guidance, in respect of successful applicants, for example.

Deputy Mulcahy suggested that there might be a role for local authorities. He contradicted what he said at the outset regarding ministerial responsibility for money. However, he emphasised that there is too much centralised decision-making and that the local authorities would comprise the best instrument of State to administer the fund. I agree with him in this regard. The more local the decision-making process, the more effective the targeting of the money at the marginalised and socially deprived will be. Local authorities are generally not given enough responsibility for disbursing funds locally. The cake can be divided centrally but it may be more effective if local authorities are given a greater say in its division. Perhaps they could be consulted or asked for advice on particular projects in their areas if this did not lead to a bureaucratic quagmire in which the Minister would have to await replies regarding such projects and encounter other delays. They could have a very effective role in deciding how to disburse the money.

The fund, which will soon amount to €230 million, arises from unclaimed life assurance policies and dormant bank accounts. I am involved in an organisation, a local committee that had a bank account in the 1980s. A member of the organisation recently went to the relevant bank and asked about the account. The bank manager advised this member that the Government took the money for the dormant accounts fund. The secretary of the committee may have left the region or died. The community in which the organisation is located was not very big at the time and it should have been possible to consult locals to track down the secretary.

I do not know how many similar cases exist. How many holders of dormant accounts from which moneys were appropriated could have been traced? In some instances, families may have been involved. Was there a thorough check done in tracking the owners of dormant bank accounts across the country? Who was responsible for tracking? Was it the local bank manager or someone else? What efforts were made to ensure that there were no persons who could lay claim to the money?

Mr. N. Ahern

They should be able to get it back at any stage.

Mr. Deenihan

They could. It is no harm to circulate that message, but if the fund is spent in two or three years how can the account holders be given back their money?

Mr. N. Ahern

There is a reserve.

Mr. Deenihan

There is a reserve.

I refer to this Bill as it now stands, bearing in mind that it has been changed, and I do not want to indulge in any criticism apart from clarifying a few matters raised by Deputy Mulcahy.

I have been speaking about the general disbursement of funds and the Minister of State has been very open in this regard. If I had one criticism about how the fund was distributed, it would be that it was very restrictive. It was targeted at CLÁR and RAPID areas in particular. There was a clause under which there was provision for education outside those areas. There are deprived areas in all areas of the country and there could be a very deprived estate or community in an area that is not in a RAPID or CLÁR area.

When the CLÁR areas were being established, I made a very strong point to the Minister that he should not use as a guide the data on population decline since 1920 — I believe that was the deadline — but those on population decline in the past 20 or 30 years. The places most affected by population decline in the past 20 or 30 years are being hit hardest. Certain areas not attached to an existing CLÁR area were excluded because they were islands. They meet all the criteria, including population decline and low family income. I hope that under the new set of guidelines and conditions the Minister of State will have more flexibility to consider areas outside those that are targeted. They could then get their fair share of the funds.

Someone made the point that the funds should go back into the communities from whence they came. Communities in Dublin would do very well by virtue of the population size. I read in a newspaper someone making the case that money from a local bank should go to the community where it originated. The Minister of State might refer to that in his reply. I can see he is shaking his head because he does not agree with this.

Mr. N. Ahern

Kerry would do very well.

Mr. Deenihan

That may be why I am saying this, but I do not know how much came from the dormant accounts in Kerry. The case was made that people who collected this money, through business or whatever, did so in the local community, so it should return there.

The Minister of State published the report of the Joint Committee on Arts, Sport, Tourism, Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs, entitled Volunteers and Volunteering in Ireland. There are many young people in the Visitors Gallery today who would appreciate the people who work with committees and youth clubs, and organise sport around the country. These people go to schools to help the pupils do physical education, art and music, free of charge in some instances.

They save the country a considerable amount of money. The sum mentioned as a saving from all those volunteers who look after young people in youth clubs, and football and basketball teams, boy scouts and so on, is €485 million a year in wage bills. To replace an estimated 475,000 volunteers working for charitable organisations would cost the Exchequer a minimum of €205 million and could cost up to €485 million every year. That was a finding of the valid and credible report commissioned by the committee from DKM economic consultants.

To draw up this report the committee held oral hearings and received written submissions from approximately 21 top voluntary organisations in the country. We also referred to the white paper on a framework for supporting voluntary activity and for developing the relationship between the State and the community and voluntary sector, and Tipping the Balance, another major report on volunteerism. We did not want to reinvent the work of those reports so we studied the economic aspect of volunteerism.

The main recommendation in the report is:

The Dormant Accounts Fund should be targeted primarily at funding voluntary organisations, subject to the Board's dispersal criteria.

The ring-fencing of some CAB funds which are now coming on stream should be investigated (particularly for projects related to communities affected by the abuse of drugs and by organised crime).

Will the funds from the Criminal Assets Bureau come under the umbrella of this fund?

Mr. N. Ahern

No.

Mr. Deenihan

The Minister of State might clarify that because they should. All funds should fall under the remit of his Department for dispersal to voluntary groups. The problem for organisations is that there are so many sources of funding. I know the Minister of State intends to streamline that, which would be very helpful because some people do not know where to go for funding. If it was all under the umbrella of one Department they could contact it directly and be directed to the correct section.

Another recommendation in the report is:

Ad hoc and multi-agency funding make it difficult for organisations to plan ahead. All funding for voluntary organisations and volunteering should in future be channelled exclusively through the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs. This would improve efficiency and transparency. Funding commitments should be entered into over a number of years. In this way the monitoring of State expenditure would also be facilitated.

That is a very strong recommendation I hope the Government will take on board.

In the new regime there should be more flexibility in the guidelines and conditions for communities in a position to apply for the funding. Voluntary community groups are frustrated at not being able to apply for the funding because the guidelines are too restrictive. They provide services to their communities similar to those provided by groups in CLÁR or RAPID areas but without funding. Those in wealthy communities can get more support but groups outside those communities do not qualify for funding or find it difficult to apply for it, unless they have an educational programme for disadvantaged groups. I hope that situation will improve.

I hope this legislation will provide an opportunity for more groups to apply for the fund and it does not become a political slush fund for the election in two years' time. I hope too that it will not be abused and that Ministers and Government Deputies around the country will not use it as a way to get votes by promising grants from this fund to communities. I can imagine Deputies doing that with regard to a school or a road as a Government Deputy has a direct line to the Minister who will make the decision on it, but that is a different matter. The national lottery funds come from the people who play the national lottery. This fund comes from people who did not draw down the money and left it in banks for various reasons, and from unclaimed life assurance policies. It is important that these funds are not abused. The Minister of State is fair-minded and I appeal to him to ensure the fund will not be abused and that everybody will benefit from the change he is introducing.

Dr. Cowley

I am pleased to speak on the Dormant Accounts (Amendment) Bill 2004. The Bill seeks to provide for the disbursement of these funds in a more focused and effective way for the purposes of tackling disadvantage. I sincerely hope it will do so. The idea of raising money from dormant accounts resulted from the Committee of Public Accounts inquiry into deposit interest retention tax. Everyone was pleased that the money would be used to alleviate economic, social, educational or physical disadvantage in the community. This is something the Government and the Opposition, when it gets into power, will strive to achieve. However, the difficulty is the finite budget. If there is another fund which can be used to conquer social and economic disadvantage, so be it. The fortunes were good. The Committee of Public Accounts made its recommendation and money from dormant accounts in banks, building societies and post offices was transferred to the dormant accounts fund managed by the National Treasury Management Agency. The idea was that people could claim back their money at any time. Therefore, provision had to be made for this.

The fund has worked very well. An opportunity was provided for charities to make a claim and I understand that a minimum of 100 charities made applications. Some €30 million was distributed in one year from March 2004. Some €60 million was taken from bank accounts which were lying dormant for more than 15 years. The funding was distributed to many good causes, including community centres, youth clubs, playgrounds, pre-school services and so on. Half the total funds were earmarked for the Government's RAPID and CLÁR programmes and drugs task forces. The former Minister for Finance and Deputy, Charlie McCreevy, made this decision in 2000 and people had until March 2003 to claim the money in these old accounts.

The fund amounted to €172 million in January 2004, which is a great deal of money. In 2003, €196 million was transferred to the fund, of which €24 million had already been reclaimed by the original account holders. The idea was that people would apply for funding to Area Development Management Limited, which would assess the applications and make recommendations to the board. If the recommendations were accepted, it would negotiate with the charities on how best to spend the money. Responsibility for this lies with the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs.

This scheme has worked well and the Government should be congratulated on setting it up. However, there should be more emphasis on older people in the disbursement of this funding. While I recognise that money has been disbursed to older people's causes, emigrants also need to be remembered. I have a vested interest in this regard because St. Brendan's Village, Mulranny, made an application for funding, which was successful. The money will be used to continue the work which is being done to support older people and carers in the community. We are trying to make things better for older people. Safe Home, the national repatriation centre, is also located in St. Brendan's Village. This provides accommodation for more than 400 people throughout Ireland. An outreach service is provided to the general community which supports older people.

This fund, which is geared towards social and charitable purposes, has been a success. It is geared towards those who work with the poorest in society, those who are socially and economically disadvantaged and people with disabilities. Approximately half the total funds are earmarked for the RAPID and CLÁR programmes and drugs task forces. This was an excellent decision given that these are the areas of greatest advantage. Whether one is disadvantaged does not just depend on where one lives, and I know the board takes this into account. The dormant accounts fund has distributed €30 million since March 2003. Last January's tranche covered 102 projects, ranging from payouts of €300,000 to €880,000. This is a great deal of money out of a €60 million fund from bank accounts that have been lying idle for more than 15 years.

The idea of funding social, charitable and economic activities from dormant accounts is an excellent thing to do. Some time ago, Deputy Keaveney suggested that Criminal Assets Bureau funds could be used to help areas affected by crime. This would be a good way to support voluntary effort. The previous speaker referred to the value of supporting voluntary effort. Given finite Government funds, voluntary effort does not receive the support it deserves. Having worked with the national federation of group water schemes, I am very aware of the voluntary effort provided. The amount of voluntary effort necessary to set up all these group water schemes and keep them going with very little support is a great credit to communities. That these water schemes are still being run on a voluntary basis speaks volumes about the commitment of people in local communities.

There is great potential in this which the Government should not forget. The Government would not be able to run these schemes from a financial point of view. Voluntary effort allows older and disabled people and so on to be supported in their communities. While there is an emphasis on supporting the private sector by providing tax breaks to people to provide facilities for older people, there should be more emphasis on empowering communities to provide these facilities. Much lip-service is paid to community care and supporting people in their communities. If people cannot be supported in their homes, they should certainly be supported in their communities. There is great potential through the voluntary housing association to provide the necessary facilities such as sheltered housing facilities. However, this depends on funding, and funds are always finite.

There should be an emphasis on breaking down the barriers that prevent communities from providing a full package of support and care to older people. Capital funding is available under the capital assistance scheme for low support housing, but the defined revenue funding stream does not exist to allow older people to be supported by staff who could be employed by voluntary housing associations. Funding is not available for community groups, housing associations and so on who would wish to provide a greater degree of support for older people in their community in high support facilities. These barriers should be examined.

The idea of supporting volunteers through the dormant accounts fund is a good way of dealing with this issue. It makes sense because supporting volunteers is value for money. If that effort did not continue, the Government could never replace it. This effort will not be appreciated until it is lost. The number of people volunteering is decreasing all the time. It is opportune for the Government to examine this area and provide the necessary support to volunteers to ensure the numbers volunteering do not fall and that more people are encouraged to volunteer.

Programmes for the training of volunteers allow young people to engage in training to be of assistance to their community. Such work helps young people to stay out of trouble and to foster the ethic of helping and supporting one's neighbour, which they would have learnt from their peers and parents. Those engaged in voluntary work in the community show good example and the fewer people engaged in it, the fewer examples there are of such good work. It is extremely important that young people are supported in the community.

The dormant accounts fund has contributed to such support. The fund has contributed to projects in west Tallaght on horse care. Such innovative programmes are of great benefit to communities and to young people.

Other countries such as Germany have used dormant account funds in this way. However, people look to Ireland and what the Government has done in this respect. It is calculated that the UK would have at least ten times more deposits in dormant accounts than Ireland. Such funds present a great opportunity. Perhaps it is timely to suggest that the UK Government should do more to support older people, particularly older Irish emigrants, many of whom are in poor circumstances and have had little support from the UK Government. They have received good support from the Irish Government in recent years through the DION committee which has done great work in supporting our older Irish emigrants. While what the task force outlined was very much a blueprint for what needs to be done, the funds provided by the Irish Government have not been sufficient to meet what that task force clearly outlined. The UK Government also has a responsibility in this area.

Those emigrants did a great deal for this country. They sent home remittances, which is well documented, amounting to more than we ever got from EU Structural Funds. Those remittances constituted a fund that was available to this country to support entire communities along the west coast in particular when we had no other money. They kept entire communities alive and the lights burning over those dark years when we had no other help. Not alone did those emigrants support this country, they also supported the UK. They helped build cities and towns in the UK, they ran farms and factories, built roads and bridges and so on. Many of the men who built Britain are now living in difficult circumstances in the UK and the UK Government has a responsibility to support them. In light of the introduction in the UK of a scheme similar to the dormant accounts fund, the UK Government should not forget those Irish people. In the case of the Irish Government, this fund will be a source of funding to help Irish people at home and abroad. It is important that the UK Government meets its responsibilities in this area which, to date, it has not.

A major proportion of the moneys in dormant accounts were deposited by members of our elderly population. Much of the money that is available to the State is the hard earned savings of an older generation who contributed to this State at home and from abroad, many of whom are no longer with us. Life was not easy for them and this State had nothing to offer them. Those who went to England were economic migrants. They had to leave this country and by so doing we did not have to look after them. We have the lowest pension bill in Europe because many of our people emigrated when we had nothing for them. We owe them a moral debt.

A considerable proportion of the money in dormant accounts belonged to those people who worked hard to eke out an existence and to put money aside, whether on deposit at home or abroad, for the rainy day. They never forgot this country in all the time they were away. They lodged their small savings in credit unions and banks in towns and cities throughout Ireland. Those deposits are what constitute many dormant accounts. It is only fair that this money would be used in so far as possible to support our older people in particular. Such use of this money would serve as an apt remembrance of our older people who helped build this State and the UK.

Any source of funding available for this fund, whether from dormant accounts, life assurance policies or the proceeds of the Criminal Assets Bureau, would be welcome. The moneys in the fund are being used in the right way.

In regard to the Health (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill, I know of people who had money illegally taken from them by the State and such moneys must be repaid to those people. However, if it is not possible to trace such people or their relatives, I can think of no place more appropriate for such money than this fund. I am not saying that those people should not have such money returned to them or to their relatives, but where it is not possible to trace them, this is a critical fund for such moneys.

There are many uses to which available money could be put. The application of this fund is a good example of what can be done if money was available to do the things that really matter. For instance, it could be used to provide people with disabilities with the services they need and to give them a right to that service rather than their being dependent on what is provided in the budget. The difficulty with the Disability Bill is that it is so tied to budgetary provisions that, while many people will be assessed, thousands will not get the service they need. If there was an unlimited fund available, that would make all the difference.

Hundreds of thousands of children are living in homes where the income is considered to be below the poverty line. They are living in relative poverty below what is considered to be a minimum income required of €175 per week. These people are on the breadline and do not have enough food, warmth or even a second pair of shoes. We hear about those people at budget time. We are aware of the work done by the Society of St. Vincent de Paul in this area. Such deprivation exists and if money was available to address that problem it would change our society.

This Bill is appropriate. I hope it continues to address the serious needs that exist in society.

Mr. Perry

I wish to share time with Deputy Sargent.

Acting Chairman (Mr. Costello)

That is agreed.

Mr. Perry

This Bill is unnecessary in that it is proposed that the Dormant Accounts Fund Disbursements Board shall be dissolved on the establishment day. That is regrettable because the fund has been used to do excellent work. To date, its use has been effective. The dormant accounts fund board makes all the decisions on where the money is allocated and those decisions are passively, so to speak, signed off by the Minster, Deputy Ó Cuív. Under the new legislation, the Government will take such decisions collectively and then the Minister will approve them. I cannot see how this will operate effectively. Every Minister will arrive with pet projects in the hope of securing collective approval. It will lead to tensions and is unlikely to be as efficient as the present system.

The current system is effective. After the establishment by the Committee of Public Accounts, the person who was the chairperson of the board the previous day must give evidence to the committee on any matter related to the functions of the board that arose during his term of office. The Comptroller and Auditor General is also required to carry out a detailed audit of the procedures of the board.

I am critical of banks because they made little or no effort in the past to make people aware of the huge amounts held in deposit accounts. It was only following the DIRT inquiry that it became evident that the banks held substantial amounts, a fact that had to be dragged out of them.

Equally, I am concerned about bank drafts that have not been cashed. The Government should look at this area because millions of euro in uncashed bank drafts that have expired are being held in deposit accounts. I raised this with IFSRA but did not receive a satisfactory answer. A person might have bought a bank draft ten years ago but did not cash it and it has since expired. The banks have been less than forthright on this matter and the Minister of State should pursue this. Millions of euro remain on deposit because next of kin were not notified when the person got ill or died. IFSRA and the Government should ask what has happened to uncashed bank drafts for the past ten years.

It is important that this fund be efficient and effective. The former Minister for Finance stated that the board should be independent so I am astonished that it is necessary to introduce legislation to alter something that worked. It was argued that it would be more efficient but looking at the track record of financial institutions to date that is not necessarily the case.

I am disappointed that the fund is not ring-fenced. Each county should receive allocations in proportion to the amount it contributed. It might be difficult but the banks failed in their duty to make people aware. They did not undertake local campaigns in the past ten years to inform people of bank accounts. The information was concealed in the same way the banks facilitated and accommodated off-shore accounts and they got away very lightly with that while their clients had to pay quadruple the penalties to the Revenue Commissioners.

The Taoiseach opened the National Field Study Centre at Castlebaldwin prior to the last election but it closed again a few hours after his departure and has remained closed since. Funding for the centre from the county enterprise board, the European Fund for Peace and Reconciliation and the State amounted to €1.5 million. It is a major scandal —€1.5 million of taxpayers' money was invested. The Minister of State will see this fantastic location when he comes to Sligo, beside the Carrowkeel megalithic tombs. It was intended that a field study would be opened up in the centre but the contract fell. Then it was agreed that the National Parks and Wildlife Service would be decentralised to it. That has almost been achieved but funding from the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs is still pending. This centre is in excess of 12,000 square feet. It is fabulous, but it is a terrible waste that the centre cannot be opened because a creditor is owed money.

Everyone is prepared to agree a settlement but the Minister has dragged his feet on this. I met the Minister in the past two and a half years, he made promises, failed to deliver and the centre is still closed. The dormant accounts fund, however, offers an opportunity to rectify the situation. All that is needed from the State to open the centre is €200,000. If the Minister of State could bear this case in mind when considering cases worthy of support, it will create employment, €1.5 million has already been spent and the National Parks and Wildlife Service has agreed to open a regional office in the area.

The concept behind the dormant accounts fund is worthwhile but its independence and transparency are equally important so that it cannot be used as a political instrument. The Committee of Public Accounts must ensure the established criteria for drawing down funds are followed and that the fund will be independently audited. Over the years, Ministers have exploited the national lottery. Looking at the funding and its disbursement, it has been predominantly in the location of the line Minister of the time.

We are fortunate that the voluntary sector is so effective. It is important to tap into the commitment and time given by people who work in partnership with communities to deliver an effective service. The dormant accounts fund is the fruit of the toils of many people. For unknown reasons the existence of that fund was concealed by the financial institutions for many years. That is regrettable. However, it is important that the money is now spent where it originated. One project that clearly merits consideration at the moment is the National Field Study Centre at Castlebaldwin. That centre must be opened. I call on the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs, Deputy Ó Cuív, to allocate the necessary €200,000 to allow the centre to be opened.

Mr. Sargent

Gabhaim buíochas leis an Teachta Perry as ucht a chuid ama a roinnt liom. Ba mhaith liom tagairt a dhéanamh don méid a dúirt an tAire Stáit, an Teachta Noel Ahern, nuair a bhí sé ag oscailt na díospóireachta seo.

The intent of this Bill cannot be argued with given the objectives outlined by the Minister. He spoke about the importance of using the unclaimed money in financial institutions to tackle disadvantage and exclusion in society and to assist the less well-off. That is a very laudable aim. The Minister also stated that the value of the fund is approximately €200 million and that some would be kept in prudent reserve in case of claims for repayment.

However, it is clear that the Government has succumbed to temptation. There is talk about the principle of ensuring that decisions on the fund are informed by what is in the public interest and that they are accessible to public application and fully subject to public scrutiny. Then, unfortunately, the mask slips. There is talk about channelling the funds through the Votes of relevant Departments. The fact that the fund comes from dormant accounts is lost in the presentation of it as coming from the largesse of the Government. This happened regarding the national lottery, which is often presented as Government largesse rather than funding that has come from a public specifically motivated not merely to win a prize but also to help community projects. The Minister is to be responsible for the appointment of board members. There is a political dimension to that. The programmes are to be subject to Government approval on a list of programmes recommended for funding.

The intent of the Bill is laudable but its delivery is clouded in political judgment. I imagine the public relations department of each Department will be fully employed in getting the most political benefit from how that money is spent. To that extent this legislation puts the cart before the horse. How money is dispensed on what could be called a charitable basis is something which has exercised the minds of people in this House and many outside it for many decades. I will not go into the creation of tribunals which are not directly linked to this Bill, but they may indicate a certain mindset which has caused problems in the past and may still cause problems.

The 1990 Costello report was supposedly the light at the end of the tunnel. Regulation of charitable giving and charitable organisations was to be put on a proper footing. The committee on fund-raising activities received many submissions and met many people, including former Senator, Des Hanafin, the father of the Minister for Education and Science, who at the time was heading Taca, an organisation that benefited Fianna Fáil. The origins, the modus operandi, the checks and balances in regard to all charities need to be examined and put on a proper footing. Whether Taca could be called a charity is debatable. It shows the level of uncertainty that surrounds the charity sector. In 1996 the Burton report pointed towards the need for legislation that would regulate charities and charitable giving. Now we are debating the dormant accounts fund, another €200 million to be given to various charities and other good causes, yet we still do not have the legislation that was demanded as far back as 1990 and which is promised in this House every year but which, it seems, is always to be delivered at some time in the future.

I hope we can return to dealing with core issue, the proper regulation of charities and charitable giving, so that it will not be tainted by a cynical political use of that money. I hope Fianna Fáil will deliver on that long held out promise to regulate the charities sector. I bet that during Fianna Fáil's time in Government, we will never see a proper reform of the law on charities. I hope to lose the bet. However, it is a reasonably safe bet at the moment given the length of time reform of laws on charities has been promised. I am not too sure the issue is discussed often at the Galway Races at Ballybrit. I am not even sure whether St. Luke's, the Taoiseach's base, would be regarded as a community-based charity. It would be interesting to see what its designation is. We know it is funded by philanthropic and quite discrete elements in the business community. All these need to be clearly designated and it needs to be clear what regulations cover that type of charitable giving.

It would be interesting to have the minutes of Taca meetings given to the National Archives.

Mr. Howlin

I would say no minutes were taken there.

Mr. Sargent

That itself would be interesting. We might learn something about the official Fianna Fáil view at the time regarding what constituted charitable work and charitable giving. At the moment we are discussing how to dispense money, but we do not have the regulations in place. I hope we can put the horse back in front of the cart and put legislation in place. The expected publication of the charities regulation Bill, about which I have asked repeatedly in this House, is 2005. Its purpose is to regulate charities to ensure accountability and to protect against abuse of charitable status and fraud. It could be nick-named the mañana Bill because it has been going from year to year. There is no basis for believing that it will be published in 2005 even though that date is stated in black and white.

Mr. Connolly

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this Bill, although I will have great difficulty in supporting it. It is a retrograde step to remove an independent board and place its duties in the hands of a Department. That sends out the wrong signal and will leave the Government open to the charge of political favouritism, particularly when grants are given in Ministers' areas. We have only to look at where grants were given in the past. It may be a coincidence that, perhaps, a better quality application has come from counties Kildare, Kerry or Cork, which seem to get more than their punching weight and do well when it comes to the disbursement of particular funds and grant aid.

I welcome the fact that the Government has tried to retrieve this money and to tackle the issue of the funds that had been lying in bank accounts and insurance companies. I suspect more money is hidden in people's homes and caches, effectively the savings of old people. The decision to retrieve that money and disburse it to worthy causes is admired. Another issue that is popular is that the Government is taking this money from the banks and ultimately it benefits people. Most people feel it is acceptable for the Government to take the money from banks. In other parts of the island there have been similar efforts in terms of people relieving banks of their moneys and we will hold judgment on how that benefits communities. That, however, is a different operation.

In the past I would have been critical of the disbursements board for particular reasons. One can be critical of a board and how it disburses its fund, but at times I wondered whether there was political patronage involved. At no stage did I suggest we should get rid of the disbursements board. The reason I was critical was that my constituency of Cavan-Monaghan fared particularly badly. In October 2004 there was a grant disbursement of €17.2 million and Cavan and Monaghan were the only two counties that did not receive funds. That sent out a bad message to us, given that a minimum of 52% was meant to be targeted at areas in RAPID, drugs task force and CLÁR areas. It was also meant to benefit those who were socially, economically and educationally disadvantaged and persons with a disability. I have no doubt that under each of those headings our constituency met all those criteria. I was extremely disappointed given that Cavan and Monaghan belong to the BMW region.

Since then, I acknowledge that a reasonably substantial grant was divided between the two counties, in the communities of Ballybay and Cootehill. That is welcome and will do much for those areas. Between them, counties Cavan and Monaghan had 15 applications, seven from Cavan and eight from Monaghan, all of which were worthy projects. These counties in disadvantaged areas appear to be at the bottom of the list when it comes to disbursement. I hope that the new group will look at this issue given that the disbursement fund accrued from areas throughout the country.

I have no doubt that an equal amount, if not more, per capita is to be found in the Border areas. I suggest that the disbursements board look at dormant accounts in Northern Ireland. Will the Government make an effort to ascertain whether there are such funds in banks and post offices there belonging to people from the South? It has nothing to do with dodging taxes, but for many people in counties Donegal, Leitrim, Cavan, Monaghan and Louth, the nearest town may have been in the North where they would have done their banking. I have no doubt there are similar difficulties in those areas.

The original concept of the Dormant Accounts Fund Disbursements Board was that it was independent, transparent, impartial and accountable. The intention of the former Minister for Finance, now European Commissioner, Mr. McCreevy, was that no hint of favouritism would attach to the allocation of grants from the fund. Given that more than 50% of that fund goes to the greater Dublin area one has to ask questions, particularly since it was meant to be targeted at CLÁR and disadvantaged areas. How disadvantaged is the greater Dublin area? The view of the then Minister that the dormant accounts funding should be distributed independently of Government was right. Why did the Government decide to change that?

The board of trustees was to distribute the funds in accordance with guidelines and it was to be free from interference by the Government. In other words, canvassing would disqualify in the truest sense of the word and there was to be no possibility of the dormant accounts fund becoming a slush fund for any Government or party. Applications were to be evaluated by Area Development Management Limited, ADM, prior to board approval and drawdown of grants approved, subject to a legal contract agreement with ADM on the board's behalf. More than three years later the Government described the independent disbursements board as not the best one to make these decisions.

Is the Government admitting that those on the board wasted millions of euro? Has it evidence that the board members are not suitable to be on the board? How on earth could it have reached the conclusion which casts aspersions on the integrity and probity of board members? Dormant accounts funds have already been disbursed to community groups across the country which fall into the categories outlined.

The independent disbursements board was established to ensure that dormant accounts funds would be targeted specifically at the disabled, marginalised and socially and economically disadvantaged in our society. Instead it appears from the Government's requisitioning of the allocation of funds that the funds will become the plaything of Ministers, who will dispense them to maximise political advantage.

When the idea of a national lottery was conceived in the 1970s by Joe Connolly, community games president, he did not envisage it as a catch-all benevolent fund to be allocated at the grace and favour of the Government of the day. Joe Connolly originally envisaged the national lottery as an exclusive sports fund to finance sporting and recreational facilities in Ireland. There is no doubt that had the national lottery stuck to its original agenda in the past 18 years, Ireland's haul of medals from the Olympic and European games would have been correspondingly larger. However, the green-eyed monster took over and the lottery funds became another example of a political slush fund to secure political advantage.

I expressed the fear in March 2004 that the scrapping of the independent disbursements board would have the effect of transferring the dormant accounts to the direct control of Ministers. The temptation will always be there irrespective of which party or parties are in Government to use this fund for their pet projects in the various constituencies with the aim of mopping up the last vote. Irrespective of which party is in Government, there will be short-term gain for the Government, but in the long term it is better to leave the matter to an independent board. At a later stage when the Government is in opposition it will shout "political favouritism". The Government should look long and hard at this Bill.

The reasons advanced for the transfer of responsibility were somewhat less than convincing and amounted to a lame excuse. Surprise was expressed by the Government that the dormant accounts fund was in excess of €180 million. It cannot have been unaware of the substantial unclaimed funds that lay in the various financial institutions throughout the country. I find this hard to believe. The Revenue Commissioners and the various tribunals have been trawling bank accounts to investigate hot money and expose corruption. An audit of the dormant accounts in the various financial institutions does not amount to rocket science. The concept of a dormant accounts fund did not just come to the Minister in a vision. The amount currently lying unclaimed in dormant accounts and life assurance policies has been estimated at approximately €500 million and may be considerably higher.

The Government's expressed surprise at the extent of the sums in dormant accounts is a tacit admission that it had bitten off more than it could chew in the management of the fund. The national debt management board does not appear to have any difficulties and enjoys a fair amount of success in this responsibility. The outgoing disbursement board consists of nine members and the board will have 11 members when reconstituted. What is to prevent the Minister simply adding another two members to the existing board? I do not know why he cannot add the extra two and reach some form of compromise.

The assessment process is also to be drastically altered by the provisions of this Bill. The involvement of ADM Limited will also be terminated. Why is the involvement of ADM Limited being terminated? Has it done something wrong? Is it responsible for wasting millions of euro? I do not understand this. The board is a board of repute. It has good knowledge of what happens. Instead the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs will make this assessment and will call the shots as far as the assessment and approval of applications is concerned.

This is a far cry from the transparency and accountability the then Minister, Charlie McCreevy, envisaged when setting up the dormant accounts fund. In the past many Government functions such as judicial appointments and the allocation of State briefs have been taken out of the hands of the Government and allocated to independent bodies. This Bill is the very antithesis. Functions are being taken from an independent agency and handed over, virtually exclusively, to the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs. What qualifies the Department to consider cases involving persons with disabilities? Does it have specialists in the area of disability? Is the Department medically expert? Is the Department a "Jack of all trades" in that it can pronounce on matters and issues concerning the socially, economically and educationally disadvantaged? The Department must employ many experts and I would be interested to see their CVs.

It would be a retrograde step for the functions of an independent and impartial board such as the Dormant Accounts Disbursements Board to be so subsumed. I cannot in conscience support this legislation.

Mr. Howlin

I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak on this important Bill. To put it in an historical perspective, one of the first Bills I ever spoke on in these Houses was a dormant accounts Bill. At the time I was very impressed as I thought it a very novel way of having a sum of money that could be spent in difficult times. This was 20 years ago when money was much scarcer than it is now. The money could be spent on projects that would not in the normal manner of things be funded through Exchequer funding. I remember the careful analysis of that earlier Bill. It was weighed against the rights of account holders to ensure that money was not drawn into the public maw and might at some time be reactivated. Careful mechanisms were put in place to ensure that should a proper claimant arrive on the scene the money would be available to that individual or to the individual's estate. This has characterised how dormant accounts have been regarded.

It is important to realise that the money is windfall money. It is not taxpayers' money nor is it money that is taken from the citizens of Ireland and assigned to a particular purpose. It is money that falls the State's way for a very good reason, that it is better to have it for public and good use than to have it lie, unused, in financial institutions. In the past, financial institutions had benefited from holding moneys such as this over a protracted period of time.

I regard the concept as extremely good. However, it brings with it a particular responsibility to ensure that the money is not treated like normal money. It should not be put into the general public fund. It should not be seen as a supplement available to line Departments. This has been the manner in which the fund has been regarded in the past. This responsibility is doubly valid now at a time of relative plenty. It should be possible to provide from the pool of money available to the Exchequer from taxpayers. This is now quite an extensive amount of money because of the economic well-being of the country. We should be able to provide for all our normal needs. Therefore, this pool of money should be used to reach communities, activities and individuals who would not be reached in the normal course of events. This presents the House with particular responsibilities, in my judgment.

Many speakers have referred to the national lottery. People would regard the national lottery as itself a great success in that it has generated a great deal of money other than taxpayers' money for good causes. However, there is great concern over the transparency attached but nobody is suggesting that a shilling has gone astray. The direct ministerial involvement in some of the disbursements means that it is not as transparent as it should be.

I refer to one case of a Member, not from my party, but a Member with ministerial rank who arrived at a function with a cheque made out to a social group. The group was very surprised to receive a lotto allocation since it had not applied for one.

Mr. McGinley

We have all heard of that.

Mr. Howlin

This is not good practice. I am aware that Ministers are touring certain constituencies to meet social groups and sporting and cultural groups in particular, to hear supplications in respect of lotto grants that might become available but of course, disconnected to any possible political event that might be happening. This is not the way to deal with public moneys or moneys that are available for good use.

I wish to enter this caveat. I am not a believer in the view that politicians should not be involved in making important decisions about disbursement of moneys and that independent bodies are always superior to political ones. As a rule, I do not subscribe to that view. There are occasions when politicians must make decisions about appointments or about disbursements that can be stood up and defended in this House because they are elected and accountable. Politicians often put into place mechanisms for a more transparent regime that turn out to be much less transparent in reality because of cronyism and the old pals network. At least politicians have the virtue of being accountable in this House and ultimately to the public.

In the minutiae of disbursement of moneys, I believe the Government is wrong in its approach and that this legislation is unnecessary. The old maxim of, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" should certainly apply. It is less than four years since the Oireachtas enacted legislation providing for the establishment of an independent Dormant Accounts Fund Disbursements Board, for which a less difficult name could be suggested. The board was to have responsibility for payments from the dormant accounts fund to groups and organisations working primarily with disabled people but also in areas of economic, social or educational disadvantage. The board has not been operating for long and its plans have only really started to flow in recent years. Why are we changing tack, particularly given that, as many Members noted, the former Minister for Finance, Mr. McCreevy, predicated the legislation on the virtue that the board was independent and the disbursement of funds would not be tainted with the colour of politics? What has changed?

Why do we need to draw the dormant accounts fund into the maw of political disbursement? I have not heard a Deputy from the Government benches give a coherent reason for this decision. The only coherent reason is the scale of the money involved. It was all right when the fund was perceived as relatively small but the position changed when it emerged that we are talking big bucks which would have a major impact and, therefore, could colour political decisions and future voting intentions. The fund will amount to more than several hundred million euro over time, which is a significant sum.

In other times, the Government's brazen decision to dismantle an independent and robust regime supported by the House and much-vaunted and exalted when introduced four years ago by the same Government, albeit with one or two different Ministers, would have created a greater scandal. The principle of transparency, the linchpin of the original Act, has been made redundant without a coherent reason being given, apart from the one I posited, that is, that with big bucks available the Government cannot bear not to have the levers in its hands. It is a profoundly disappointing development which would have attracted much greater public focus and anger in other circumstances. The Government is blatantly attempting to undo a good system and replace it with one which constitutes a step backwards in the march towards more transparent administration, which all Members thought we were making in all walks of life.

The backdrop to this development is that we have moved forward in terms of ethics and electoral legislation, some of which has been good and some bad. The Freedom of Information Act, for example, is important legislation, even if it is difficult to live with on days such as this. It is part of the openness of our democracy to public scrutiny which is pivotal if we are to maintain public confidence in the way we do our business.

This legislation is one of the few steps backwards we have made in recent times. In most cases, we have made progress in trying to create greater transparency and build confidence, although I remind the House that some of the excellent work in the original Freedom of Information Act has been rolled back, which is a pity. This Bill is in the same genre and its introduction will be regretted by the political system because it is not the correct way to proceed. People want to have confidence in the manner in which Members do business in their name. This is particularly relevant in the context of disbursal of moneys, a fraught and difficult issue.

I am delighted the Minister of State, Deputy Killeen, will be present for the comments I am about to make. One of the primary purposes of the primary legislation was to ensure a focus on the disabled and areas of social, economic and educational disadvantage. The RAPID initiative was one of the instruments established in recent times to this end and was widely welcomed in the hope it would deliver infrastructure and support for disadvantaged communities.

The Government played up the RAPID programme in my town of Wexford, which has three RAPID areas, including two large areas, Maudlintown and Coolcotts. Community groups and the public were summoned to major meetings to analyse community need and identify what people wanted. This raised expectations that needs would be met rather than exclusively debated. However, instead of allocating money to the areas in question, all of which have a tremendous sense of community, an instruction was issued to re-label all normal expenditure in the communities concerned as RAPID expenditure. For example, if a local authority builds a community house, it is designated a RAPID initiative. The expectations of communities starved of resources and in need of community facilities have been dashed.

The result of this has been to create another layer of cynicism. Communities believe local government cannot deliver effectively and national Government is too remote and does not care. There has been no significant follow-through on an initiative which local community activists, voluntary groups, local authority members and officials expected to be delivered. The Minister of State will inform the House that billions of euro have been earmarked for the RAPID initiative but, as matters stand, the tax on the petrol one uses driving through a RAPID area will be classified as RAPID expenditure in the accounting systems of the Department.

I hope the genuine sense of disappointment can be undone, even at this late stage, and vulnerable communities with tremendous spirit are given the resources they need, including proper amenities and sports facilities. The new cry emanating from the health services and those interested in the health of the nation relates to the increase in obesity and diabetes among young people which has become a significant health issue for all communities. Exercise is critical in tackling both conditions, although diet and genetics also have a role in diabetes. Many communities have no sporting facilities, which links us to an issue in which the Minster of State is particularly well versed, namely, the need to identify causes. Young people have nothing to do and there is no community focus in terms of sports facilities that would absorb their natural energies. Such facilities must be established. Disadvantaged communities expect and hope to receive significant new resources but they have yet to be delivered.

Deputy Mulcahy posited the notion that local government should be the agent for disbursal. While this is not a bad idea, local authorities would be cynical because they were originally intended to receive part of the income of the national lottery. This great scheme involved local authorities vetting applications for lottery funding. In other words, they would inform applicants who did not qualify for funding that their applications had been rejected, while applications approved for funding would be submitted to the Minister who would announce the good news. It was a great system whereby local government would give the bad news and the Minister would give the good news. That type of system will not work in this instance.

Mr. N. Ahern

In what year did this take place?

Mr. Howlin

This was the practice of local government when I was a member of a local authority. Local authorities simply deemed all the applications valid and left it to the Minister to make decisions. It is important to engage local government, the members of which have a feeling for what is happening in their areas. This would be helpful in identifying particular and real needs.

The Minister already has in place the RAPID structure and analysis. If analysis and identification were enough, all these problems would be solved. Now is the time for delivery. We blind ourselves with figures and statistics but local communities believe there is no follow-through. All of us are tarnished with the paint of failure in this regard.

The funds in question are held in dormant accounts in financial institutions. In a week when AIB has posted the most significant profits of any publicly quoted company in the history of the State, it is essential to take a close look at the operation of banks and the banking system. We are all in favour of such institutions making profits but there must also be a sense of justice and balance. There has been a significant focus on banking accounts in terms of the DIRT inquiry and the ongoing investigations into money laundering. This has generated interest in how banking and money processing are carried on. We have a responsibility in this area because we attract much foreign investment through our financial services sector. Robust instruments must be in place to ensure the State operates its financial mechanisms in an extremely transparent way. We have now begun to put the necessary resources into play in this regard.

This country is blessed with a significant spirit of voluntarism as evidenced in the major army of people who give their time. Unfortunately, however, it is a diminishing crew because we are becoming more akin to the norm in other states where voluntary effort is not fully appreciated and is nothing compared with paid effort. I hope these moneys can be targeted for the benefit of those most in need, not with the taint of political patronage and the expectation of the bended knee of political payback but in an independent justice system that is based on the analysis of real needs and transparent delivery.

Mr. Costello

I agree with everything my colleague, Deputy Howlin, has said and with the views expressed by all speakers from the Opposition side of the House. Everybody is gobsmacked and flabbergasted by the blatant introduction of this Bill, the stated intention of which is to remove from an independent board the responsibility to disburse the windfall funds from dormant accounts and to put that power within the political patronage of the relevant Minister, in this case, the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs, Deputy Ó Cuív.

The Bill's purpose is blatantly stated in its Title:

An Act to amend the Dormant Accounts Acts 2001 and 2003 to provide for the establishment of a body to be known as the Dormant Accounts Board and to define its functions; to reform the processes by which decisions are made about disbursements, and moneys are disbursed, from the Dormant Accounts Fund; and to provide for the dissolution of the Dormant Accounts Fund Disbursements Board and for related matters.

The legislation abolishes the existing board and makes provisions and plans as to how the money will be allocated and spent within a straight political context.

The new board will consist of a chairman and ten members, all appointed by the Minister. It seems no independent nominating body could be trusted to make these appointments and no community organisation trusted to make a nomination. The function of the board is to present a plan to the Minister who may then amend it and must approve it. Moreover, the Minister may also determine the plan. Sections 42(4) and 42(7) essentially stipulate that the board may make a proposal to the Minister but it is the Minister alone who disposes in regard to the plan itself. This is before we even come to the process of disbursement.

The parameters of the programme, plan and projects, therefore, will be within the gift of the Minister. The legislation proposes an emasculated board which will be appointed by the Minister and tightly under his or her reign, and that the Minister may change the board's plan if he or she deems it unsatisfactory.

Mr. McGinley

What is the point in having a board? The Minister is effectively cutting out the middle man so he can make the decisions himself.

Mr. Costello

Deputy McGinley makes an interesting point. The purpose of the establishment of the new board is to give the appearance in the public arena of transparency. An emasculated board is to replace the independent board in a move designed to convey the pretence of an accountable structure. In reality, however, the only person who can adjudicate and disburse funds is the Minister. It is with the latter that all power will rest.

There is no doubt that Ministers must have functions of responsibility and leadership. However, it is not democratic that only the Minister can make funding allocations and that the associated board is akin to a man of straw whose purpose is to give the impression of some level of accountability. This is not the way to disburse funds. Notwithstanding that the funds in question are windfall funds, they are also citizens' funds, moneys that have been lying dormant in banks and other financial institutions and monetary schemes which have never been activated. They do not quite represent taxpayers' moneys but are nevertheless citizens' funds which should be disbursed in accordance with reasonable accountability and criteria.

Under the provisions of this Bill, the Minister of State, Deputy Noel Ahern, is setting up the parameters and structures for what can only be described for a slush fund. He should be ashamed to present such blatant and brazen legislation to the House. I have never seen a proposal of this nature. What makes it so blatant and brazen is its purpose of dissolving the independent machinery set up by the former Minister for Finance, Charlie McCreevy, to ensure there would be transparency and accountability in this matter. We are talking about hundreds of millions of euro which have lain dormant in financial institutions for a period. We are transferring moneys from an accountable body to an unaccountable creature of the Minister. Essentially, it is the Minister who will distribute these funds. Somewhere in the bowels of the Fianna Fáil organisation, a think tank is preparing for the next election. More than anything else, Fianna Fáil is keenly aware of how to get people elected by cleverly addressing local politics. Nothing beats a couple of slush funds in the run-up to an election. At the local elections several months ago, both Government parties, Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats, got a hammering. The Government sees that steps must now be taken to ensure it will not happen again. One way is to provide large sums of money for the relevant Minister to dispense in a carefully selected fashion to maximise electoral return for the Government.

The special savings incentive scheme, set in motion by the former Minister for Finance, Mr. McCreevy, is another element in this slush fund approach to be realised in 2006. While taxpayers have invested in the scheme, 25% of taxpayers' money to the Exchequer will still be paid out by the Government. This particular slush fund will come on stream just before the next general election. The good feeling of money coming from the Government is intended to bring about a desired electoral result. Deputy Howlin detailed the remarkable situation whereby local authorities had a certain role in the dispersal of funds from the national lottery through the sports capital programme. However, it was removed for the exclusive authority of the Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism. Several slush funds are now nicely in place to pour money in great waves at the people most likely to be needed to vote the right way in 2006, the year of the slush fund.

The Government is transferring power from an independent accountable body to a non-independent, powerless body under the Minister's control. Will the House be informed of any other reason why the dormant accounts fund must be handed over to the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs? I cannot think of any but I would be delighted if he could so I can retract all I have said on the matter.

All Members recall the run-up to the last general election when RAPID co-ordinators toured the length and the breadth of the country, assembling local communities in every parish hall. They requested communities to detail projects they wanted in their areas, to explain what facilities were necessary. It was said the RAPID programme would improve everything. Money was no problem since €2 billion was earmarked in the national development plan for the programme. Every community was told of the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. Finding the end of the rainbow turned out to be the problem. The money was never realised and when the 2002 election was over the promises were never delivered.

In today's published Estimates for public services, RAPID will receive €8.8 million for 2005 to cover both current and capital programmes. Last year, the figure was €3.3 million. The promise was of €2 billion but in reality it is €3.3 million. What a lie to perpetrate on every disadvantaged community.

This fits in perfectly with the argument that this Bill is another RAPID programme. However, in this case the money will be delivered as the slush fund exists. The RAPID programme was a promise that could not be met. Since it suffered at the local elections, the Government will not be caught out a second time with non-delivery. It sees slush fund delivery on a large scale as the answer.

It is scandalous. If the public only knew what was going on, there would be an outcry with calls for the resignation of the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs, Deputy Ó Cuív, and his Ministers of State, Deputies Noel Ahern and Batt O'Keeffe. The Oireachtas is brought into disrepute when legislation is introduced that no Member can defend. The Bill's provisions are similar to an all-powerful tinpot dictatorship giving handouts to the peasant, cap in hand, begging for the dispersal of funds. In this case, the all powerful coalition Government hands out the funds it thinks appropriate to the deserving poor in disadvantaged areas so that they will be grateful when the next general election comes around. The Oireachtas demeans itself by passing such legislation which lends to public cynicism as to what we do in the Houses. With a Bill of this nature, it is frustrating for Opposition Members because there is nothing we can do. We can speak out but it is like voices crying in the wilderness. The numbers are not there to prevent the Bill being passed. The purpose of the legislation is to ensure the numbers will still not be on this side of the House to amend this Bill in the future.

Communities are also suffering from this frustration. By serving on my local drugs task force, I know the national drugs strategy never got off the ground because of the lack of a sure source of funding to employ people on a regular basis to carry out the strategy's work. Funding was irregular and the local drugs task force did not know from year to year whether somebody who was employed would be employed the following year. It never knew whether a project for which it had applied for funding would be funded. Since I have been on the local drugs task force for the past number of years, no more than 50% of funding sought has been granted. Part of the reason was the matter was not taken seriously and there were cutbacks. Funding for the young people's facilities and services fund was severely cut back but there is now talk of funding coming on stream. I have no doubt it will come on stream and I do not expect anymore cutbacks between now and the general election in 2006 or 2007. If I went into Paddy Power's tomorrow, I could put €10 on that and be absolutely certain that would be the case.

The communities have been let down over the years. Funding has not been forthcoming, although commitments have been made. Community organisations which were there to help out and to liaise with State agencies did not get the support they needed. There is a degree of disappointment, frustration and cynicism. The Minister will now be able to turn on and off the tap in terms of the disbursement of these funds whenever he wishes. Much money from the dormant accounts fund is going to disadvantaged communities but it will now go to such communities exclusively at the behest, grace and patronage of the Minister.

Funding for community co-operatives, which were outside the House protesting the day before yesterday, is being cut off despite the good work they have been doing. These co-operatives are doing very useful community work. The Minister will be able to pick and choose. He will be able to say to such groups that they are not being supportive in the way he would like, that they are too independent, that they are making too many statements and that their publications are critical of the Government and that as a result, their grants will be cut off and the disbursement of funds for staff and projects will end. This Bill allows that to happen and that is the problem with it.

This is a bad day's work and we will vote against this legislation. I hope we will be in power after the next general election and that one of our first acts will be to dissolve this legislation which dissolves the 2001 and 2003 legislation and the independent structures in place so that they can be replaced by non-independent, non-transparent and patronage-style structures which undermine and usurp democracy.

Minister of State at the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs (Mr. N. Ahern)

I thank Members for their contributions in which some interesting points were made. I noted the views expressed. I do not think everyone who spoke read my Second Stage speech because I made it plain that the purpose of this legislation was to build on the progress made and to rectify deficiencies in the system. I noted the spin some were putting on this legislation. It is easy to talk about disappointment, cynicism and frustration but those talking about such things should ask if they are the cause of them and not this proposal from Government.

The dormant accounts have given us an opportunity to address many problems of educational disadvantage and social exclusion. That is the point on which we should concentrate. We all know the economy has done very well over the past ten years as have many people. However, not everyone has benefited and funds such as this give us the opportunity to concentrate on them and to try to do some good work. That was the thinking when the Government introduced the dormant accounts legislation four years ago and it remains the thinking, that is, to distribute the money to areas and groups most affected by disadvantage in society.

When the dormant accounts fund board submitted the disbursement plan to the Minister and the Department, the principal amendment made by the Minister and the Department was to ensure that a significant element of disbursements would specifically target the most disadvantaged areas. We laid down ground rules that a significant proportion of the money would have to be spent in RAPID, CLÁR and drugs task force areas. Obviously, that has resulted in complaints which I heard today and on the previous occasion. Some Members said their constituencies did not get enough. It is hard to design a system whereby everybody is happy. I could look at what a board, group or Minister might do and perhaps agree with 90% of it but say I would do 10% of it differently. Even today Members came at this from different points of view. Some said how wonderful the current system was but in the next breath, they complained that their constituency and the project in which they were interested did not get funding. It is hard to get everything right but it is important that the funding is clearly targeted at those most in need.

Concerns were expressed as to the extent to which the changes in the Bill will adversely affect the impact of spending from the fund. Deputies McGinley and O'Shea questioned the reasoning behind the legislation and made the charge that we were trying to form a slush fund, which I totally reject. Nothing could be further from the truth. In many respects, politics is a gas game. Charlie McCreevy has received many glowing tributes since he left but when he was here he was criticised, which we do to one another. It is extraordinary that a quote he made some years ago is now constantly used, although perhaps not in the sense he made it. It is extraordinary how we value and appreciate his comments now he has gone but when he was here he was slagged, which we do to one another.

I explained why the changes are being made. The size of the fund has influenced thinking. The structure set up for a fund of a particular size changes if that fund turns out to be much larger than originally envisaged. Deputy Deenihan spoke about re-activations. I think the financial institutions originally identified €420 million, which was whittled down. I am surprised the community group in his area was not contacted by the bank because when the financial institutions went through the old accounts, they contacted people. One of my country cousins was phoned by the bank advising of an account that had been dormant for 25 years even though it only contained a few hundred pounds. Efforts have been made and I was surprised to hear Deputy Deenihan speak of a person in a small community group not having been contacted. However, this can still be done and the account resurrected. A sum of €420 million was originally identified by the financial institutions, which was significantly reduced by the success of the financial institutions in tracking down the account holders.

The Government has a duty to ensure that the arrangements for disbursing such large amounts are robust and adhere to the best standards of corporate governance. Having reviewed the arrangements late in 2003, it became clear to Government that obvious deficiencies existed in the structures, which I outlined in my original contribution. These related in particular to accountability arrangements, an organisational structure for the board and linkage of spending from the fund with policy priorities of Government. Policy priorities of Government are important and are influenced by views expressed here, including those of the Opposition.

I do not know why we criticise ourselves and feel that anybody except us can do a perfect job whereas anything we do is somehow tainted. It most certainly is not. We all deal with communities and have considerable knowledge about influencing how Government policy should be directed. I agreed with a point Deputy Mulcahy made about ADM, which has been used by the board to administer and process the applications up to now and may continue to do so. Somebody mentioned that we had got rid of ADM. However, the Bill is neutral on the matter. We may or may not use ADM; that is a matter to be decided from time to time. Deputy Mulcahy referred to ADM contacting people and said it had never contacted him for his views on an application, which is an interesting point. I have heard of ADM contacting many other people to check on applications. He has a point in suggesting that ADM or such organisations should communicate with public representatives, be they Deputies, Senators or councillors, of all political persuasions. A cross-party check will yield a view as to whether a particular group is good or not so good. I do not know why we belittle and criticise our opinion and always feel everybody else's opinion is perfect and that we have nothing to add.

Under the new system the funding will be provided through the Votes of individual Departments and therefore the relevant Secretaries General will be accountable. It was a deficiency in the original Bill and most unfair to expect a part-time chairman who has given enormous time to the board or anyone in such a position to be accountable to the Committee of Public Accounts for enormous expenditure. If we allowed that to continue and a problem arose in two, four or five years' time, we would hear hollers from whoever happened to be in Opposition at that stage asking how a Government allowed such a structure to exist. This approach in the Bill ensures that the expertise, knowledge and capabilities within existing public bodies will be utilised in administering the funding programmes. In future decisions by Government will take place following a transparent decision-making process, which will ensure that spending from the fund will be co-ordinated with policy priorities identified by Government and debated in the House and at committees.

Deputies Keaveney and Deenihan spoke about the very good report on volunteering recently published by the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Arts, Sport, Tourism, Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs. The Department is examining the report and we hope to make an announcement in that regard in the near future. I agree with Deputy Deenihan that other funds should be added to this dormant accounts fund and he highlighted money taken in by the Criminal Assets Bureau. Some community groups spend half their time chasing Departments and Government agencies and looking through various programmes to try to source funds for their activities. The Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs was established principally to co-ordinate many of these schemes. I am glad to hear that the Opposition believes that it would be better from a State administration point of view as well as from the point of view of the groups trying to source funds to know that they only had to knock on one door. Having obtained their funding, the groups could spend 95% of their time using the money for the activities for which they were originally established.

The negativity of some of the speakers was incredible. One would wonder why people try so hard to be elected to this House. I used to have a sticker on a filing cabinet that claimed there were three types of people in the world: people who want to get things done; people who observe what is being done; and people who spend their time wondering what happened. Some people believe in making an input here in an effort to make things happen and improve the lot of the communities in their constituencies. Others just seem to want to complain and talk about what is wrong and are more content in getting on their soapboxes and complaining about what is wrong in their constituencies without wanting to do anything about it when they have the opportunity. I find that way of thinking to be rather strange. We should collectively have more confidence in ourselves and try to make a greater input into decisions like this.

The Bill provides for a two-stage process through which the Government will make decisions. The Minister will make an initial proposal to Government based on the board's disbursement plan outlining the programmes and types of projects for which applications will be sought. Applications received will be assessed against published criteria and then submitted to Government for final decision. A list of approved projects will be published, laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas and will be available for people to discuss. The key monitoring functions of the board are set out in the Bill, including that the board will review and assess the extent to which the objectives it sets out in the plan are being achieved. The board will also track Government decisions and make detailed reports which will be available to the Opposition and the public based on whether the allocations have been in accordance with the disbursement plan. The purpose of the Bill is to ensure that moneys are directed at the most disadvantaged groups and communities in the most efficient manner, using the expertise accumulated in Departments and agencies. That is what we are doing. We have to try to maximise our use of the fund, which is finite and will not last forever. We could have put in place an enormous structure to administer the fund, but there would have been no point in doing so because we would have been stuck with that structure when the fund dries up in a couple of years. It is obvious that we should use the knowledge and expertise available in Departments and agencies.

Deputies Lynch, Costello, Howlin and others spoke about the RAPID programme. It is extraordinary that Deputies have attempted to find some significance in the provision of €8 million under the Estimate of the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs. That money has been provided for relatively small items which were identified by local RAPID groups. The RAPID programme was developed to fast-track major infrastructural projects which are being developed by Departments and various agencies in disadvantaged areas. Deputy Costello claimed some minutes ago that the Government is claiming credit for assisting projects under the RAPID programme which would have happened anyway. It is easy to make such an allegation.

As part of my role as Minister of State at the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, I have visited housing projects in Deputy Costello's constituency and elsewhere. I refer to expensive remedial work and regeneration schemes, which have upgraded the standard of living of many people on both sides of the River Liffey. It is easy for Deputies to claim that such projects do not pertain to the RAPID programme and would have been developed in any event, but that is untrue. Various communities have proposed projects of all sizes under the RAPID programme. The small projects are being funded as well. I accept that the programme was slow to get out of the starting blocks when there was an economic downturn between 2002 and 2004. The ideas and plans which have been proposed are being implemented and are having a big effect.

Deputy Mulcahy and others spoke about the average amount that has been allocated to each constituency from the dormant accounts fund to date. He asked whether the fund should be used to support flagship projects or smaller projects. Applications of all sizes were made to the Dormant Accounts Fund Disbursements Board, which assessed them on the basis of the information supplied to it. For example, the board considered whether the applications were in accordance with its disbursement plan. Some Deputies who complained about the changes being made to the current system said that certain constituencies, such as Cavan-Monaghan, received very little. The board has not operated on the basis of geographical considerations. A politician might operate in such a manner, but I do not think such matters were considered by the board as they did not fall within its remit. There are different ways of doing it and it is hard to have it all right.

Many speakers spoke about the distribution of national lottery funds. I do not have the full details of the manner in which that money is distributed. There seems to be a general belief that all national lottery money is allocated to the sports capital programme, but that is most untrue. I am somewhat surprised to learn that various funds, programmes and projects under the Departments of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs and the Environment, Heritage and Local Government are funded by national lottery money. Although there is no political involvement in such projects, some people like to suggest that there is political involvement in the allocation of all lottery moneys. That is not the case. We are doing politics a huge disservice by talking like that.

I took note of the many points which were made, some of which were reiterated by other Deputies. The Government believes this Bill is essential. It builds on the previous legislation in this area. The wise changes being introduced will correct the faults in the original legislation. I listened carefully when the Bill was amended and passed by the Seanad. I look forward to considering it further on Committee Stage. If Members have good ideas for further improvements to the Bill, I will consider appropriate amendments to that effect. I thank Deputies for their contributions.

Question put.

The Dáil divided: Tá, 62; Níl, 35.

Tá

• Ahern, Dermot.
• Ahern, Michael.
• Ahern, Noel.
• Andrews, Barry.
• Ardagh, Seán.
• Brady, Martin.
• Brennan, Seamus.
• Browne, John.
• Callanan, Joe.
• Callely, Ivor.
• Carey, Pat.
• Carty, John.
• Cassidy, Donie.
• Collins, Michael.
• Coughlan, Mary.
• Cowen, Brian.
• Cregan, John.
• Curran, John.
• Davern, Noel.
• de Valera, Síle.
• Dempsey, Tony.
• Dennehy, John.
• Devins, Jimmy.
• Fahey, Frank.
• Finneran, Michael.
• Fleming, Seán.
• Haughey, Seán.
• Hoctor, Máire.
• Jacob, Joe.
• Keaveney, Cecilia.
• Kelleher, Billy.
• Kelly, Peter.
• Killeen, Tony.
• Kirk, Seamus.
• Lenihan, Brian.
• Lenihan, Conor.
• McEllistrim, Thomas.
• Martin, Micheál.
• Moloney, John.
• Moynihan, Michael.
• Mulcahy, Michael.
• Nolan, M. J.
• Ó Fearghaíl, Seán.
• O’Connor, Charlie.
• O’Donnell, Liz.
• O’Donoghue, John.
• O’Donovan, Denis.
• O’Flynn, Noel.
• O’Keeffe, Batt.
• O’Keeffe, Ned.
• O’Malley, Fiona.
• Parlon, Tom.
• Power, Seán.
• Roche, Dick.
• Sexton, Mae.
• Smith, Brendan.
• Smith, Michael.
• Treacy, Noel.
• Wallace, Dan.
• Wilkinson, Ollie.
• Woods, Michael.
• Wright, G. V.

Níl

• Boyle, Dan.
• Breen, Pat.
• Broughan, Thomas P.
• Connolly, Paudge.
• Costello, Joe.
• Cowley, Jerry.
• Crowe, Seán.
• Deenihan, Jimmy.
• Enright, Olwyn.
• Gilmore, Eamon.
• Gogarty, Paul.
• Gormley, John.
• Healy, Seamus.
• Hogan, Phil.
• Howlin, Brendan.
• Kehoe, Paul.
• Lynch, Kathleen.
• McCormack, Padraic.
• McGinley, Dinny.
• McGrath, Finian.
• McGrath, Paul.
• McHugh, Paddy.
• Mitchell, Olivia.
• Naughten, Denis.
• Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.
• O’Shea, Brian.
• Pattison, Seamus.
• Penrose, Willie.
• Perry, John.
• Ring, Michael.
• Ryan, Eamon.
• Shortall, Róisín.
• Stanton, David.
• Twomey, Liam.
• Upton, Mary.

Tellers: Tá, Deputies Browne and Kelleher; Níl, Deputies Kehoe and Broughan.

Question declared carried.