I welcome the opportunity to introduce this Bill to the House.
Dormant Accounts (Amendment) Bill 2004: Second Stage.
Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time".
On a point of order, would it be possible to interject at this stage? While I do not disrespect the good offices of the Minister of State, Deputy Ahern, who is very much in tune with community and voluntary needs, would it be possible to delay the debate in order to have present here the Minister, Deputy Ó Cuív?
The Senator will be aware that I am bound by the order of the House. As this item is proposed to be taken at 7 p.m., I have no choice but to call the Minister of State. The Senator's interjection is not a point of order.
The Minister also reneged on the last occasion he was supposed to be here. When this was pointed out to him he said he was out of the country. Is he out of the country tonight?
The Senator will be aware that any member of the Government can take the business.
On a point of order, would it be possible——
The Senator is not making a point of order.
Would it be possible to relay my request to the Minister, Deputy Ó Cuív because this is serious legislation?
The Senator can make the point in his Second Stage speech.
Is the Minister not available?
I wish to inform Senators that this issue comes under my area of responsibility within the Department.
The Minister of State does not spend the money.
I am not replacing the Minister because the issue comes under my area of responsibility. Modesty prevents me from saying much more.
The Minister of State is taking the flak.
I know everyone in the House welcomes the use of unclaimed moneys for the betterment of the less well off in our society. Such good work for the public good must continue, which is exactly the intention of the Bill. There is, of course, always more that could be done. In this context, the increase of €30 million in the amount the current board may spend on programmes and projects, as announced last week, is timely and significant. The Government's decision on the issue is in response to a request from the board for increased funding and informed by the fact that there were no approvals for funding made by the board last year. It was around Christmas time that it got up and running and made its first allocations.
They did not have sufficient staff.
The purpose of the dormant accounts fund, as set out in existing law, is to assist persons who are socially, economically or educationally disadvantaged, and persons with a disability. This will remain unchanged. There has been considerable public debate as to the purpose and impact of the Bill. There are compelling reasons, both in terms of governance and public policy, as to why legislation is necessary at this time.
Bad polls.
Members should be aware of the emerging scale of the fund, which currently stands at €222 million. The scale of such moneys, held in public trust, requires commensurate corporate governance arrangements to support and oversee disbursements.
There is a lack of confidence in the board.
The Minister of State without interruption.
However, there is currently no legal provision for a proper organisational structure for the board. The law essentially provides for an ad hoc arrangement for the secondment of staff from the Department. Having regard to the emerging scale of the fund, and the independence of the board, such an arrangement is not tenable. Under current arrangements, the chairperson of the board is accountable to the Committee of Public Accounts for the board’s decisions on the use of moneys from the dormant accounts fund. It is not appropriate to require a part-time chairperson to assume responsibility for disbursement decisions for a potential spend of €200 million, or possibly more in the future. Current arrangements are fundamentally deficient, both in terms of governance structures and organisational arrangements. Questions also arise from a public policy point of view. If we are serious about tackling severe disadvantage, the State must use all resources available to it for this purpose in a particularly focused and sustained approach. It is doubtful if current arrangements can secure optimal impact in this regard.
Given the issues outlined, it has been argued that a new organisation should be established to provide the board with a permanent administrative support structure. However, the facts argue against this. First, such an organisation would dissipate significant dormant accounts funds on administration costs. Second, this option ignores the inherent finite nature of the fund. Third, and crucially, such an arrangement would bypass the expertise and knowledge within public bodies in regard to disadvantage and disability. I wish people would listen to and read these key and important reasons rather than coming up with soundbites.
A more sensible approach, which underlines the Bill, is to draw on the expertise, knowledge and resources of existing public bodies. We must be careful about using correctly taxpayers' money. There is no point setting up another body to work through these issues if we already have knowledge and expertise within existing public bodies.
Would that be ministerial expertise?
This avoids bureaucracy and enables informed decision-making, consistent with public policy priorities.
On a point of order, the Minister of State said there is no point setting up another body. That scraps this legislation.
That is not a point of order.
On a point of order, it is about the legislation. This legislation amends existing legislation but the Minister of State said there is no point setting up another body.
The Senator can address the issue in his Second Stage contribution. It is not a point of order. The Minister of State without interruption.
The current structure is not good enough and must be dealt with.
There is no confidence in the board.
The Minister of State without interruption.
It minimises spending on administration and maximises funding for those who need it most. For this reason, the Government has decided against setting up a new organisation. Instead, the Bill provides that the Government will in future decide on disbursements from the fund, but following a public application process and within a framework of transparency and process set out in law.
The Government is committed to ensuring that the Dormant Accounts Fund Disbursments Board is enabled to fulfil its role as independent planner and as critical appraiser. Reflecting this, the Bill proposes that the board will retain its responsibilities to develop a plan for disbursements of moneys from the fund and that it will review and assess the extent to which the objects of the plan have been achieved and the effectiveness of its strategies. Critically, the board is also being conferred with a new power to report on the additionality of disbursements. In this way, critical analysis of the impact of such spending on the ground will be placed on a statutory independent footing.
Given these responsibilities, it is clear that the board will have a vital role in influencing the strategies for disbursements from the fund, and in assessing the additionality and impact of spend.
Has the Minister of State been talking to his colleague, the Minister for Community, Rurual and Gaeltacht Affairs, Deputy Ó Cuív?
The Minister of State without interruption.
I believe these arrangements demonstrate the Government's commitment to a structured, transparent and effective board.
Transparency in decision-making on disbursements from the fund is critically important. Concerns have been raised as to the extent to which the changes in this regard may adversely affect the focus and impact of spending from the fund. Recognising this, the Government has provided for a range of measures in the Bill to secure transparency and accessibility. As already indicated, the existing objectives of disbursements from the fund and the current plan are being retained. This ensures the focus of the spend. However, two critical further measures are provided for in the Bill — a new requirement to publicise and invite applications for funding and a further requirement to publish lists of all successful applications and the amounts involved.
In practice, this means that each year, following broad Government approval of programmes and types of projects for funding, applications will be publicly invited for eligible programmes or projects. Following evaluation of such applications by, or on behalf of, public bodies, the Government will approve a range of specific measures and projects.
This is merely a slush fund.
A statement containing details of the approvals will be laid before the Oireachtas and a list setting out the approved measures and projects, and specifying the amounts to be disbursed, will be published within one month.
It is a slush fund.
These rigorous and extensive measures confirm the Government's absolute commitment to ensure that decisions on the fund are informed by the public interest, accessible to public application and fully subject to public scrutiny. These are the important criteria.
I should also mention that the Bill provides for separate recording of dormant accounts spending through the Votes of Departments. This means, for example, that where dormant accounts fund spending for a project for a community group is approved, the relevant funding will be channelled through the Department principally dealing with that sectoral group. In this way, dormant accounts spending can be tracked across Departments and transparency as to overall spend and accountability is enhanced.
At this point I, on behalf of the Government, wish to convey the Government's appreciation to the Dormant Accounts Fund Disbursements Board for the work it has undertaken to date.
I have no confidence in the board.
Following its establishment in June 2002, the board developed a draft disbursements plan that established the framework within which disbursements from the fund would be approved. Since December 2003, the disbursements board has approved 58 projects to the tune of €6.4 million. Money from the fund is being spent on a wide range of projects and activities across diverse geographical areas, but with one essential common thread, namely the alleviation of disadvantage. In accordance with the plan, priority funding is earmarked far RAPID, CLÁR and drugs task force areas, which cover the most disadvantaged urban and rural areas in the country. The Government is fully committed to continuing this work. Recognising the work undertaken and progress made by the existing board, the Bill provides for the reappointment of its members to the new board.
The more detailed technical provisions of the legislation are set out in the explanatory memorandum accompanying the text of the Bill. I have already spoken about some of the key areas but I now propose to outline the main provisions of the Bill.
Sections 1 to 5 are standard provisions relating to definitions, establishment day, interpretation and suchlike. Section 6 amends the principal Act in relation to the section on penalties and proceedings, consequent on the removal of the provision in the principal Act on unauthorised disclosure of confidential information.
Section 7 provides for a new Part 5 of the principal Act. With the exception of section 31, the other sections in Part 5 substantially reflect the existing provisions in the principal Act. Section 31 provides that the new Dormant Accounts Board will prepare a disbursements plan and submit it to the Minister and review, assess and report to the Minister on the pattern, impact and additionality of spending from the fund and the effectiveness of the strategies in the plan.
Board membership, including the chairperson, is increased from nine to 11, with a corresponding increase in the quorum for meetings from five to six.
Two more boys.
The Minister will be responsible for appointing board members, all of whom must have knowledge or experience of matters relevant to the board's functions. All existing disbursement board members are eligible for re-appointment to the new board. The terms of office of board members are set at a maximum of five years for the chairperson and three years for other members. Other provisions relating to conditions of office, filling of casual vacancies, meetings and procedure, membership of the Oireachtas, the European Parliament, or local authorities, and disclosure of interest remain as they were for the former board.
The Bill provides in section 8, the new Part 6, for two stages in the process whereby the Government will make decisions on spending from the fund. First, provision is made in Part 6, section 42, for the preparation and submission for the Minister's approval not later than 1 June 2006 of the new board's plan for disbursement of moneys from the fund. Section 43 provides that the Minister, having consulted with other Ministers, shall, not less than once each year, make a proposal to the Government concerning the programmes or types of projects in relation to which applications for funding should be invited.
By then all of the money will be gone.
Spending thresholds may be applied to particular programmes or projects. Subsequent to Government approval of the proposal, the Minister, following a public process of invitations for applications, will recommend for funding a list of programmes or projects that have been assessed by, or on behalf of, public bodies. In addition to this process, and as previously provided for under the principal Act, the Government has discretion to approve funding for additional programmes that comply with the core purposes of the fund. All decisions made under either of these processes will be detailed in a statement to be laid before the Oireachtas and publicised, with the disbursements routed to successful applicants through Departments.
Section 9 provides that the National Treasury Management Agency will report annually on the operation of the fund to the Minister for Finance, and the board will report annually to the Minister, who will lay copies before the Oireachtas.
Will the Minister of State please quote the Minister of Finance's previous utterance on the matter?
The new board's report will reflect the change in functions from those of the former board.
Also reflecting the changed role of the board, section 10 removes the accountability of the chairperson of the new board to the Committee of Public Accounts. The chairperson of the former board will remain accountable to the committee in respect of decisions of that board. The new board will have power to instruct the National Treasury Management Agency to make disbursements on foot of decisions made by the former board which have not been paid out on establishment of the new board, and the chairperson of the new board will be accountable to the Committee of Public Accounts in respect of those decisions.
Sections 13 to 15 make standard provisions regarding transfer of assets, liabilities and contracts to the new board, takeover of contracts and agreements and substitution of the name of the new board in any legal proceedings. It will remain the purpose of spending from the dormant accounts fund to assist persons who are socially, economically or educationally disadvantaged, and persons with a disability. This was and remains the original core function.
It is coming from different pockets.
The Government is committed to ensuring the new dormant accounts board is enabled to fulfil its role as an independent planner and critical appraiser, and the responsibilities set out for it in this Bill demonstrate the Government's commitment to a structured, transparent and effective board. Furthermore, the Government has provided for a range of rigorous measures in the Bill to secure transparency and accessibility by ensuring decisions on the fund are informed by the public interest, accessible to public application and fully subject to public scrutiny.
Now I understand why the Minister, Deputy Ó Cuív, did not turn up. He would not have been able to make such statements.
The Bill will assist the State in using the resources available to it in a more focused and effective way for the purpose of tackling severe disadvantage. I commend the Bill to the House.
I appreciate the Minister of State, Deputy Noel Ahern, has responsibility for the technical aspect of the Bill. However, I wished to convey my desire to have the Minister, Deputy Ó Cuív, in the House. The Minister needs to be present so he can see what is happening because his ministerial colleagues are taking a hand off him. I accept the Minister talks the talk and I record my admiration for what he says and his intentions for the west, disadvantaged areas and, if I may be parochial, CLÁR areas of County Donegal. However, when the Minister began talking the talk, I had serious reservations about how he would finance his broadband projects, road, sewerage and water programmes and general targets for disadvantaged areas. Up to one year ago, I believed the Department of Community and Gaeltacht Affairs was nothing more than a bridesmaid ministerial post.
It still is.
I felt it did not have the teeth because it did not have the resources. However, things change. The Government, including the Progressive Democrats, did not do its homework when it forgot that dormant accounts could be a significant resource — some would call it a significant slush fund. However, it became obvious this was likely to be a significant resource. Deputy Ó Cuív's ministerial colleagues realised they were dealing with a budget of €60 million for 2004, which might increase to at least €225 million and perhaps €250 million in three years, as the Minister of State noted. Figures available to me suggest it could go to €500 million in three years. Ministers who were under pressure at Cabinet due to promises made at the last general election decided they wanted to get their paws on the money. This is why I wanted the Minister, Deputy Ó Cuív, present in the House for this debate. He is a competent and confident Minister and I am surprised his Cabinet colleagues are taking a hand at him. However, I am sure he will get the message in the short term.
The other reason I wanted to speak in this debate was to emphasise the importance of this issue and the outrageousness of the legislation. The Bill undermines the confidence of the community and voluntary sector and the relationship built up in regard to ADM Limited since 1992. The Bill should not be before the House. A body was set up and was working in this area. Why redesign the wheel when it is not broken? If it is a question of resources, why not employ the extra staff dotted throughout the country who could do with extra work? The Minister of State has already stated that, at some stage, additional staff may be required under the new mechanism. Why not do this under the current mechanism? The removal of representation from ADM Limited is the first part of the process to undermine the healthy work which has been ongoing. That representation linked the community and voluntary sector with the political sector.
The significance of the current situation lies in the timing of this legislation, which is being dealt with in late June and early July. The Minister of State knows that those involved in the community and voluntary sector carry out the majority of their administration work in the winter. However, most of the sector's programmes take place over the summer, whether out of school hours programmes for children in June, July and August, community youth work, or working and engaging with the community. The implementation programme is carried out during the summer. To introduce the Bill at this time is to set a dangerous precedent and there will be a backlash from the community and voluntary sector, which is unprepared for the legislation.
I am totally opposed to the Bill. There has been a lack of communication and consultation and the community and voluntary sector is not aware of what is going on. It is politicising a fund which could have been earmarked for the community and voluntary sector. It could have been decided by the independent and transparent forum which was already set up. However, that forum is being replaced by a similar board, although the ultimate responsibility for decision making will not lie with ADM but with Department officials and Ministers.
The primary legislation was good and had the confidence of the community and voluntary sector. There is absolutely no reason to move the goalposts. ADM was a transparent and representative body, and publicly accountable to the Committee of Public Accounts. In regard to funding and accounting procedures, the existing dormant accounts board employed a consultancy company to make sure everything was above board. It was serious about its business. While there may have been a question regarding resources and a lack of qualified staff to appraise different applications, all that was required was the employment of extra staff, which should not have been difficult.
That was the situation in regard to the primary legislation. However, a highly politicised appraisal body has now been set up, which no longer deals simply with dormant accounts but which is broken into four or five different mechanisms. I accept there will be an open, advertised application process which can be accessed online. That is not a problem. The next stage is the assessment, when civil servants begin working in liaison with their bosses, the Ministers. The second appraisal stage begins when the results are reported to the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs, Deputy Ó Cuív, and his Department. There is a third appraisal stage when the results return for Government approval at Cabinet level. The Minister constantly talks about the need to get rid of bureaucracy and the legislative barriers to getting work done.
To get one's hands on the money.
In one go, the Minister has completely contradicted his philosophy on the appraisal of projects. He has introduced three different stages. At the first stage, the proposal goes to the public bodies and public officers and civil servants discuss it with their Ministers. The Ministers decide that the project will be considered. Then it goes back to Deputy Ó Cuív's table and he and his staff decide which projects to pick. The project then goes on to the third stage, when it comes before the Cabinet. Lobbying takes place and all the Deputies in different parts of the constituency and the country put on the pressure and decide, ultimately, where the €500 million will go.
This is a politicised, non-transparent system that is tantamount to a political slush fund. A dagger has been put in the back of the community and voluntary sector, which has been working well with this Government. I commend where commendation is due. The community and voluntary sector has worked well. It fought hard for its rights. When it all comes out in the wash, however, its members will not be happy.
There was mention of consultants, advisers and support staff in this legislation. Why were these provisions not introduced in the primary legislation when we had the existing dormant accounts disbursement board? It is a bad day for the community sector. There is no specific provision for consultation in the amendment Bill. For people working in the community sector, the major issues were a lack of transparency, communication and consultation. We need some form of consultation with the community sector. There is no feedback mechanism or communication mechanism and there is no appraisal system that involves the community and voluntary sector.
There will be a complete duplication of mainstream funding. That is clear from the Minister of State's contribution. He stated that the dormant accounts fund would assist "persons who are socially, economically or educationally disadvantaged, and persons with a disability." That could mean anything. There are areas which merit consideration and discussion, but this statement could cover anything. Senator Brady has always highlighted the problem of drug abuse and the resources that are needed in this area. Under the existing primary legislation, the dormant accounts fund was to provide resources for this, along with funds for CLÁR and RAPID areas. Senator Brady cannot contradict me on this. This is the existing focus of the dormant accounts disbursement board. That will no longer be the case. The Minister of State knows this.
The rural social scheme for small farmers was given another €10 million from the dormant accounts fund. The money for this scheme should come from mainstream channels, not from an account which could be used to aid the disadvantaged — to provide broadband in Sligo, west Galway or Kerry, or physical infrastructure.
The Minister has provided everything for west Galway.
This is a sad day for those involved in the community and voluntary sector. It is not over. I am not happy with the Bill and I have no qualms about proposing a vote of no confidence in it. While there is probably no provision to do this, I propose a vote of no confidence in this legislation. This Bill should be thrown out because it is a embarrassment to the community and voluntary sector. It is outrageous, politicised legislation. I propose the Bill be scrapped.
I will gladly second that proposal.
Is the Senator formally seconding the proposal?
Yes.
I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Noel Ahern, to the House. He rightly states that this legislation falls within his remit. I will go a step further and state that I have always been very impressed by the Minister of State and the way in which he has handled his portfolio. He has come before the Oireachtas committee on which I sit on a number of occasions, providing the opportunity for a good question and answer session. It was always evident to me that he had a good grasp of his role and a hands-on approach. Anybody who heard him speaking about the drugs task forces will admit not only that there are few people who have such an intimate knowledge of the subject, but that he is particularly proactive in the community.
It is only right that I reply to the comments of my friend Senator McHugh about the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs, Deputy Ó Cuív. I have a high regard for the Minister and I have said so in the House several times. I was glad to hear Senator McHugh giving him some much deserved praise. Although rural Ireland is his forte, he has also proved himself in the area of community work. Any time I have been in his company — recently in Sligo, and in many other parts of the country as well — I have found that people appreciate how in touch with them he is. He listens to them closely. This is important not only in the enactment of legislation but also in its implementation.
When dormant accounts were first discovered, the priority was to ensure that the big financial institutions would not benefit from the money — which did happen — but that it would go to people who were deprived. The Minister of State referred to those who are socially, educationally and economically deprived as well as people with disabilities. I would have been sad if the money were used for other projects because I felt these people were entitled to such consideration. We all talk about the Celtic tiger and the major economic progress that has been made in the country, but no matter what progress is made there will always be categories of people who seem to fall between the cracks. This money was ideal for use in this regard.
So far, I have heard very little criticism of how the money has been used. I would be disappointed if it were ever suggested that under those categories the money was used in the wrong manner. I could not imagine that happening. I do not see anything wrong with public representatives — Deputies, Senators, or local authority members — making representations, because they are at the coalface.
That is not the issue. It is not representations but decisions that count.
Anybody who works in the community is well aware of the knock on the door when somebody who has nobody else to help them——
It is Eamon Ó Cuív bringing the money.
This has happened to me several times. People have turned up late at night with serious problems. I would like to think that my friends on the other side of the House are fulfilling the same role.
There is not much transparency there.
That is why we are here. I see nothing wrong in that regard. However, there is one thing I have seen happen in the past which should not happen again. Money which is intended for those who need it is spent on administration. We all know this and we have seen it happen many times.
Blame the board.
Before we know it, the cost of administration exceeds what is available for distribution. In that context it is right that this legislation is not setting up a super body, not bringing in full-time chairmen and full-time staff. Nor is it establishing a new corporate body. To do that would almost certainly result in the money not going where it should.
Linking this with existing Departments makes sense, not merely because the personnel is there, which is important, but because there is a huge base of knowledge within those Departments which is gleaned by virtue of their own particular roles. This makes it easy for a Department to link a case with an area in which it is working. In addition, we as Oireachtas Members in this Chamber or in the Dáil have the opportunity to inquire into the work of the Departments. I am disappointed by the suggestion, although I am sure it was not intended in this way but was probably intended to bolster another argument, that somehow the civil servants would not do a good job. I have said before that we have the best public servants in the world and we have seen that over and over again.
On a point of order, I am the only Senator who contributed prior to Senator Ó Murchú and I made no suggestion that there was a problem with civil servants.
I am sure the Senator's colleague will respond on his behalf when the time comes, just as I responded when I got my opportunity.
I do not like to do this, but would it be possible to ask Senator Ó Murchú to withdraw his remarks?
I do not believe there was any such connotation.
We should not be hypersensitive at this stage. Let me finish the point I was making. The civil servants have proved themselves not only nationally but internationally. There are many who would give them kudos for the standing we now have in Europe. Those civil servants will do the job and will do it properly.
If only they were left alone.
On to the question of Ministers, they are Ministers of Government. The democratic process works on the basis of election of candidates to the Oireachtas following which a Government is formed and Ministers are given a job to do. Fine Gael Ministers also did a fantastic job in their time. Perhaps we should have more confidence in Ministers at this time and in the relationship between Ministers and the Civil Service.
On the question of transparency, I have no doubt that given the ability I have already seen on the other side of the House, and that can be multiplied tenfold or twenty-fold, the Opposition will be very capable of ensuring that there is transparency. What is important is that the board exists. The Minister of State has already not only expressed his gratitude but has pointed out that there is provision within the legislation for the members of this board to be appointed to the newly reconstituted board as well.
Is that likely?
Their job will be to draw up a disbursement plan. We are talking about almost €0.25 billion, and I am prepared to accept the results of the Senator's research which suggests that it might be €0.5 billion. I hope that is the case. I would much prefer to see it going into the dormant accounts fund than resting in any of the financial institutions which have not always covered themselves in glory when it came to the interests of the community. If there is that amount of money, there is all the more reason to stabilise and structure it, and for having a more accountable process. I believe there will be a more accountable process. I do not see how any board which is not composed of full-time members, which is not served by full-time officials and which does not have a full-time chairman can possibly handle €500 million. It is evident that it should be integrated into present structures. One might ask why the change.
There is no FOI.
When something new is established and has operated for a period of time, one must stand back and monitor what has happened. This board will be subject to ongoing monitoring.
It could be sacked again.
I am happy that the money has been well spent to date. I would go a step further and say we should not take it for granted that strategy should not be revisited, that we will not look for value for money or that there is no necessity for an ongoing monitoring process.
I do not like to disagree with my colleagues on the other side of the House. However, given the categories and headings, this is not like locating an industry somewhere or providing money for some kind of extravaganza. It is money for ordinary people who are vulnerable and deprived.
Will there be no more Punchestowns?
I have no doubt but that it will be well handled. I welcome this legislation. I look forward to future debate on it. The Minister of State deserves credit and, by extension, the Minister, Deputy Ó Cuív.
For not showing up to face the music.
They have done a good job.
I welcome the Minister to the House. Having listened to his speech, I would have to say that this was not his finest hour. In fairness to Senator Ó Murchú, he is one of the more thoughtful contributors in this House, but his last contribution would hardly rank among his 250 best speeches to the House. It was a classic example that, despite the fact that Senator McHugh went out of his way to ensure that he did not criticise the Minister, civil servants or politicians, nonetheless the response on the other side was to act as if what he said was an argument ad hominem, an argument against the Minister, a criticism of civil servants, an implication that we could not trust our politicians. It is something that could be used in a training course for politicians as an example of what not to do when dealing with an issue.
It was a great idea to take money from the banks and financial institutions. We all cheered it. I welcomed it in this House and congratulated the Minister on taking firm action against them, and not before time. Nobody disagreed. That was the beginning. What evolved is no more than a slush fund. This is shameful and appalling legislation. Listening to the Minister's speech in my office I thought I had the wrong legislation. I could not connect between the legislation and what the Minister was saying. If I have time I will go through it towards the end of my contribution.
Senator Ó Murchú is a person who shows great sensitivity to the importance of political life, public representation and politics generally. I give him that and give it freely to him. However, this legislation will bring politics into disrepute. This is stroke politics at its best. This is cute-hoorism without boundaries. That is the way this legislation is going. I can see the party do-gooders slithering up to the local Dáil Deputy or Senator at the party function to ask him or her to make representations to the Minister on their behalf, and it will be done. As Senator Ó Murchú rightly said, there is nothing wrong with making representations. However, the response from the other side to my contribution will also be to assume I believe there is something wrong with it. There is nothing wrong with making representations. That is the way politics works and should work. We should make representations on behalf our communities. We should identify the disadvantaged and those who need support.
However, we should not have to make representations to the Minister who is going to spend the money. It was not tax money, which is a different issue. This is money which was taken from the banks and it should be spent publicly in a way that gives people confidence. This is a recipe for disenchantment, disconnection, dismay and disappointment. It is not the way to do business. This is not the way the Government should respond to what it heard from the public two weeks ago during the elections. What will ordinary people read into the legislation? What kind of trust and confidence will this put into political life? What kind of status, will this give politicians? It has nothing to do with the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs, Deputy Ó Cuív. It is shameful that he should be drawn into this debate as he could be gone in September, or even next month. It does not matter who it is. The idea that we can pass legislation because we have a good Minister is neither here nor there.
He will be gone with the money.
The issue is how it is done. It is not an issue of setting up a superstructure with a great amount of administration. I will outline a solution to the Minister that is so simple it does not need to be written down. The amount of administration required to spend €250 million will be the same whether it is done by an independent body or the Civil Service. Therefore, those good people in the Civil Service should do the administration but the decision making should be controlled by an independent body and not by the Minister. There will be no difficulty, no problem, no extra people employed, no extra work to be done. Ordinary people should be given the chance to make it work and then we can do it.
The establishment of a body to do this is shameful. We are 16 or 17 years into partnership in this country, yet there is no reflection of civic society, the social partners, the voluntary and community pillar, of the people in the Wheel and various other groups and charities in Ireland who give and give. These are the people who should be making the decisions on this. We, and the Minister could trust them because they have no agenda and are beyond political decision making, but are not beyond political reach. We could all make our representations if we chose to do so. I could make a case about a disadvantaged school, while Senator Ó Murchú could make a case about a disadvantaged group of Travellers in his constituency. Let us put the case and let the people decide. We would then have to live with the outcome. There is nothing wrong with that and it would be a mark of character for the Government were it to do that. The idea of a representation to a body that decides is different to a representation to a Minister.
There are parts of this legislation that would not be passed in Iraq. For example, in the case of the membership of the board, there has been almost one board appointee per month in the last two or three years. Members of boards represent something, be it gender balance or various groups such as the social partners and so on. In this situation, however, the board shall consist of ten ordinary members, all of whom are to be appointed by the Minister. That cannot be right. Where is the sharing of responsibility? Where is the openness to partnership? Where is the invitation to civic society? It is not there but it should be.
The worst feature of the Bill is the provision that having consulted with the appropriate Minister, the Minister shall, not less than once in each year, make submissions to the Government for its approval with or without amendment. The term "with or without amendment" is repeated time and again. In this instance it refers to the role of the Minister.
The Bill also provides that the Minister is to have regard to the approved plan. What does "have regard to" mean? It certainly means that he does not have to do what is in the plan. He has to read it and have regard to it, so if the plan decides that a certain percentage of money should be spent in disadvantaged areas in the inner city, he should have regard to that, but he might also have regard to a disadvantaged areas somewhere else for a different reason.
This will be tainted by politics and it is no help to Ministers to put them in this situation. If anyone takes the opportunity to look at the Order of Business for any day in this House, there are usually six pages of business laid before the House which means there is little or no likelihood that there will be an opportunity to debate submissions made to the House by the board. For example, the Health Insurance Authority annual report is listed No. 18 on today's Order Paper. The report from the body to be established by this Bill will probably be listed No. 19 on the Order Paper for this day next year. It will be submitted to the Minister, we will read it but we will have no input whatever.
There is nothing wrong with us having no input if the board was run independently. However, that is not the case. In consequence, what is proposed here is wrong. The Minister of State spoke about independent planning and critical appraisal. The Bill might provide for that but it will be to no avail. Ultimate decisions will not lie with the board. This is the kind of thing that gives rise to bushfires of discontent throughout the country when it occurs. It has happened before and it will happen again in this instance.
I could write a history of my involvement in disadvantaged schemes in education and how Minister after Minister has interfered with them due to pressure from constituencies or representations. This is a classic example because while the objectives are laudable, the board has been established without criteria or a frame of reference. The Bill provides that the board will assist persons who are socially, economically or educationally disadvantaged and persons with a disability. If I complain about this I will be represented as having no soul. To be against such a provision is like being against virtue, or being in favour of sin. However, the legislation is full of traps. That is bad for the body politic and for what we are trying to achieve. It will once again lead politics into disrepute. The idea that €250 million will be available for a Minister to disburse on the basis of representations made is enough to make the political cute hoors salivate at the prospect. It is indicative of the kind of pressure that will be imposed on Ministers.
I appeal to the Minister to have another look at this legislation because in its present form it drags down the Minister, the Government and politics. It adds to disenchantment and takes away from trust and confidence in the body politic. It is proposed that decisions on giving money to people who are underprivileged, disadvantaged and so on should be given to a Minister. We believe that it should be given to independent people. This could be done without spending any money. Any of us could nominate people who would take the decision away from us. We could then make our position known to them. As Senator Ó Murchú stated, the civil servants could do their job effectively, but ultimately, decisions would be made by the board.
I appeal to the Minister not to proceed with this legislation and to introduce a new board which should represent civic society, in particular those who work for community and voluntary organisations. Every special school in this country has friends and relatives who from groups of supporters. There will be a fundraiser tomorrow morning in this House for two children's charities. These are people who work all their lives to raise money to fight disability and disadvantage. Could they not be included in the decision making process? I do not refer to the planning but the decision making process. Could we not trust them to spend this money, which has been correctly taken from the banks and the financial institutions? It is money that belonged to the people and should be given back to the people, by the people, under our supervision. What is wrong with that? Why can we not do it? Why can we not do something right that will make a difference? I appeal to the Minister of State to give the decision back to the people.
I welcome the Minister of State to the House and recognise his commitment to the work that goes on in the charitable and voluntary sector. I have no intention in raising my voice or making political points on this. I do not impugn anyone's motives or intentions. However, I regret the direction that the proposed legislation is taking. It is retrograde.
I welcomed the action that was taken to set up the Dormant Accounts Fund Disbursements Board. I pointed out that there was a comparable body in Northern Ireland called the Northern Ireland Voluntary Trust, which was set up a number of years ago. It acted as a sort of community chest and was owned by the community sector, although it was set up and additionally funded by the government. It has done remarkable work over the years and I look forward to this board doing the same. It seems a little early to begin to pull it apart again, unless there have been serious difficulties, either in the disbursement or the handling of money. The Minister spoke of wishing to give focus to the work. Senator Ó Murchú told us that very few complaints could be lodged against the allocations. If it is a matter of administration, as Senator O'Toole said, these matters must be assessed either by someone in a Department or by someone under the aegis of the board. It should not be too difficult to arrange for that on a satisfactory basis.
The Minister spoke of public funds, and I acknowledge that people must be careful about money. However, I am not sure whether one can call dormant accounts "public funds" in the classic sense. They belong not to the State but to someone else, perhaps only theoretically, but there are putative owners out there. The State has in effect borrowed the funds for a period to use them. We should always distinguish between funds raised by taxation and those raised in other ways, treating the dormant accounts as charitable funds.
One of the difficulties in the proposals is that decisions are made in Departments. I would be the last in this House to say nasty things about civil servants, having been one for most of my life. However, not all wisdom resides in Departments. The difficulty is that Departments, and civil servants working in them, are accustomed to viewing problems through a specific set of lenses. People in the community sometimes see them through a different set. One runs the danger of systematising and codifying the grants, irrespective of who makes the final decision. One can cut out the odd or quirky idea that might make a difference, or the person who does not fit in with departmental perspectives.
There is an even greater danger that Departments will see this money as an extension of the funds available to them from elsewhere and use it either to develop their own programmes or to save them spending money on them. It is a very basic principle of charity law that charitable funds should not be used to save money raised by rates or taxes, and I apply that reasoning to this. These moneys are free and should not be used to substitute for taxation or save expenditure on programmes that should be funded out of taxation in the ordinary way. It gives people the opportunity to do something extra or different — to experiment — and it must be in the ownership of the voluntary and community sector. I cannot think of anyone who would sit on a board asked to draw the map of the world and see whether the sea has run dry, without any function regarding expenditure in the interval.
The concept of having money that could be applied in such a manner was splendid when it was developed. No one could take exception to the objectives being discussed, and it is a red herring to begin discussing them. We are simply discussing the best way to handle the disbursement of these moneys and the best way of selecting projects that should be supported. It would be helpful and much more productive if the voluntary and community sector could have some sense of ownership in this matter. It should not simply be seen as an extension of departmental programmes or another part of public expenditure but as an exciting new opportunity for people, and that is better done by revivifying and strengthening the board that we have and strengthening its procedures. One should by all means impose what accounting arrangements one thinks proper. However, one takes a retrograde step if one draws it totally into the Government sector.
Like other Senators on this side of the House, we in the Labour Party are appalled at this legislation and the extraordinary U-turn by the Government on commitments it gave to the Oireachtas and the people when the original Dormant Accounts Act 2001 was passed. That had the support of Oireachtas Members, not surprisingly, considering that it set up a system whereby dormant accounts were to be disbursed in a fair and independent fashion. The Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy, referred to that, even saying the money should be independently disbursed so it was not seen as a slush fund. The Minister should not have any hand, act or part in it.
It was an extraordinary U-turn by this Administration using the guise of transparency to claim the entire system needed to be changed. The only transparent thing about the changes being made by the Government is the smash and grab at funds to create a slush fund for its own purposes. The Minister has seen a fund similar to the lottery fund and wants full control of it. He will give it to his friends and use it for political patronage and to buy votes. The sheer arrogance of the manner in which that has been done is breathtaking.
We are now three weeks on from the local and European elections, and it is quite clear the Government has not got the message from the electorate. One of the things the electorate is reacting against very strongly is the arrogance of this Administration, and this legislation is a transparent example of how arrogant it has become. Funds that have become available through the work and decisions of the all-party Committee of Public Accounts are now being taken over by the Administration for sheer political gain, and it thinks the public will not notice. It is wrong, since the public has noticed and will continue to do so. It is an appalling abuse of power by the Government. The principle underlying this amending legislation demonstrates clearly that the Government uses power, and especially money, for its own ends.
I remind the Minister that the money does not belong to the Government. Like taxpayers' money, it belongs to the people and should be disbursed by their independent representatives. A board is being set up that will be appointed by the Minister to draw up a plan that will be sent to him but which he could effectively ignore. The Minister of State set it out in his speech today, saying the plan would go to the Government and the Minister and his colleagues in Cabinet would decide how the funds are spent. That is exactly what will happen, as happens with national lottery funds. The list will be drawn up, and we can be absolutely sure the Ministers will drive around to announce to the groups which are to get the money that they have reason to be thankful they are in office. They will tell them it is great that they are getting €2,000. During the last election we saw Ministers driving around in State cars to visit sports clubs and call meetings of school committees and various other organisations, often on a Sunday morning, to announce the wonderful news about the grant. It will be exactly the same with this slush fund. People, will be called in to be given the great news about the grant, which constitutes patronage of the highest order, but people are no longer prepared to be patronised. This fund has come from dormant accounts, from fine work done by the Committee of Public Accounts, and the original board set up by the Minister for Finance had support in principle from all parties. Its work was anticipated by the community and voluntary sector and Senator McHugh has observed the treachery that was wreaked on that sector by this extraordinary U-turn. It has been abandoned by the provisions of this proposed legislation and members of the sector will have to wait in line quietly like everyone else and behave like good girls and boys if they are to receive a few euro from this fund because the decision is ultimately at the discretion of the Minister.
This legislation represents a bad day's work. The Minister of State says it is necessary for corporate governance but I dispute that. I have seen no justification in the current set-up or in the proposed legislation for the so-called need for corporate governance. Of course there should be accountability for public funds but this Bill does not represent accountability, it is merely a grabbing exercise. The Minister's decisions regarding allocation may be published but we will draw our own conclusions about the reasons for those decisions when we observe money being allocated to the Government's friends in the various constituencies. This Bill represents an appalling show of arrogance and condescension by the Government and, like previous decisions, will not go unnoticed. The Government will gets its answer and we will be opposing Second Stage.
I welcome the opportunity to speak on this Bill. As the Minister of State observed, the legislation is concerned with streamlining an important process. One must consider the areas to which these funds are being allocated and the impact they are having and Senator McHugh sought clarification on this point. The answer is obvious and is indicated in the explanatory memorandum and is explained in detail in the Bill. These are areas of social, educational and economic disadvantage and surely Senator McHugh would recognise such an area if he saw it. As he correctly observed, my constituency is an area designated for both the RAPID programme and the drugs task force scheme. I was privileged to be involved at the foundation of the task forces, which was an initiative that came from the community.
There has been much talk of the community and voluntary sector but I find myself in the unfamiliar position of observing that Senator O'Toole is being a little naive in his comments regarding the allocation of the funds and the decision as to same. We are talking about a fund of €250 million and one could spend a sizeable portion of that travelling around the country to ask each voluntary organisation how much it requires and for what purpose. The provisions of the Bill will avoid that and it is to be welcomed from that perspective.
Senator Brady should ask the Minister for Finance about the fund allocation.
Somebody observed that politicians now live by the god of openness, accountability and transparency. This Bill increases the transparency of the process by making the Minister for Finance more accountable for the allocation of funds. The process is already transparent. For example, I was able to access the website of Area Development Management Limited and see specifically how and for what purpose funds were disbursed. Some €157,000 was allocated to the Merchant's Quay Project and a figure for managing drug-related neighbourhood programmes was given. That is detail, accountability and openness.
It should be kept like that.
This applies throughout the country and not just in Dublin. Some commentators would have us believe that County Galway and the islands are the only places to benefit from this fund but they are not. I meet project members on a daily basis who have already accessed the fund even though only €5 million has so far been disbursed. The benefits are there for all to see and Senator Labhrás Ó Murchú was particularly astute when he mentioned the civil servants who will be involved in this process.
That is spin.
The National Treasury Management Agency is of the highest calibre and we trust its members completely. ADM, as another example, has top civil servants who have daily experience of dealing with voluntary and community groups throughout the country, not just in County Galway. Information on fund allocation, the application process and the funding criteria is available to everybody.
This should come under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act from now on.
All the information is available. When one observes the effects of this fund on the various different schemes and considers similar previous schemes, such as the young persons' facilities and services fund, it is clear that areas of particular disadvantage have benefited greatly. These schemes have been administered by Departments and not by independent boards or specially commissioned quangos. Communities have benefited on the ground, particularly in areas designated for the RAPID programme. We could spend substantial amounts of money administering these schemes but we would then have to tell the people on Sean McDermott Street, for example, who want a playground so that their children do not have to play on busy roads that the money was spent on administration. The thrust of this proposed legislation is concerned with the need for the Government to take responsibility for implementing those strategies for which it was elected——
Control.
——and that is precisely what the Bill proposes.
The previous Government was the first to establish a committee on social inclusion. Prior to that one had to go from Billy to Jack, from one Department to another, to get a hearing. Now one can go directly to the Minister and present one's case. As Senator O'Toole observed, our job is to make representations on behalf of people and we must work with the system that is in place. The proposed legislation strengthens that system.
The community and voluntary sector is very political and each group protects its own little patch. It is necessary that somebody should decide how each of these groups is put in order of need. That is what the fund does and the funds are equitably distributed on the basis of that need. This is in addition to what is already available from the various funds providing facilities around the country.
The legislation, on which I congratulate the Minister of State and his Department, is welcome. I look forward to it passing through the House.
I welcome the Minister of State at the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs, Deputy Noel Ahern, but regret the Minister with responsibility for the overall workings of the new board is not present as I wanted to highlight some of the Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy's statements on the last occasion on dormant accounts as well as some of those of the Minister of State.
I suggest we change the Title of the Bill from the Dormant Accounts (Amendment) Bill 2004 to the Government Slush Fund Bill 2004 or the Post-Election Disaster Fund Bill 2004. Senator Brady admitted the facts behind the lists circulated recently. As stated by him, the grants approved by ADM Limited clearly indicate that every recipient was worthy of the funding provided. The spin put on it by Members on the Government side tonight suggests that something is wrong. It is hinted that something could be wrong with regard to the civil servants.
That is by implication.
That is the spin and I am delighted the Senator has admitted this. I am correct in suggesting that there is a spin which runs right through the various contributions of Members on the Government side. The reality, as most can see, is that this is about control, arrogance and greed; that Ministers want to share in what is now a slush fund of €500 million. Has everyone forgotten the statement of the Minister for Finance in the Dáil on 20 June 2001? He justified the setting up of the board by stating:
To get away from the problem of having the Government blamed as having a slush fund it has been decided to establish a board of trustees. This board will distribute the money, subject to guidelines and without the direction from the Government.
Has the Minister of State forgotten this? He conveniently left it out of his speech. All others on the Government side have also forgotten about it. On the last occasion this matter was debated with the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs, Deputy Ó Cuív, the Minister of State accused me by saying, in effect, that it was strange to see Opposition speakers praising the Minister for Finance for taking such action. Those were the words expressed by Members on the Government side. They have conveniently forgotten this tonight.
In the preamble to the Bill it is stated the objectives are the same. They are worthy. However, has the Government no confidence in the board to do the work involved? As is clearly indicated and outlined here, it is regarded as being very satisfactory, highly commendable and acceptable to those who have applied to it. The preamble states the objectives underpinning the disbursement of the fund remain unchanged, which is important.
What other four areas could be identified as more worthy of funding than the RAPID and CLÁR programmes, drug abuse in disadvantaged areas and disability services? The problem is we will not be able to rely on the independence of the board in analysing claims from any of those sources without ministerial interference. I am not describing it as Civil Service interference. I am not describing it as anything other than ministerial interference, particularly under the stewardship of the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs. I will not trust him in having the last say, even though it may be a Cabinet decision. If that is the case, all share the blame on this occasion.
From the record on CLÁR programme funding and how it has been delivered, as referred to by Senator Maurice Hayes, the fund has been raided. The Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs has raided it for the delivery of a prop up measure in respect of what has happened in the community employment schemes which were being wiped out. On his own admission in this House, it took him two years to hatch this one — the rural social scheme. We found it hard to find an example of an application form or the criteria to be applied. Eventually he said the one thing that would be required was a herd number.
This legislation has all the hallmarks of a Government which is panicking. There is a huge surplus in a certain area which has been identified and it wants control over it. It has no confidence whatever in the board. The Minister of State throws out a gratuitous comment that members of the board can be reappointed. The likelihood of this happening — we await final decisions — is unreal. The fact they are now being replaced is a sure indication there has been a vote of no confidence by Ministers in this instance. I fail to see how they would survive and adhere to the demands of Ministers. The Bill is all about the power to control and direct funding in particular areas. Unfortunately, we are back once again to stroke politics where the Government will direct funding in accordance with public representations.
We have been criticised before. I read a letter from the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs in which he criticised me for mentioning dormant accounts in a letter I wrote to him. He misrepresented and put a spin on my letter to suit himself and get off the hook as regards his own record on the appropriation of funds under the CLÁR programme. That is not good enough.
We, on this side of the House, will totally oppose this legislation every time it comes before us. We will obstruct it in every way possible in order that the fund will not become the slush fund intended by the Government, in particular, the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs, Deputy Ó Cuív.
I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Noel Ahern, and support the Dormant Accounts (Amendment) Bill 2004. It is appropriate legislation. In fact, I am surprised any Member of the House would criticise a Government for carrying out its functions in a responsible manner. The Bill regulates the disbursement of massive amounts of public money left in dormant accounts. The Government has made a good policy decision in terms of its use. It is right that we seek to put the current ad hoc arrangement on a statutory basis. Public representatives and Ministers would have little confidence in themselves if they could not be involved in the approval, following proper application and publication, of those who have been successful.
I have total confidence in the Minister and Minister of State at the Department of Rural, Community and Gaeltacht Affairs and in all other Ministers who will have responsibility under this legislation to ensure the money is appropriated in a proper fashion. They will be ultimately responsible to the Oireachtas while those holding temporary positions on the board will have no such responsibility. Under the Bill, the chairman of the present organisation would have to appear before the Committee of Public Accounts. It is unfair to expect a non-executive chairman to take responsibility for that type of funding.
The proposal to ensure that current structures are utilised is also worthwhile. There have been far too many situations where substantial amounts of the money provided for the establishment of new organisations and jobs has been spent on administration. The Bill will ensure the costs of distribution will be kept to a minimum with the maximum amount being given to those in need of funds. I am delighted to note the proposal to make available €222 million, almost a quarter of a billion euro, in that regard. That is a sizeable amount of money, more than the amount available to many Departments.
The areas of priority will be RAPID, CLÁR and the drugs task force, which are very worthwhile organisations. I fail to understand why Opposition Senators are in such a lather about this legislation. One would think the Government was proposing to disburse money without any public accountability. There is total public accountability under the Bill. It would be remiss of Government not to introduce this legislation.
Why did it not introduce it in the first instance?
The Government was testing the waters. The money was available but it took time to set up the board.
That is nonsense.
Members of the board can be re-appointed. Membership of the board, to include the chairman, has been increased from nine to 11 members with a corresponding increase in the quorum for meetings increased from five to six members.
They have been sanctioned.
They are appointed at the discretion of the Minister.
The Minister is responsible for appointing board members all of whom must have knowledge or experience of matters relevant to the functions of the board. That is a reasonable provision. All existing disbursement board members are eligible for re-appointment to the new board. The terms of office of board members is set at five years. That is all reasonable. Governments have been known to appoint people to boards since the foundation of the State. I do not see anything wrong in that regard.
All applications will be publicly advertised. Those who apply for and receive funding will also be publicly stated. There is total transparency. Perhaps it is inexperience on the part of some Members that they do not realise this is reasonable legislation.
Has the Senator been drinking?
This is a reasonable, well thought-out Bill. I believe the Minister and Minister of State at the Department of Rural, Community and Gaeltacht Affairs are doing tremendous work in this area, particularly in terms of the CLÁR programme, of which I have some experience. I will provide Members with an example of how the CLÁR programme works. When a community centre in Strokestown, Castlecoote or other parts of County Roscommon is approved, it receives a top-up from the CLÁR programme. There is no bureaucracy involved. Those successful in obtaining funding receive a 20% top-up of the amount approved from the programme. I am not sure if that is the correct percentage but perhaps the Minister of State will confirm that in his reply. There is no bureaucracy involved in the application of the top-up. That money is going to the most deprived areas.
CLÁR is gone from the programme.
It is mentioned in this document.
It is not mentioned in the conclusions.
That can be changed. I will speak to the Minister about it.
The Senator is making it up as he goes along.
We are only on Second Stage of the Bill. It is nonsense to suggest that the CLÁR programme is not included.
The Senators are winding up Senator Leyden.
It is not mentioned.
The CLÁR programme has been extremely successful. It has given a great boost to rural areas. The thrust of the Minister and Minister of State's approach has been one of trying to remove bureaucracy from the system. It is important the funding is given to those who need it as quickly as possible. They can then spend it and create employment in their areas. That is reasonable.
I am pleased the Government has taken the initiative in introducing the Bill. Under the legislation Ministers will be responsible for the distribution of funding subject to recommendations and consultations with board members in terms of their reviews of applications. I reiterate that all applications and moneys spent will be advertised.
Will they be appraised publicly?
The approach adopted in this regard is worthwhile. I hope the Bill will pass all Stages before the summer recess.
This has been an interesting debate. The Bill is stroke politics at its worst. I am astonished Fianna Fáil, which is an astute party in terms of its monitoring of the electorate, has introduced such legislation. I am amazed given that party's problems in the recent local and European elections that it has brought it forward. The electorate will not be fooled by it.
I am involved in many charities and have repeatedly heard people say they will seek money from the dormant funds. Senator Leyden is correct, the Government is putting in place a simple system. Senator Ó Murchú is also correct to suggest that all that will be required is for people to knock on the right door late at night to be sure they get what they want. However, many other people will not be in a position to knock on the right door late at night to do this. They will remember how the Government changed the way in which such funds were managed.
When it was believed that the amount involved would be small, everything was simple and straightforward. I resent the suggestion that Members said civil servants would not be capable or impartial in administering these funds. I cannot believe that what was a good operation is being changed in this way. I support everything said by Senator O'Toole and Fine Gael and Labour colleagues. It is a pity the system is being changed in this way.
I have only one thing to say to Fianna Fáil Members. This is the type of action on which the electorate will pick up and remember. Many people will be left out and even if they are left out for good reason, they will feel it was because they were unable to knock on the right door late at night. I regret the introduction of this legislation.
I agree with what has been said by the previous speaker and by most speakers who expressed concerns about this Bill. Senator Leyden, in the midst of other things, said this money belongs to the public, which is crucial and goes to the heart of the matter. The Bill proposes to change radically the original plan to distribute these public funds.
Senator Henry is correct in saying the Government got a lashing in the local and European elections. It was clear when campaigning that was going to happen. I cannot understand why the Government would choose to pull this type of stroke in the immediate aftermath of that drumming. However, I and many other Senators are familiar with what took place in the run up to the last general election when, as Senator O'Meara pointed out, Government candidates went around shouting about the amount of money they had acquired for different local community groups for the development of facilities and services. They were claiming to be using public funds as a type of slush fund in order to promote their election. We are seeing the establishment of a new national slush fund. Senator Ulick Burke was correct to propose a change in the name of the Bill. He quoted a number of people, but I would like to highlight some other quotes. When the Minister of State, Deputy Fahey, spoke on a previous Bill in 2002, he said:
With regard to the issues raised by Deputies, to avoid the perception that the Government would use the moneys involved as some kind of slush fund it was always proposed and subsequently effected that an independent board would be established to distribute the surplus moneys from the fund. This board was appointed earlier this year and will distribute the surplus money, subject to guidelines in the 2001 Act.
During a Seanad debate on the Unclaimed Life Assurance Policies Bill 2002 in February 2003, the Minister of State said:
Regarding the point made by Senators John Paul Phelan and McDowell that the money in the dormant account fund could be used as a slush fund, obviously the Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy, has no intention of doing this. The Committee of Public Accounts recommended that the fund be used for charitable and community purposes, which is exactly what is provided for in the Bill. The involvement of the disbursements board is significant in that surplus moneys, subject to the guidelines laid down in the 2001 Act, would be disbursed by the board under the overall policy guidelines given by the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs.
The Bill before the House today proposes to change that completely and absolutely.
The reason the Government is bringing forward this legislation was let slip by the Minister, Deputy Ó Cuív, during a radio interview some months ago. The Minister admitted, more or less, that the Government changed its mind on this issue because it originally thought the amount of money would be insignificant and the fund would be relatively small. When it became apparent that the fund would come to several hundred million euro, it had to be grabbed and used as a political football in the run-up to the general election. It will be used by Government candidates left, right and centre in the run-up to the next election. They will say that a certain amount of money is available to them to develop facilities in their constituencies. The fund will not be used in the manner that was originally intended.
My late colleague, Mr. Jim Mitchell, expressed his reservations about possible abuses when it was announced in 2001 that a dormant accounts fund was to be established. At that time, he was reassured by the Minister, Deputy McCreevy, that the board would be independent and that the disbursement of the funds would be completely independent. We should not be surprised that the Government has reneged on its commitment as it seems to have been good at back-tracking in recent years.
A number of Government Senators mentioned the RAPID programme, which is a particular bone of contention for me. The programme is a complete failure in New Ross in County Wexford, the nearest large town to where I live. It has been launched by different Ministers or Ministers of State on three occasions, most recently in the immediate run-up to the local and European elections. A Minister of State who was a candidate in the European elections launched the RAPID programme in New Ross for the third time. Very little has happened in New Ross to indicate that benefits have accrued from the programme. If the programme is to be held up as a example of what we can expect from the distribution of dormant account funds, the Government should re-examine this measure. Many improvements are needed in that regard.
The Bill is a completely retrograde and cynical political manoeuvre. It is a example of opportunism of the worst form, which we have not seen for a long time. I hope and believe the public will see through it and see the Government's decision for what it is, a grab by the Government for funds which belong to the public, as Senator Leyden correctly pointed out in his contribution. The Government is engaging in a cynical attempt to get its hands on a pot of money it did not think would be so large. It is sending the wrong message to people at a time when serious question marks are being asked about politicians, politics and people in public office. It is a serious mistake for the Government to be seen to be acting in such a manner. I urge the Government to reconsider its decision.
I welcome the Bill. If I interpret correctly the general thrust of this legislation, it is a mechanism to reduce the general level of bureaucracy and administration required by anyone operating a large scheme of this type. I recall the discussion that took place about minimising bureaucracy when the national lottery was being established. It was necessary to keep administration to a minimum so the funds that accrued from the lottery could go directly to the various projects. The matter was dealt with capably by the various Departments that were involved. The then Departments of Health and Social Welfare and the bodies dealing with sport, leisure and recreation — the Department of Arts, Sport and Tourism was not in place at the time — administered the various schemes efficiently and carefully. To my knowledge, Members on the Opposition benches have never criticised the way the schemes were handled.
I wish to ask the Minister of State about his comment that an additional €30 million has been allocated to projects this year. I understand that the closing date for applications for the original €30 million was 5 March last. Now that the fund has been doubled and an additional €30 million has been allocated, I am concerned that fresh applications cannot be made at this stage. Will the consideration of applications be confined to applications that were made by 5 March? I would consider such an arrangement to be somewhat unsatisfactory. I would like some latitude to be given, now that an additional €30 million has been provided. Those who missed out on 5 March and were waiting for the chance to apply for the next allocation should be given a few weeks to get in their applications.
This matter involves a substantial amount of money. Applications were made earlier this year on the basis that €30 million was available. If it is the case that a further €30 million is available, a mechanism should be put in place to enable additional applications to be sought. I do not mean that the timeframe for applications should be extended for the entire year, but it might be a good idea to accept additional applications until the middle of July. Applications were not made by a number people representing good projects because they did not think sufficient funding would be made available. They anticipate that their applications would be successful on this occasion if they were to be allowed to make them.
The thrust of the legislation is to reduce bureaucracy. It is adequate and satisfactory to deal with the fund by means of existing administrative arrangements in Departments. In my view, such a system has worked well with national lottery allocations.
I recall that during a heated discussion on this issue during Private Members' time, I was extremely vocal in my criticism of the con job that is being perpetrated by the Government. I was present in the Dáil when the Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy, stated that the board would be established as a separate entity so it could be independent in its divesting of funds. He said that such a measure would ensure that the fund would not be misconstrued as a Government slush fund. How credible are the Minister's remarks now? Has the current Administration learned anything from the recent election? Has it taken notice of the wisdom of the electorate, which has been watching the Government's actions closely? The people are critical of decisions such as those taken in respect of Punchestown and electronic voting. If one thinks the electorate is gullible, one is mistaken because it can see through the Government's actions. Almost €250 million has been placed in the dormant accounts fund. I do not believe the Minister envisaged that type of funding when he was researching what would be available and now that it is available, the Government wants to have a hold over it.
In regard to the board of directors, the Minister is expanding the membership from nine to 11. In a previous position I was spokesman on the marine and I remember the then Minister introducing a change in regard to a board with responsibility for the estuary, which became the Shannon Foynes Port Company. Coming from Foynes, I was very enthusiastic about that at the time because I felt it would help the long-term development of the estuary. The then Minister reassured me in the House at the time that the directors he would appoint would be people with tremendous ability in the sphere of business and port activities but of the 11 members of that board, six were Fianna Fáil councillors. To my mind, that was a type of distortion.
The Minister set up an independent board, which was prepared to divest these funds and was accountable to the Committee of Public Accounts, but casting aspersions on a part-time chairperson by saying it was wrong to have him responsible, as a part-time chairperson, to the Committee of Public Accounts is a rather dramatic statement which is not practical. I doubt very much if the €0.25 billion was intended to be divested in one fell swoop. I anticipate it would have been divested over a period but what did the Minister do? He raised the membership from nine to 11 and, in what will be another stroke by the Government, I envisage the people who will be on the disbursement board will be friends of the party. That is the reality of what will happen.
I said earlier that the people have not been fooled. The Minister was greedy. He saw a pot of gold but he should reflect on the national lottery funding which was mentioned earlier in terms of its benefits for youth and sport facilities throughout the country. There have been achievements in that area but I know what happens in regard to organisations which come to me seeking assistance filling in the paperwork to apply for lottery funding. When they go to the Government representatives in the area, and it happens in west Limerick, Clare and elsewhere, a telephone call is made to the appropriate Fianna Fáil politician in the area or, in very rare instances, the Progressive Democrats representative, to tip them off about the funding that will be made available.
Accountability and transparency is referred to in the Bill, which states that details of the funds that are allocated will be published. They will be published in a pseudo attempt at transparency, as is done with details of national lottery funds, but the Minister should ask every politician, particularly Fianna Fáil politicians, about the largesse dispensed in their constituencies, particularly marginal constituencies. He will hear about the tip-offs and the meetings held to tell them that the money was on its way or that they would be getting €0.50 million or €100,000, as the case may be.
And there has been a very good——
That is the reality of what happens and Senator Daly knows it. The same will happen with this fund because that is what the Government does with this type of funding. Fianna Fáil cannot resist pulling the stroke and it has pulled a major stroke in regard to this issue——
What about transport?
——and Senator Daly knows that. That is regrettable.
We talk about catering for people experiencing disadvantage and those with educational needs. That is laudable but where will this money be dispensed? It will be in the areas where representations are made, particularly by Fianna Fáil politicians, and in marginal areas. The Government will do that with the ambition of winning more seats.
For the first time during the last election, and I have been canvassing since 1985, when I arrived at people's doors in other areas I was asked which party I represented. I proudly said "Fine Gael" and they said that if I had been one of the other crowd, I would not have been welcome. That happened on doorsteps in rural Ireland and it never happened before, but these type of strokes will ensure that it will happen again. The electorate will not forgive the Government for this type of stroke because we will remind them what it is doing lest it covers what it is trying to introduce in this Bill in a shroud of deception.
Hear, hear.
Hear, hear.
I hear what the Senators are saying but I do not know if they listened to me. I tried to listen to everything that was said——
I listened to the Minister a few months ago and he carried on with the same waffle. Does he want me to read out the comments?
The Minister of State, without interruption.
I am talking about all the speakers, not necessarily Senator Finucane, who spoke over the past two hours. It was interesting to hear the Senators' different perspectives, and I thank them for those, but the Senator zoned in on one interpretation of a particular aspect.
Several Members said all the money belongs to the people and that is correct. Whether it is this fund or general taxation funds, it is the people's money but the Government of the day has the job of putting structures and procedures in place to administer and manage that money. That is important. I realise this board is established only a few years but if problems arise, it is important to address them. That is the Government's responsibility.
There appears to be an obsession about who makes the phone call, who is knocking on doors late at night and so on. To take up Senator Henry's point, under the existing scheme, groups will apply and will be successful, while others will not. That is the position under the current set-up and when that set-up changes, it will remain the position.
When the original legislation was set up, it was not envisaged that the fund would be as big as it is now. It is not €500 million by the way; it is €220 million. I do not believe it will reach €500 million, or anything like that, because——
Does the Minister envisage that it will reach €500 million? It is an ageing population and people are dying.
The Minister of State, without interruption.
The money from the insurance fund turned out to be less than what some people were forecasting. People are claiming back money and from now on the money that comes in will not be as old, so to speak. There is a possibility that more of it will be claimed back. A total of €30 million was allocated and decisions on 58 applications have been made to date, totalling €6.4 million.
On Senator Daly's point, applications closed on 9 March and the board is of the view currently that if it were to award funding to all the applications received it might need €300 million rather than €30 million, but applications are always over-stated. The additional €30 million awarded by the Government last week was to allow it to adequately process all the applications received and to make awards in that respect. That €60 million will allow all the applications received up to the closing date in March to be addressed. If this new legislation goes through and the arrangements are changed, that will be the next amount of money, but €60 million has been allocated to the existing system.
The figure is higher than was originally set out and if people envisage problems arising there are very good reasons, in terms of governance and public policy, that changes are necessary. A situation cannot be allowed where a part-time chairman is legally responsible to the Committee of Public Accounts for expenditure of that level. That is just not done. Otherwise it will drift on for a few years until a problem arises suddenly and we are all in the manure business, so to speak. It is the responsibility of Government to make appropriate changes at this stage and to use the existing proper procedures. Somebody said earlier that all wisdom is not in Departments or public bodies. It may not be but there is a great deal of knowledge and expertise there and to ignore all that——
The Minister wants it before an election. He wants to get his hands on it.
The Minister of State, without interruption.
It is important that spending from the fund is linked with the Government policy priorities and——
The Minister of State is speaking of the Committee of Public Accounts. The new chairman will not be responsible.
A proper accounting system exists for all Secretaries General and it is important to use that structure. This fund is a large one and not just confined to €1 million or €2 million. The Government could have established a new empire to tie everything down. However, it would then be accused of creating a duplicate Civil Service with jobs for the boys. There are serious difficulties ahead from a government and financial management viewpoint. If they are not dealt with, the Government will be in a difficult situation.
It is a transparency and not a personnel issue.
It will be transparent. Public policy and proper governance demand that the system is properly controlled. ADM Limited, referred to by Senator McHugh, is not a God Almighty organisation but a body which is used by the board to process applications in accordance with criteria already laid down.
ADM Limited is an independent and transparent body.
The Minister of State without interruption.
It is given procedures and practices and does a job like the rest of us. In future, it may be used——
The word "may" does not instil confidence. ADM Limited was not mentioned once in the Minister of State's opening speech.
Senator McHugh allow the Minister of State to conclude.
ADM Limited was not mentioned once.
In my speech I stated that applications will be processed by or on behalf of public bodies. ADM Limited may not be specifically mentioned but——
It is not mentioned once. That is a kick in the teeth.
ADM Limited is not mentioned in the existing legislation. It is employed to do a job and assess matters. However, in the future it may or may not be employed. That is not relevant to this debate.
The community and voluntary sector receives much time and attention from the Government. A Department was established, formally recognising the link between the community and voluntary sector and Government. The Department works with various groups and the White Paper recognises the role and link between the Government and the voluntary sector. However, that does not allow the sector to make all decisions concerning the fund.
Why not?
It is about the link and co-operation between Government and the community sector. How can individuals involved in the community sector be allowed to process——
It is because it is not seeking re-election.
The Minister of State should come clean. The Government wants only it to decide where the money goes.
The Minister of State to conclude without interruption.
——- funding applications when many of their own groups and charities might be applicants? I do not want to refer to an incident last year which would prove my point.
The Minister of State is questioning their independence of judgment.
This is a good fund but changes to its structure were necessary. The proposed system will be seen to be fair and transparent. It will take on board the expertise on disadvantage and disabilities found in Departments, health boards and other State agencies. It is foolish to ignore this expertise that has been built up by the Civil Service. The Bill takes timely steps to put right upcoming problems. If they are not tackled now, in the future one may ask why it was allowed happen.
Question put.
The Seanad divided: Tá, 27; Níl, 14.
Tá
- Bohan, Eddie.
- Brady, Cyprian.
- Brennan, Michael.
- Callanan, Peter.
- Cox, Margaret.
- Daly, Brendan.
- Dardis, John.
- Dooley, Timmy.
- Feeney, Geraldine.
- Fitzgerald, Liam.
- Glynn, Camillus.
- Hanafin, John.
- Kett, Tony.
- Kitt, Michael P.
- Leyden, Terry.
- Lydon, Donal J.
- Morrissey, Tom.
- Moylan, Pat.
- O’Brien, Francis.
- Ó Murchú, Labhrás.
- Ormonde, Ann.
- O’Rourke, Mary.
- Phelan, Kieran.
- Scanlon, Eamon.
- Walsh, Jim.
- White, Mary M.
- Wilson, Diarmuid.
Níl
- Bannon, James.
- Bradford, Paul.
- Burke, Ulick.
- Coghlan, Paul.
- Cummins, Maurice.
- Feighan, Frank.
- Finucane, Michael.
- Hayes, Maurice.
- Henry, Mary.
- McHugh, Joe.
- O’Meara, Kathleen.
- O’Toole, Joe.
- Phelan, John.
- Terry, Sheila.
Tellers: Tá, Senators Dardis and Moylan; Níl, Senators U. Burke and McHugh.
Question declared carried.
When is it proposed to take Committee Stage?
Next Tuesday.
Committee Stage ordered for Tuesday, 6 July 2004.
When is it proposed to sit again?
Tomorrow at 10.30 a.m.