Vol. 178 No. 24
Before we commence I remind Senators that a Senator may speak only once on a Report Stage amendment, except the proposer of the amendment who may reply to the discussion on the amendment. In addition, on Report Stage each amendment must be seconded.
It is proposed to recommit amendments Nos. 12 to 36, inclusive, and section 8. Standing Orders governing Committee Stage debate will apply to the amendments which are recommitted. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 4, to delete lines 32 to 39, to delete pages 5 to 9 inclusive and in page 10, to delete lines 1 to 9.
I welcome the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs, Deputy Ó Cuív. He had a close call and I am glad he is recovering and before the Upper House again.
The Committee Stage debate on this Bill was truncated and too emotional at times and I wish to re-focus it on the Fine Gael Party's position on dormant accounts. Value for money is a major issue in terms of applications for funding made by community groups and how such funding is then spent. There is a problem with regard to the mainstream allocation of funding to groups which need it. It applies both to dormant accounts funds and lotto funding. While funding is useful to disadvantaged groups and community groups seeking money for capital purposes, stop-gap capital for human resources may not be sufficient when allocated once or twice. In the long term, we must focus our capacity on a national basis. To give credit where it is due, the Minister tried to do this and acknowledged the extent of duplication among State agencies.
Greater value for money would be obtained in the allocation of funding if much of the work was carried out more thoroughly. No mechanism is in place to track the funds allocated, monitor the way in which they are allocated or the areas which receive them. It is fine to hand a group €100,000 or €200,000 as a stop-gap measure but where are the follow-up and tracking measures? These are necessary if we are to get to grips with involving community groups and empowering them in the decision-making process.
The Fine Gael Party's main difficulty with the dormant accounts funds is that the initial structure of the dormant accounts disbursements fund ensured decisions would be taken at the level of partnership groups, specifically Area Development Management Limited. My party opposes decisions on the disbursement of funds being taken by the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs. This issue formed the basis of the debate on Committee Stage, during which Senators only scratched the surface. There is a deep malaise with regard to enterprise boards, community development groups, county development boards, partnership boards and cross-Border institutions. There are so many difficulties regarding where the groups are going, how they are funded and value for money when funding is allocated. We can be political and accuse Fianna Fáil of wanting the money for a pre-election slush fund. However, that is a minor part of the debate. If the shoe was on the other foot and Fine Gael was in power, we would probably do the same.
The Minister has tried to address the malaise. He has been to Donegal, which has the Inishowen Partnership, Donegal Local Development Company, Údarás na Gaeltachta and enterprise and county development boards. This plethora of representative organisations are trying to do the same thing at community level. On an economic level, there is the Western Development Commission, the Border midlands and western region, along with numerous cross-Border groups. These organisations all try to do good work. However, we have a centralised type of government. We must start at the beginning and empower these groups. I am not merely talking about development and community and economic representative groups, but also FÁS and the Department of Social and Family Affairs. There must be a decentralisation of power. Those in charge of regional groups must be given more power. There should be a national strategy for a country such as Ireland, which is unique and diverse in every region. That is the problem we have today.
What has this to do with amendment No. 1? We are only scratching at the surface of the issue of dormant accounts. We are playing petty politics over an issue which is far greater than the dispersal of funds. The manner in which the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs will take charge of the dispersal of funds is not the way forward. However, perhaps the Minister thinks it is the only way because there are so many groups and representative organisations. We must target and tackle the issue of how and where we spend our money, and ensure for the first time that taxpayers are confident their money will be distributed throughout the country. I am putting forward a general argument. It is a pity the Leader is not here because a wider debate is needed.
I second the amendment. There is nothing I could say to add to what Senator McHugh has said. He comes from a region which is a victim of the Stalinist centralisation of this country. Ireland is extraordinarily centralised. I have already discussed this issue with the current Minister. I do not know if it is the time of year, or my advancing years, but I am not in the humour I was before the summer for a major row with him about slush funds. I will eventually rise to the bait but I will be in good form for the start of the afternoon.
Drawing a matter such as this back into the Department is not the way to go. There is a belief the money will be better spent if controlled centrally. We all know of situations where in order to avoid visible mis-spending of 1%, costs have increased by 20%. Certain Department of Education and Science construction projects have had their prices pushed up 25% by inflation because of centralised decision making. The inflated price was probably then cut back by 1% as a result of the Department's vigilance. It was 24% more expensive than would be the case had it been allowed to proceed as part of a decentralised decision-making process.
Many of Senator McHugh's comments could easily be expressed on this side of the House and should be taken as read. That would be the principle relating to the disbursement of any public funds. Recalling a previous debate on the issue, it was quite evident there were difficulties with regard to the disbursement board being able to handle the funds and the availability of staff. There were many central issues. I made a comment which was taken as casting aspersions on civil servants, but I have the utmost confidence in the Department and the Civil Service. They have their ears close to the ground, they do not work in isolation, they listen to public representatives and they have an overview of what is happening in the country.
I identify with Senator McHugh's points about the plethora of agencies. That issue must be revisited to some extent to ensure maximum value for money and an identification of demarcation lines and duplication. Anybody working on the ground would be aware of the issues, although I am not sure it directly relates to the subject we are discussing. While I agree with much of what Senator McHugh said, this is a different issue.
Much more of the money was reclaimed by the original owners than expected. That was good news because there was the sneaking feeling that we had somebody else's money. However, I was glad when almost 50% was reclaimed in the initial period. The amount of money available is less. I have no doubt about the focus because it relates back to existing programmes such as CLÁR and RAPID. These have a track record and a history with which we are familiar, and we have a good idea where the money should go. The Department has a better idea because it is responsible for the programmes.
We should make a distinction between the two issues to which Senator McHugh refers. The number of agencies is a matter for debate, but it is difficult to expect a board with a non-executive or temporary chairman to have full accountability or take responsibility for what is a relatively large amount of money.
I agree with the previous speakers with regard to the proliferation of these bodies. We have considerable experience of the issue here in Dublin. The Minister recently attended a meeting with over 200 representatives of various bodies from the northside of the city. We must accept central control and constant vigilance are necessary with regard to how these moneys are used and spent. Are the same people taking advantage of the same funds all the time, or is it spread evenly? We must deal with such issues, in particular with regard to this fund. There is a significant proliferation of bodies which do great work in their own little patches. However, in many areas there is a crossover and duplication of responsibilities and work being done. We must guard against such occurrences.
My voice is not the best today, but it will hold up. I will first lay down some basic principles with regard to spending any money, particularly extra money. We must first ensure additional delivery on the ground. The second point relates to poly-funding. I met yesterday with a group which received funding from the Department of €84,000 and whose State income from all sources amounted to approximately €700,000 with seven or eight State agencies being involved. Poly-funding causes two problems in that the left hand of the State does not know what the right hand is doing and there is no co-ordination. Such funding caused problems for that particular group which believed it had been left short of funding. It is hard for the Department to prove whether it should have lived within its budget or had been left short. However, that is not the issue. I would much prefer a co-ordinated approach so that each group knows how much State funding it will receive, even if it is from different sources, and can plan accordingly.
The third point relates to objectiveness which should be divided into two parts. After-school services are important to people in disadvantaged areas and it is important those in politics are in a position to make a value judgment on that issue. It is also important that when such decisions are made the money provided is disbursed in a fair and objective manner so that all applicants are, in so far as is humanly possible, treated equally. The fourth point relates to focus. The current arrangement lacks focus. An advertisement was placed in the newspaper suggesting anybody could apply for any dream they had. That is not fair to applicants and it is not a good way to spend State money. Somebody has to focus priorities and to make an incremental difference to them. The fifth point relates to sustainability. I am concerned, in terms of disbursements to date, about what will happen when that fund runs out. In an ideal world, groups should be able to come to us and ask if we are willing to keep projects going when funding runs out. I can be sure if I provide funding of €50,000 or €100,000 for two years to a drug project in Wicklow that that project will not have gone away after that time. Somebody will have to decide, when this money runs out, if such projects are to continue.
I have stated time and again that there are too many pilot projects in this country, many of which run for two or three years. That only gets us through the gate in the short term. I have not yet seen an evaluation of these schemes which suggests they should not receive further funding. Some 90% of such projects are needed. When the time for such pilot projects has expired one has to decide because one started them to keep with them. I worked for many years in the voluntary sector and I disliked short-term current expenditure because when it ran out I had to start again from square one. This situation is worse. If money for such projects is paid for by way of the budget through Departments it is at least likely the same budget will be available the following year and one can try to recoup money spent. If, however, that money comes from a budget headline which only has a limited amount of finance into the future, what then happens?
The sixth point relates to the tracking mechanism on which I would like to make two points. Tracking is important but we have now reached the point where keeping records has become more important than providing a service. That is a very tricky equation. I do not want to receive into my office every morning the menu from a project which provides breakfast for 50 children. One hears quickly enough from local sources if something is wrong in such areas. Likewise I do not want to hear about the number of children who turn up for such breakfasts every morning. Such information clogs up offices with paper. We should allow projects which receive funding and are doing their job well to get on with the job and should not tie up their timekeeping records. People often say the private sector is so much more efficient than the public sector. It is because it only keeps records where needed. It does not get involved in inane inordinate recording keeping. There is a tricky balance to be struck. We need good accountability but we do not want everyone in the voluntary sector to be swamped in mounds of paper, keeping mindless records on irrelevant matters. One knows one will get quick feedback on such issues if one keeps one's ear to the ground.
The Dormant Accounts Fund Disbursement Board is a decision-making board. ADM acts only on an agency basis. It is a private company which receives all its funding from the State and in that regard is under State direction in terms of its budget and so on. The Government has not interfered in ADM's operation of the board. I have great time for that company which does a great deal of work for my Department and others. However, ADM is too limited an organisation to handle such disbursements. The Senator's point that we should make regional decisions is a fair one. Under what is now being proposed, that is the route we will go.
The Senator will be aware that community development is important in CLÁR areas. I wanted to assist community development effort whether through enterprise centres or other projects in CLÁR areas and set aside €1 million per annum in that regard. The mechanism used in that regard is quite interesting. If the local Leader company decides to grant €50,000 to a project, CLÁR will, without second-guessing the fundamental decision, back that sum with another €50,000 subject to EU rules. The Department does not exercise any control over such decisions which have been devolved to local Leader companies. We make it attractive for Leader companies in CLÁR areas to grant money to community projects. I do not make any decisions on such matters. I favour that type of approach.
The rural social scheme has been devolved to the local Leader companies. We could provide lump sums to such bodies and lay down certain criteria on additionality, objectiveness and so on. The type of bodies I envisage being used are VECs, MABs, local social welfare offices which have a good regional network, Leader companies, partnerships and CDPs. Such bodies would make local decisions. If one is to grant funding of €20 million per year one must focus one's priorities. One could, for example, decide to provide €5 million or €6 million for social and economic deprivation and then discover from the Dormant Accounts Fund Disbursement Board that certain things are falling through the cracks and that additionality is important. Suppose it was decided — I intend to do this with RAPID and am merely using it as an example — that providing kitchens in schools for the provision of hot school meals is important in areas of deprivation. We could then go to the relevant authorities with proposals on the amount of funding required for the year. I favour that type of approach to life. We are not doing away with the dormant accounts board as it is key to the new construction.
Senator McHugh fears what we might do with the fund. However, the dormant accounts board will be tracking our decisions, checking for additions and it will make a detailed assessment report on them. If anyone acted capriciously with the fund, he or she would be worse off than if it had been left to the board. The board would write a strongly critical report that would be highlighted by the Opposition, who, in turn, would highlight it to the media. The media would be delighted to point the finger at politicians, claiming the funds were abused, and neither is it the type of issue that would fade away.
The Government and I are committed to probity and good practice with the fund. If not, we will only create an exocet missile that would destroy us. The board and ADM have, within the resources available to them, done as good a job as possible. However, it is not the proper way to disperse the moneys.
I have an aversion to the open advertising method used. Applications amounting to €3 million were received in the first two months of open advertising. If it had been left open until the summer, the figure would now be €3 billion. With the volume of applications received, it is impossible, unless through a lengthy delay, to assess every application individually. I cannot make a value judgment on the decisions already made. I raised the legitimate question about sustainability because so much of the fund has gone into cover money. I would prefer a more focused approach that addresses issues not normally tackled by mainstream funding.
I receive many delegations from the voluntary sector. Those doing good work in the sector are honest people. However, for one reason or another, some voluntary groups have not kept within budget. One can take the schoolmaster approach by advising them that budgets were allocated and they must be kept. Yesterday, along with Deputies from three different parties, I received a delegation involved in youth work. The group is short a small amount of money, some 10% of its budget, and requested assistance from me. I explained that if I were to do something, I would have to be equal to everybody. However, the human side of me acknowledged the group's hard work and that, due mainly to accounting inexperience, it had made some mistakes leading to the shortfall. No Member would advocate the closure of groups in such circumstances. I try to see if some action can be taken within the set criteria and, after a rap across the knuckles, the group is told to stay within budget for the following year. No state can be run on the basis that groups such as this are forced to close because they fail to adhere to established criteria.
We need departmental officials to be human, yet make accountable and reasonable decisions. As well as the normal criteria, there is now more accountability in the public service such as internal and external audits. I have one final and simple test for any decision I make on funding. Will the Opposition criticise me for making an incorrect decision? If I believe the Opposition could sustain such criticisms, I would not make the decision. Our positions have an important part to play in ensuring everything is done properly. I, as a Minister, do not want the Opposition accusing me in the House that I gave out moneys unfairly. I always want to sustain my argument by showing the rationale behind what I did, while being as objective as humanly possible and following good procedures.
I oppose this amendment. We are not doing away with the board. If we were to do what Senator McHugh fears we might, the board would have much to say about it, giving the Opposition the most valuable ammunition on this side of an election. That is not our intention. We intend to spend these moneys, subject to the board's plans, in a focused way, using all the mechanisms of State and, where appropriate, devolving the mechanisms, selection, etc., to the lowest level possible.
I will take the blame if an argument straying from the amendment arises. I am delighted the Minister said there is too much emphasis on reports and paperwork. Too much money, energy, expertise and time is spent on compiling reports of which the biggest culprit is FÁS. A supervisor running a community employment scheme, in tracking 15 participants, must produce progression reports from training to employment involving reams of paper. These reams go only as far as the regional FÁS centre and no further. Where is the link between this, the central FÁS system and the Department of Social and Family Affairs?
With regard to the two to three year projects, I believe the Minister was alluding to the social economy scheme. The scheme was established with the intention of projects becoming sustainable after two to three years. However, it was based on a European think tank's argument that sought to encourage people with social entrepreneurship skills to get involved. That did not happen. The social economy scheme duplicated the community employment scheme. As we all know, community employment schemes are not sustainable but are provided as a first step in the ultimate progression of a participant to the workforce. The problem was at the initial forward planning stage when the necessary homework was not carried out by the relevant Department. While I accept I am being parochial in my reference to Inishowen and have no doubt that Deputy Keaveney has by now hammered down the Minister's door, the social economy scheme in the area is merely serving as a community employment scheme. The scheme is not to blame. The problem lies in the failure to do the homework in the first instance.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 5, between lines 5 and 6, to insert the following:
"(a) to establish transparent criteria for the disbursement of funds under the Dormant Accounts Acts 2001 to 2004,”.
Is oth liom a rá nach ndúras é seo nuair a sheasas suas den chéad uair. Dúras leis an Aire go príobháideach é, ach ba mhaith liom é a rá go poiblí go bhfuil sé go breá a fheiscint go bhfuil sé tagtha chuige féin anois arís agus nár tharla aon damáiste fadtéarmach dó. Tá mé buíoch, agus bainimid go léir sásamh as é a fheiscint ina sheasamh agus ina fhear éifeachtach arís. I apologise for not saying that at the outset. It was an omission on my part. I am glad to see the Minister here.
The amendment is self-explanatory. I concede the Minister has made significant efforts in his amendments to make his original proposal consistent with the criteria to which he has referred today and during the last debate. I am not at all sure the criteria for disbursement should be established by the Department rather than by the board. Whatever about the power to make decisions on disbursement, I am not sure it is a good division of functions to also provide the Department with responsibility for outlining the eligibility criteria. While I am not persuaded of the fundamental merits of his case, even if one accepts the Minister's contention that the Department should be the body which makes evaluations on the basis of the criteria, it is not obvious why the establishment of criteria should not remain a function of the board.
I second the amendment.
Government amendment No. 14 will address the matter. The plan as presented to the board was quite generous, but we did not determine that the board would establish the criteria. The criteria under discussion will be very tight. While the board can write the plan in whatever way it wants, I may be required to make new decisions. The CLÁR scheme is typical in the tightness of the criteria which apply. Whereas the Department makes decisions on, for example, class 3 roads which might have 65 year old persons living on them, the board has not wished to involve itself in detail of that sort in its operations. The importance we attach to establishing detailed criteria to ensure the focus is right to target funds where we mean them to apply is very much in keeping with the spirit of Senator Ryan's concerns. If the criteria were written in the plan, it would be voluminous and rewriting it in the event that the criteria had to be amended would be very tedious.
At times, things do not work out as simply as one originally expects. There was a year when I had a bit of money in the Department and we decided to fund the improvement of small country roads. It was a very simple operation. Funding was allocated to county councils on the basis of the population of each county and we indicated that no more than €20,000 should be spent per boreen. The scheme was aimed at those dead-end roads on which older people live and which are never the subject of improvement works. Any rural person could empathise with that objective. When the scheme was operating, Leitrim County Council contacted me to tell me it had a problem. While we had provided the council with overall funding of approximately €200,000, it had encountered a small bridge into a village which it would take €80,000 to improve. It was made of timber and was liable to be washed away in a flood. The county council wanted to know if it could spend four allocations of €20,000 on the bridge as it was not possible to improve one quarter of the bridge or to improve the entire structure over a four year period. The Department rewrote the criteria to maintain the existing funding provisions except in the case of a small bridge on a class 3 road. A county council can now improve a bridge in substitution for other works, even if it is required to spend more than €20,000.
We made an adult, rational decision in that instance. While local authorities were not being provided with a greater overall funding allocation, they were empowered to decide how to spend money. The reason I provided for allocations of €20,000 per road in the first place is that I have a suspicion about county engineers. They would rather build a motorway than a boreen or a large boreen than a small one. My intention was to focus on small, dead-end roads on which older people tend to live and which are never improved. While I was caught out by the criteria I had originally established, I could amend them openly and transparently.
While we are in broad agreement with Senator Ryan, it would not be useful to provide for circumstances in which an entire plan would have to be rewritten. I assure the Senator that the criteria will be published to allow everyone to know what they are. However, as it is very difficult to foresee every eventuality, I must have a mechanism to address a scenario in which matters do not work out the way we think they will. We must be able to change the criteria openly, transparently and fairly without having to rewrite the whole plan. That is the reason for the approach we are taking.
I was present at the opening of the bridge about which the Minister spoke. It is now referred to as Droichead de Valera. Is the amendment being pressed?
I should reprimand the Chair, but I will not. The Minister made a plausible case. As we will encounter these matters again, I see no point in pushing them any further. We will come back to it.
Amendments Nos. 4 and 7 to 11, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together, by agreement.
I move amendment No. 4:
In page 5, to delete lines 7 to 10 and substitute the following:
"(a) to prepare, approve and carry out a plan for the disbursement of moneys under Part 6, in accordance with the criteria established by it,”.
While I am notorious for my sensitivities on the grouping of amendments, on this occasion I am agreeable. The amendments under discussion address the nub of the issue, which is the delineation between the role of the board and the role of the Department. I could take up time by repeating myself, but as I expect we will return to these matters when we discuss section 8, I will simply withdraw the amendment.
I second the amendment.
As long as I am Minister, I will be willing to continue to do something I consider to be very important. Every year, the Dormant Accounts Fund Disbursement Board produces a report. On its publication, it is fair for the holder of my office to come to the House to respond to a debate and provide a forum in which it can be seen whether the Government has lived up to its promises or if the worries of Members are substantiated.
Will Senator Ryan also be withdrawing amendments Nos. 7 to 11, inclusive? He has an opportunity to discuss them with amendment No. 4.
Perhaps I was a little premature in withdrawing my amendment. It will not be discussed now. I have no control over any of Senator McHugh's amendments——
You could hold discussion of them until we reach amendment No. 7.
I normally understand procedure fully——
My understanding is that as amendment No. 4 is being withdrawn, amendments Nos. 7 to 10, inclusive, have not been discussed. Do you want to discuss those amendments in a group beginning with amendment No. 7?
Yes.
I move amendment No. 5:
In page 5, between lines 10 to 11, to insert the following:
"(b) to prepare and approve detailed proposals for disbursement under the Dormant Accounts Acts 2001 to 2004,”.
I move this amendment to avoid complications. I welcome what the Minister said about the report of the dormant accounts board being discussed in the House and invite him to consider, not necessarily here but before the Bill is passed by the Oireachtas, inserting a formulation of words in the legislation to ensure the report is laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas and debated. It is not that I distrust people when they say they will do something. Most Ministers who come into this House say that with the best of intentions but things can get lost in the mists of time and it is necessary to have a requirement in the legislation that the report be laid before the Houses and debated in the House, although not before a joint committee.
Despite my high opinion of joint committees, issues do not get noticed much in them and they often discuss issues without the presence of the Minister, although officials from the Department may be present. It is a question of ultimate political accountability, which would not be the case if the dormant accounts board met the appropriate Oireachtas committee. Members of such committees usually feel, even if they are not so precluded, they should not be too critical of Ministers whereas many of us in this House do not have the same inhibitions. A debate in the Oireachtas, therefore, would be useful. I take the opportunity, in moving the amendment, to invite the Minister to further pursue what he has already indicated he would like to do.
I second the amendment.
Section 9(4) provides that, as soon as practical after receiving the board's report, the Minister shall cause copies of the report to be laid before each House of the Oireachtas. My understanding is that the mechanism of asking somebody to come into the Houses is one for the Houses themselves. I assure the Senator, however, that having laid the report it would be a foolish Minister who would allow a debate without affording himself or herself the right to reply if invited to do so.
An issue was raised on Committee Stage about appointment of members and this amendment deals with that aspect. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that groups working in the area of tackling disadvantage and with persons with a disability have the opportunity to make submissions concerning the appointment of four of the ten ordinary members to the board. I have never been keen on members to boards representing an organisation because once they go on the board they must represent the board. I might not be right in that view. I might not be going with what is now considered the prevailing wisdom, but in an effort to take on board the points made on Committee Stage we suggest that submissions should be taken on four of the ten ordinary members and that they would be considered in making appointments.
I welcome the amendment. As a matter of practice I am unhappy with the phrase, "the Minister's opinion", whenever it arises. The Minister's opinion is unchallengeable. He is entitled to his opinion. If the reference was to "the Minister's judgment" or "if the Minister was satisfied", it would be capable of some judicial test, although I am not suggesting one would want to do that, as to how the Minister was satisfied or came to a particular judgment. The phrase "in the Minister's opinion" appears to have been inserted by the Parliamentary Counsel to ensure that whatever the Minister does is unchallengeable. The Minister can have a perverse opinion — I do not refer to this Minister — but as long as he has an opinion he can do it. For example, if the Minister wanted to appoint someone he knew to the board and that person had worked with the homeless, having spent a week 20 years ago working with the Simon Community — I know something about this area — the Minister could decide it was his opinion that this person had knowledge and experience relating to that area. It would be a perverse opinion but because the phrase is "the Minister's opinion" and not "the Minister's reasonable judgment" or anything like that, there is nothing anybody could do about it. Therefore, the Minister would not be in a position to be held to account, other than people like myself giving out about him. The phrase "in the Minister's opinion" is unsatisfactory in legislation because it does not bind the Minister to anything other than saying "I think", and Ministers should be a little more accountable than that.
I concur with Senator Ryan. The Minister summed up his own stand on this issue in seeking the allocation and disbursement of money to be done on a transparent basis. We are all in the game of protecting ourselves and not putting ourselves in a compromising position. The Minister should not put himself in a compromising position. He should delegate the task of appointments to somebody else, be it the head of CDBs or certain partnerships, agencies or whatever. This wording will put the Minister in a compromising position. Discretion does not come into the question of accountability and transparency and the Minister would be putting himself into a dangerous position if this is included.
Senator Ryan said he was not referring to the incumbent in the office, and we have had glowing commendations for the Minister today. The Minister has an excellent record in meeting with the various groups involved in community and other development work throughout the country. It is clear that in this case the Minister would have an excellent knowledge of what was happening in the field. Senator McHugh was generous in suggesting the Minister would avoid compromise but there is no doubt he is a courageous man, and it is not just this Minister we are talking about but future Ministers.
We have to examine our own positions as Senators or Deputies because we could eventually reach a stage where we could become impotent in the context of our interaction and involvement in decision making. We have to be careful in that regard. In terms of this and other legislation we are constantly putting pieces of a jigsaw puzzle together which provides greater transparency and accountability. The public expects that from us and it is right that we do that. That arises from healthy debate but it would be wrong of us to think that we are politically correct in avoiding all types of decision making and responsibility. After all, a Minister has to first win his position on the hustings and then in terms of his own capability and knowledge of the portfolio. We have a fairly good system and there will always be checks and balances involved in terms of any discussion that will take place subsequently at the reporting stage.
Earlier, the Minister made clear the greatest check and balance is the ballot box in terms of whether one has fulfilled one's role diligently and fairly. It must be accepted our Ministers are generally of high calibre and we should have confidence in them to do what is right and equitable, no matter which Government is in power.
When the Minister advertises for nominations from community and interest groups, would it be more appropriate that such nominations should be made to him by these groups so that he could then make the appointments with due caution rather than adopting the modus operandi he proposes? A Minister should not put himself or herself in that position and it would be much fairer if the groups knew their interests would be articulated satisfactorily on their behalf. The Minister stated that when the representatives are appointed they become board members and work on behalf of the board, not the community or interest groups. Such groups should make nominations for the Minister’s approval rather than us accepting this amendment.
With regard to Senator Ryan's question, the wording is drafted in accordance with legal advice. I am not sure it is a positive development but we have become technocratic about procedures. I am always reminded of a version I saw of the play, "A Man For All Seasons", in which a commentator represented the common person. It is important that boards are not peopled with appointees who have PhDs, DLits, DScs and so on. They are fine people in their own right but sometimes they lack a feel for issues on the ground. We have probably gone from one extreme to the other in this regard in recent years.
Appointing boards is tricky. I will soon appoint two new boards and it is always a difficult process. I try to consider many criteria such as gender balance, which is important. Certain boards need a geographic balance or a skills balance or, sometimes, a linguistic balance. However, the most fundamental element is the likely contribution of a person to the aims and interests of the board rather than the pursuit of sectional interests.
I sometimes make discreet inquiries when a board has been in place for a while as to who attends meetings and makes good, constructive contributions. That is always interesting. Occasionally I will receive a positive telephone call and somebody will sell himself or herself regarding commitment, ideas and approach. When appointed, he or she thinks outside the box and takes issues forward in a sensible manner, whereas other appointees are journeymen, attending meetings, drawing a stipend but not making a contribution. However, there is no relationship between the academic qualifications of an individual or his or her professional work and the contribution he or she makes to a board. In most cases inherent commitment to the job in hand and belief in what the board was set up to do, and its delivery, determines performance but that is difficult to measure.
Qualifications in their widest sense are important. An appointee may never have worked in the headquarters of a major national community organisation but he or she may have been involved within his or her parish for 30 or 40 years in development in a selfless way by putting in time, effort, money and know-how on the ground. Experts are needed on such boards but a mixture of people must be appointed.
With the exception of Senator Ulick Burke's proposal, none of the others would per se take away the need for judgment. Somebody must make a judgment. Does the Minister or a group such as a community development programme make it in the final analysis? If the chairpersons of CDPs made the decisions, nobody would believe the Minister failed to get to them even if he or she did not go near them because people tend to believe what they want. If they make a bad call, they cannot be called before the House to be asked what the hell they are at, unlike the Minister.
The party politics in which we are engaged is tuppence ha'penny stuff compared to academic politics. The president of a university college stated the difference between party politics and academic politics is that in party politics one is stabbed in the back whereas in academic politics one is stabbed in the front. I do not know whether that is bad because I have never been in academia.
Has the Minister been stabbed?
Not yet. Anybody who thinks lobbying of a board does not take place because it is one remove from a Minister has never experienced the worlds of academia and voluntary organisations. People will be accountable at least under this legislation.
There is two problems with Senator Ulick Burke's proposal, which crop up now and again. If all the CDPs were given a right to nominate somebody to the board, he or she would become their prisoner. If money is allocated to a partnership, he or she will be questioned as to why he or she did not ensure the money was allocated to the CDP rather than the partnership. There is a tendency for that to happen and I am not enamoured with boards to whom people are appointed in this manner because the person becomes a prisoner of the organisation that nominates him or her. The second problem is that the person is a nominee of the community development programme, CDP. Does this mean that every time the board is making a recommendation on something to do with CDPs, the CDP nominee must vacate the room?
The third issue is a strange by-product of nominees. Remember, for example, when we considered the issue of the number of women on boards and the Department with the worst record. We were ready to berate our colleagues for having so few women on boards, but before we could do so they pointed out that the matter was not so simple because if we removed the ministerial nominees where the balance was right with the 40% minimum, the balance of nominations to the board tended to be men which often left a skewed board in terms of gender equity. If nominations are to come from different groups, we cannot prescribe alternate male or female nominees for each group. Neither can we say we will put in half a woman and half a man where there is only one nomination to be made. This issue is a problem.
It is dangerous ground.
It is very dangerous ground. It is also dangerous to ignore the desire and need for proper representation of women on boards. If the Senators were Ministers, I would prefer them to be doing the nominations, subject to what is being imposed today, rather than some distant body that I think would be much easier manipulated than any Minister. We are elected to make decisions. We should make them wisely and, if we get them wrong, be held to account. We are at least accountable to the electorate. Other people are not accountable in that way. In the interest of accountability I ask the Senators to accept the layout proposed.
Amendments Nos. 7 to 11, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 7:
In page 10, line 20, to delete "Minister" and substitute "Board".
This may be repetitious as we discussed some of this before. The issue is difficult because the Minister has made a genuine effort to listen and respond to what was said here on Committee Stage. However, there is genuine unease that the decision on the allocation of funds will be a political decision.
The Minister has a plausible case. When the Minister first spoke this afternoon he gave a list of criteria for how funding like this should be used with which everybody would agree. Unfortunately, experience is that there are many well publicised cases where what we thought were fixed criteria were not adhered to, for example, Punchestown and a well-known marina. I am more on the side of politics than on the side of delegating everybody. I have spoken frequently about the "tyranny of experts" and claim ownership of that phrase. It is dangerous to allow such tyranny. I do not believe in technocratic government.
I have some sympathy with the Minister's view. However, we all know of some of the strange appointments to public bodies, not all by Fianna Fáil but it has been in Government more than anybody else and tends to make more appointments than any of us. People have been appointed to various bodies over the years by various Governments, but only a Minister with his eyes shut could be of the opinion that they had a particular expertise in the area. Their expertise was often their expertise at looking after the Minister's political interests on the board. That is the problem with this issue of transferring the funds.
I see many advantages in the framework outlined by the Minister. However, it is less likely, and will continue to be less likely, that an independent board could be overridden in the way a group of civil servants of the highest integrity could be bypassed. We have ample evidence of this, even in the Department which is meant to monitor all the rest, the Department of Finance. There, the will of the Minister, as we know, bypassed the criteria the Department had set up for evaluating funding. I do not want to get into a cynical argument about that, but this is a genuine issue.
I accept the Minister's point that sometimes political interference might be necessary to put some humanity into the matter. However, in the two cases I mentioned, we can see no justification for the way in which the established criteria were ignored other than political advantage for the Ministers in question. It was good for them politically to do what they did.
If the Minister is determined to do it his way, it behoves him to give us some reason to believe that under similar pressures of political exigency, Ministers will not bypass all his fine criteria and use funds from the dormant accounts fund and take the consequences afterwards. All he said, and all the contumely from the Opposition was directed at the heads of the Ministers who behaved that way, but little difference did it make — one of them is now a European Commissioner.
The Opposition has a function. Good public administration also has a function. I am not convinced that any system — I accept the Minister has endeavoured to improve it — which leaves the decision within the direct political process can ever be as transparent or as guaranteed to be independent as public body boards. I am not so naive as to believe that these boards are entirely independent of political pressure. However, the extra barriers reduce the possibilities of arbitrary political interference. We have plentiful evidence of arbitrary political interference, but that is what the Minister says will not happen. I cannot see how he can ever put together an administrative and decision-making system which will not be effectively the same as the board — even if it was in his Department — which would guarantee the absence of arbitrary interference. That is why, however we work through this — this arises also under section 8 — the fundamental issue remains regarding how we can give an absolute guarantee of absence of capricious political interference once the decision is within the remit of the Minister.
I second the amendment.
There is an extra element here. The criteria laid down for the board as it is were very general when the advertisement was placed in the newspapers last year. They were so general that it is a matter of judgment for ADM as to what is in and what is out. The advertisement was in no way specific and every position came under the one advertisement.
We are trying to move away from that to a more constrained situation with more detailed criteria. We have written that into the Bill through an amendment.
Suppose we did what the Senator suggests we should do. He mentioned several cases where he believes criteria were not followed.
It is a fact that they were not followed.
If that were to happen in this case, does the Senator not think there would be a danger of the board resigning due to the Minister not applying the plan? That would happen if it thought the Minister had gone off the rails. If the board resigned, one would be in right trouble.
The group has to write a report examining the criteria and each decision to see if it was made strictly according to those criteria and if the criteria fulfil the remit of the plan in terms of additionality and so on. There is limited room for manoeuvre.
One other thing which I have often said is that I may be working in a strange Department. One feature that has been a hallmark of my tenure in the Department since 2002 has been an incredibly strict adherence to good governance criteria. Incredibly detailed audits have been carried out to assess if any loopholes exist, even for schemes that already have detailed criteria.
I do not make most of the decisions. Mechanisms are in place to assess criteria according to which decisions are made. We check to ensure there are no loopholes in the system by which a decision we make could be misused. We examine all the procedures right down to payments.
We have consistently tried to implement systems as regards all our procedures during the past two years. Some schemes in my Department go back to the 1950s. Many good decisions have been made. Receiving bodies tended to prefer the Department to make decisions rather than semi-State agencies that subsequently took over responsibility in some areas. However, I agree decisions were made more in the style of the 1950s than the new millennium. We are now trying to implement systems so there is much greater transparency as to how the process is carried out. We have been most assiduous in trying to have an open, transparent and fair system.
I envisage the dormant accounts fund being administered according to very strict criteria that would not be changed unless something proved to be stupid. One has to have discretion in terms of the Department's Vote. We could debate the matter ad nauseam but Departments in general have to run and work towards clear criteria. However, they must also have an ability to deal with the unexpected, such as a problem where an employee in a voluntary body was not very efficient which resulted in the body running into financial trouble. I speak about the Department, not the fund, which is one-off money.
Does one close down such a body? The Department should have the ability to deal with such cases; the dormant accounts fund should not bail them out. The fund should be used to do things which are clearly additional, that are not done by the State system. I refer to such areas as disability, educational disadvantage and social and economic disadvantage. The schemes should be fairly rigid and fixed.
In cases where people get into trouble, it would be at the discretion of the Department to deal with them. I speak in the wider sense, as Departments must work to criteria. However, there should be some facility within those criteria to deal with unexpected matters and human frailty, not within the Department but outside it.
We are all aware of community groups which took on employees but it did not work out. We have plenty of small groups with one or two employees. If the head employee is not very effective and leaves after six months he or she often leaves a mess behind. I cannot say that was tough luck to that community. The Department should have discretion to make tricky decisions, with which I believe all sides of the House would agree, especially if a group has dealt with its problems. I do not envisage the dormant accounts fund being used in that way. It should be applied in a very strict and focused way that is clearly additional. If that is not the case, the dormant accounts board would certainly have the upper hand on us. The one point that has been forgotten is that the board is not going away, it will remain in place and it will be able to exert a significant moral authority if what we say here is not complied with to the letter of the law.
I recall this same debate taking place in regard to An Coimisinéir Teanga and the Ombudsman. People said they would have no power. I count up the Ombudsman's complaints to my Department because it does not please us when complaints are made to the Ombudsman. If they are upheld we feel it points to a system's failure on our part. Similarly, if the board were to come back with a stinker of a report that would reflect badly on the political system.
The Minister made a sincere and plausible case. I do not wish to get involved in an argument with him, but the truth is that if one looks at section 8, which we will come to later, the disbursement will not be decided by a system within the Department, it will be decided on the basis of a recommendation to Government which the Government may approve, with or without amendment. I have no problem accepting that a system will be devised within the Department which might well construct a set of rigorous criteria — I prefer the term "rigorous" to "rigid"— for the disbursement. However, there is nothing in the legislation to prevent the Government deciding to ignore one of those and slip €100,000 to somebody's pet project, which might not meet any of the criteria. If there is such a provision I missed it.
The Minister would have a valid point if this were an issue decided by a professional, skilled unit within the Department operating according to transparent criteria that everybody could see. All that professionalism is not binding on Government. Why does the matter go to Government to be filleted if it wishes? I do not say that will be the case, but why should it go to Government? The Minister will probably have to wait, given the way we deal with Report Stage. That is why I will not withdraw the amendment.
I move amendment No. 8:
In page 11, lines 1 and 2, to delete "submit to the Minister" and substitute "approve".
I move amendment No. 9:
In page 11, line 43, to delete "by the Minister".
I move amendment No. 11:
In page 11, line 43, to delete "by the Minister".
Amendments Nos. 12 to 24, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together by agreement.
I move amendment No. 12:
In page 12, to delete lines 8 to 29.
A great deal of information is contained in these amendments. They return us to the issue of funding distribution and the so-called board. I still have suspicions about and problems with who will be accountable and in who will have discretion in regard to the distribution of money. My fear is that this board will be established as a dummy, which merely fulfils the provisions of the Dormant Accounts Act for its own sake. All the indications are that the disbursement of the money will be at the discretion of the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs and his Cabinet colleagues on the basis of recommendations from the board.
The Minister agreed with me that there should be more regional governance because the system is very centralised at present. In that context, an opportunity was missed in the provision of powers to this board. A decentralised regional board could have been provided for, which would represent all the regions. On a board of ten members, will Cork, south Kerry, north-west Donegal or Louth be represented? I am not being parochial, rather I want to do justice to the thinking which is being undertaken by people on the ground. Leaving aside the specifics of Donegal, a sort of north-west regional think tank has developed in this regard. Will this area be represented on the board and, if it is, what powers will any representative have in directing funds to his or her own region?
The Minister stated that three criteria will be strictly adhered to in the allocation of funding, namely, socio-economic disadvantage, educational disadvantage and educational disability disadvantage. As the Minister knows, these criteria cover every type of activity from setting up an egg hatchery to developing an ostrich racecourse. Economic and social disadvantage covers everything and creates a window of opportunity for the Cabinet to consider every project which lands on its desk as eligible for dormant accounts funding. There is no restriction in terms of what will be funded and what will not.
At the outset of this debate, I referred to a deeper malaise which still exists, in regard to which an opportunity was missed in the provisions to establish this board. If we decide to nominate a board, which makes recommendations and proposals to the Cabinet, one-off grants will be awarded, for example, €100,000 to group A or €200,000 to group B, which will only gratify short-term needs but go no way to addressing the long-term sustainability of projects. Perhaps this money would be better used to examine regional governance and how we could give more control and autonomy to the major players outside our centralised Government, which Senator Ryan described as a Stalinist-type system.
This is a stop-gap measure which will be politicised and the Minister knows in his heart that is the case, although he will not say so on the record. I acknowledge that the Minister is genuine in his intentions, as Senator Ryan has stated, but the system will be politicised at the Cabinet table and will be used in a manner which will provide no long-term benefit to the projects which receive the funding in the short term. It is no different from national lottery funding, the only benefit of which is that capital projects have been invested in. However, in terms of the money being well-spent and in terms of value for money, my colleagues in Fine Gael and I have a serious problem with the establishment of this board.
As Senator McHugh stated, many issues are raised in the amendments and I look forward to hearing the Minister's response to them. When he addresses his own amendments, will he explain why we need the subsections of section 8 which form the new Part 6 of the original Act? Given his eloquent sincerity about the decentralisation of decision making, why does he propose to provide that the disbursement of sums of money, which could be as small as €50,000 or less, has to go before the Cabinet? I used the term "Stalinism" in the sense that it relates to a belief that centralised governance is better. Even in my worst moments, I would not accuse the Government of any of the social manifestations of Stalinism, but rather refer to a belief that the centre knows best. That sort of centralisation impacts on Dublin as much as it does on Donegal. For example, officials on Dublin City Council must wait for officials in the Custom House to make decisions about issues relating to Dublin which the first group of officials already know well are the correct decisions.
The convincing construct which the Minister has put together about what he wants to achieve, to which we all subscribe, is based on a belief that there is a better way to do this than through centralisation. I look forward to the Minister telling me why this is the case. I acknowledge there are issues in regard to accountability in respect of public funds. However, if the decision about who is to get money is ultimately a Cabinet one, then with the best will and Government in the world — which we do not have at present — politics will enter into that decision-making process, regardless of which party is in power. If the Labour Party was in Government, I would make the same point. The very act of transmitting the final decision about where money is to be spent into Government hands means that it is, in essence, a political decision.
I have nothing against political decisions and I acknowledge that there is not a political system in the world in which Ministers do not lobby for their pet projects. An example is for a Minister for Health to prioritise a hospital located in his constituency ahead of hospitals located in constituencies which do not have Deputies serving as Ministers. That such activity takes place we all acknowledge. Some of it is admirable and some is less so, but it happens. However, I am now supposed to believe that the €200 million or €300 million will be brought before the Cabinet according to wonderfully precise criteria, will be considered for a decision with the Government authorised to amend it, and the Government will state that it wants to be seen to be above all that and nod it through. If that was what the Government was going to do, we would not seek to bring it to the Government in the first place.
Some of the issues raised by Senator McHugh would apply to any aspect of government or administration. By querying what role each individual member would have on the board and to what extent they could influence it, he is suggesting members might be able to influence a decision as to grant money to his or her own region. I presume the board members will have an opportunity, based on what is before them, to put forward their views based on their knowledge of their region. That would apply to any board or council and I cannot see that it would be any different in the disbursements board. I presume he was trying to tease out whether there would be a difference there and I imagine that there would not be.
On the points raised by Senator Ryan, it is wrong to equate Dublin, the seat of Government, the seat of the Civil Service or the seat of Cabinet in some way with general centralisation. We must accept that the board could just as easily be sitting in Galway or in Cashel, where they would be welcome. That is not the issue. The main issue is whether they have at their disposal what is required to make good and fair decisions. That is the final part of the decision-making process.
The most important part of any decision-making process is the application. If I have observed a difficulty in accessing funds over the years, it is the difficulty people experience filling in an application form and making their case, putting in the buzz words and touching all the right pulses. I know of good projects that could have been very successful if the applicants were good at that and I know of bad projects that may have succeeded as a result of the applicants being able to fill in that application form. I would go back three or four steps and in some way, if possible within the process, provide assistance for people. The Minister touched on this earlier when he spoke of academia, referring to ten people with academic qualifications on a board. On the other hand, he is not arguing against academic qualifications. He is saying there are practitioners who may not have academic qualifications who are highly experienced, highly motivated, well thought of in their community, able to motivate other people and who have a vision. All of those elements do not necessarily come under the heading of academic qualification but translating all of those positive elements onto an application form is difficult.
I wonder whether part of a process could involve an oral extension to an application form. I acknowledge it can seem laborious but there could even be a shortlist process. I am assuming now that there will not be an assessment on the ground. If there is such assessment, then there is a possibility of interacting with the people making the application and finding out exactly what they are suggesting. My biggest fear would not be at the board level or, indeed, at Government level because that is the final part of the process.
We must be fair to the subject before us and realise that exactly the same discussions could take place on the disbursement of any funds. From where Senator Ryan is coming, however, let us show good example in this particular case. Maybe the good example is coming from the Minister. It is quite clear in his contributions. He is passionate about this. I do not believe it is just rhetoric and I know that from experience. He is quite passionate about allaying the fears we have been hearing for the simple reason that if he never heard them, he himself would be aware of them and would be determined to ensure that there would be value for money.
Senator McHugh made a point about continuation. This is also true of most capital funding, in particular. One must be very sure, having secured the capital funding, matching funds, etc., that one is capable of sustaining the project concerned. Although I may be wrong, this is not meant as the be all and end all. It is one element. It could be the very element and salvation a project would need. The important point is that it is spending focused on areas. It is precisely what Senator McHugh has been saying. He is only echoing the intention of the process, that is, to help those who are most in need and those who are able to use that funding. In itself, the fact that it may not be the totality of what is required, but one element of it, should not be an obstacle to its progress.
There are other areas where people can access funds and often there may be a shortfall. By its nature, a project may not fit fully under another heading. This, in many ways, can be the lever required. Although "partnership" is a misused and over used word, it applies here from top to bottom in that partnership looks at the community. The Government must see itself in partnership. Even ADM Limited and the board are part of that.
It is also true that all of us will be playing a role as public representatives. We will be hoping to advise and help our communities. Anybody with expertise should be making that available. I have seen that in other areas, particularly in the area of sports grants. How many sports bodies come to us individually and ask for help with the application form so that they can put forward the best case? I would not rule out our own involvement or the role we would play in this.
Senator Ó Murchú stated the Minister is passionate about most of his deliberations on this Bill. I would agree with him and I know his reason. Why is it necessary to allay fears? Everything I see permeating through sections of the Bill clearly indicates that the Minister will take on board more and more of the decisions. It is good that there is a board, representing the Minister's nominees and other members from the communities. Why is it necessary to sideline that board's effectiveness when everything and anything in the Bill must have the approval of the Minister, be submitted to the Minister or examined and brought to the Cabinet for final decisions?
The Bill contains a few phrases and I ask the Minister to clarify their meaning. Stating the Minister is "to have regard" is so vague that it could mean anything under the sun, whereas "shall strictly adhere" is very appropriate — that is the most important point of all. Such vagueness could mean anything. To what is the Minister to have regard? It could mean anything in that instance.
Most fair-minded people would be satisfied if they knew that the disbursement of those resources was done initially. There are sections within various Departments where other funds are disbursed, for example, the area of sports grants. There is a section within the Department concerned which makes recommendations on these matters. That process follows strict criteria and procedures as well. In this instance the Minister seems to be bringing back everything to himself for his final approval and decision. It is that matter with which I have taken issue previously; it is unnecessary to have such control. It is unnecessary to state that everything comes back to a Minister for the decision. It shows a lack of trust in the processes that have been undergone. It shows a lack of trust in the capacity and the professionalism of those on the board and other officials who might make the decision. I imagine in this instance that the Minister should be signing off on the work completed by these people. My one fear concerns this control. I can see from where the Minister's passion comes. It is unnecessary for the Minister to have such control. It shows a lack of confidence in the board he has established and in the people who will have responsibility for assessing according to the precise criteria. Nothing wrong could happen with that process until it is put on the Minister's or on another Minister's table for final approval.
On the question of Government approval with or without amendment, I thought long and hard about this issue and I have a certain sympathy with the points expressed by the Senators. However, what I have found is that where one writes something in a very constricted manner, not only does it stop one doing things that would not be desirable, but at times it can stop one doing things that are very desirable. A valid question arises and this is the nub of the issue. How one legislates for this is what has been causing me the difficulty.
The Government decided two years ago to spend €30 million. The opening of the process meant that it was taking forever to spend the money and for the reason mentioned by Senator McHugh. The term "social and economic" is so open that the process was swamped with every kind of application all of which had to be considered.
Let us take the case of a decision to spend €20 million in the year 2004. As often happens the processing within the system was slower than we anticipated. We are coming towards the end of the year and we have a belief that we should still spend the €20 million. Let us take the example of a very tight situation, as happens in my Department, where certain schemes are evaluated and a score is given to each application, not by the Minister but by people distant from the Minister. If the top score is 100 and, for instance, the Department has allocated €3 million to this, that means that every application down to a score of 70 can be funded. We can allow that very good applications were given a score of 60 or 63. At the end of a year there may be €1 million left over. We can decide to reduce the threshold to 60 points to include these applications, in which case whatever schemes score 60 to 70 will be through the hoop.
The criterion "having regard to" would come into play in that instance.
Yes. There will always be a problem and I do not know how we will legislate because one cannot legislate for every eventuality. I believe the cause of worry is simple. Say, for instance, Senator Ó Murchú has submitted an application and has asked that we turf out Senator Ryan's application and substitute his one. In reality that is not the kind of decision I make as Minister. The kind of decisions I make are interesting ones such as the one I mentioned about the bridge.
Another interesting decision that comes to mind is the village enhancement scheme under CLÁR. The method is that the local community and Leader company provide one sixth of the funding while the county council and my Department provides one third. However, the Department cannot give its allocation unless all the others have recommended it and if they do so the Department gives it automatically.
A fair question was raised about church carparks in the middle of towns which are often used for public parking Monday to Saturday. Some communities want to use the scheme to deter this use. The question was whether this use was covered by the scheme. I decided that it was covered if the carparks were open to the public every day of the week for other than religious services. I will bow to the views of the local community but somebody had to make the overriding judgment as to the criteria to be used to give a fine call on whether something was private, public or communal. These are the tricky issues. If the criteria is applied to one scheme then they must apply to all. I can think of many situations where this kind of decision-making applies. The one thing we have tried to avoid is making an individual decision. In the case of most of the schemes the individual decision is made by somebody who is not in the Department.
An interesting issue arose this year in the case of the RAPID schemes. We allocated money to each RAPID area implementation team with a double lock on the money. The local authority would do the work as it was the property of the local authority but the RAPID committee also had to agree because of the area implementation teams. I intended that it would be used for landscaping or for closing off an alleyway. The AITs were not aware that I intended following up what I called a traffic management scheme for ramps and traffic lights, dishing of pavements for use by disabled people and so on. Some AITs decided to use the money for those kind of things this year and I was asked if I was in agreement. I said if that is what they want to do with the money that is fine, but next year we will have other parallel schemes so they will have the money for the other things next year. When I made that rule for one, I made it for all and I can give the House endless examples. Somebody has to make the final call. I will reconsider this but if there was any way of assuaging fears that the Government might make capricious decisions such as changing orders, rather than make what I would call the rational decision, I would do so.
There is a funny irony to this issue. On the weekend of my recent accident I collected all the papers pertaining to this Bill and went through every amendment tabled by the Opposition to see if I could agree to any of them. Those papers, like everything else, went up in flames but I have a good memory and I could remember quite well——
The ones closest to his heart.
We had a very productive discussion further in the week on the various issues.
They were prioritised.
On the question of decision making, the board must have three criteria, namely, appropriate skills, regional balance and gender balance. The next issue is whether it is for capital or current expenditure. It can be for both but in certain ways it lends itself to capital expenditure because capital expenditure by its nature is one-off.
The next issue raised is whether it is for current expenditure. My view is that if we are going to spend it on current programmes, the Government must be aware that when the dormant accounts money runs out it will need to pick up the tab. One cannot start very good schemes, run them for five years and then forget them. The money will eventually run out. The social and economic issue is incredibly wide. I intend to have much more detailed criteria on the operation of the schemes.
I am a little disappointed the original legislation did not place greater emphasis on community because it is argued nowadays that social and economic disadvantage applies to everybody. Last Monday in Galway, disabled people put to me the valid point that they are not seeking to be boxed out as disabled persons but facilitated to play a full role in the community. The construction of a footpath to enable them to get to a meeting or the erection of traffic lights with special bleepers is a mainstream issue, rather than a boxed issue, for disabled people. All traffic lights should have such a facility.
I would like the dormant accounts fund to be focused on the area of community, with special emphasis on people with a social disadvantage and their full integration into communities rather than treating them as separate from the rest of the community. Those of us who live in rural areas view our communities as a totality, consisting of the old, young, disabled and able bodied, rather than as a number of sections. It is a tricky balance.
I am strongly in favour of concentrating on voluntary community school schemes. We should not fall for the argument, for example, that an entrepreneur providing jobs in a RAPID area is entitled to funding because he or she is addressing social disadvantage through job creation. That would be nonsense and a subversion of what has been the purpose of the funds from the outset.
It is fortunate that this group of amendments has been recommitted because it is difficult to discuss them without discussing the section. I understand the reason the Government would have a role in the construction of a scheme. However, the section, as proposed, states: "Applications received in response to applications shall be assessed by and or on behalf of public bodies." I accept the Minister has tabled amendments to make this procedure more transparent, particularly the criteria. The results of the assessments will be passed on to the Minister with a list of the assessed measures — nobody could disagree with that — and, where appropriate, the assessed projects. The results will also include a recommendation and the reasons for the recommendation. The Minister has also tabled an amendment regarding the funds. Once this detailed procedure has been completed, all the details must go before the Government, which can either approve or amend the recommendation without restriction.
This is the first time today I have become a little tetchy. I agree with everything the Minister has said about the approach needed. I know him well and I am aware he believes in good systems. The systems approach is thrown out the window, however, by the blank cheque given to Government to do what it likes with his proposals. The agencies examine the projects, evaluate and cost them etc., after which a submission goes before the Government which can do what it likes without any criteria being applied. Nowhere in the legislation is it indicated that the Government is bound by anything the Minister has outlined today. While the Minister, acting with executive authority in his Department, is bound by the various conditions laid down in the Bill, the collective Cabinet can do what it likes with his proposals.
I presume the Minister is capable of fighting his corner but the legislation leaves it open to the Minister for Finance, for example, to decide that some of the money should be allocated to projects chosen by his or her Department. The legislation, as framed, does not prevent the Government from driving a coach and four through all the work done properly and scientifically by people of integrity.
If the Minister were to agree to delete the subsection dealing with the bringing of assessments to Government and provide instead that, having obtained the relevant assessments, the money would be disbursed through the Department in accordance with the assessments, I would go some distance to meet him. While I do not agree with him, I could accommodate such an approach. The Bill provides that assessments be brought to Government which can essentially approve, refuse or amend them as it likes. Amendment in this context does not mean replacing commas with full stops but removing or adding to the recommendation as the Government pleases. Unless the Minister writes into the legislation that the Government's role is to ensure the Minister operates in accordance with the criteria laid down in the legislation, he will leave it wide open to the Government, under political pressure, to decide to ignore the recommendations and do as is it wishes as regards needs which cannot be met out of taxation. Perhaps the Minister will indicate whether I am wrong.
The Minister makes a plausible case and I do not believe he is being devious or trying to mislead Senators. As Senator Ryan stated, he is genuinely trying to map out the way forward and I agree with much of his language and many of his hypotheses. The bottom line, however, is that this dormant accounts fund will be a slush fund subject to ministerial approval at Cabinet level. It flies in the face of the approach taken by the Taoiseach who has always been an advocate of partnership. I agree with the Taoiseach's vision of partnership and multi-agency and inter-agency approaches as the way forward.
I advocate regionalising, decentralising spending and empowering the respective agencies in the regions. The real skill lies in tying together the different tiers, whether at agency level or among the voluntary or community groups, in a longitudinal way as opposed to taking a centralised, vertical approach. The public is sick to the teeth of vertical funding of projects, one-off allocations, slush funds and stopgap measures to appease certain groups and the wider electorate.
In the past fortnight, the Taoiseach and the Ministers for Arts, Sport and Tourism and Health and Children have visited County Donegal. I know the political reasons for their visits. Their job was to meet and appease certain groups by providing them with one-off funding and grants. These groups are fighting hard and lonely battles to try to mainstream their projects and form some kind of sustainable future for them. The Minister knows the public is sick of this type of distribution of funds. People are sick of the politicisation of grant aid with funds allocated to groups subject to ministerial approval.
While the Dormant Accounts Fund Disbursement Board will still be in place, it will not decide where the money goes. The Minister agreed that an inter-agency approach is the way forward. We need longitudinal thinking, rather than a vertical handout mentality.
The public will give out to Opposition parties and politicians, saying it is terrible certain groups get funding while others do not. They will claim there is no planning or preparation with regard to funding allocation. However, the public fall for it every single time, which is why the system still operates. Slush funds work politically because the public fall for them before elections, remember them for approximately six months and forget about them after a year. Perhaps it is a sad reality of human nature, but the way to counteract this is to have a more accountable, transparent system where funds are distributed through State agencies using an organised inter-agency approach and not through the Cabinet in a centralised manner.
My experience of various organisations over the years is that when one takes out the political process they become over-cautious, over-regulated and unable to deal with the realities of people's lives. A wise civil servant, whom I admired and who could be strict, always warned people about dangers. Once, in Northern Ireland, he said to me, "The reality is, you cannot survive without us." The public service cannot survive without politicians either. This happened in the Northern Ireland administration over the years as it continually slowed down because of too much caution.
When I was first nominated as a Minister of State in 1997, I felt certain measures should be taken with regard to the Gaeltacht. I hope I have since carried them out in a fair and transparent manner. I approached these matters in a gung-ho fashion. At times advice was given that the then Department of the Environment and Local Government should be responsible for roads. Of course it should have been responsible, but it was not. Perhaps the Department of Arts, Sport and Tourism should have been responsible for sports, community and Gaeltacht facilities, but it was not. I felt my job was to ensure these matters were looked after, but not on a partisan basis. Areas are now getting water as a result of the CLÁR programme and it is a fair, transparent and equal process for all. These areas would not have had a chance of piped water and a public water scheme under the normal conventional and conservative approach. The programme was politically driven by a need I, as an elected politician, knew existed. There are people in Senator McHugh's region who would like the scheme to be extended beyond the limits of the CLÁR programme.
I agree with the Minister, but will his Cabinet colleagues be on the same wavelength?
They agree it was right to interfere and the system which existed was not good enough. It did not deliver people their rights. I have huge sympathy for the wording of the amendment. I thought long and hard as to whether there was any way to amend that part of the Bill which baldly states the Government may approve the submission with or without amendment. I weighed the matter carefully and will think about it again. I will perhaps go back to the Dáil on the matter and come back to the Seanad if necessary. When I considered all the checks and balances, and tried to visualise real circumstances, I felt to take away such a provision would take away the right to use common sense where needed.
Let us first consider the checks. If the Government were to reject the plan, it would have to reject the concept of a tranche of payments. We also amended this, which is the worry. The Government would have to regard the plan, the criteria laid down for that particular measure, the approved proposals and types of project, as well as assessments carried out and recommendations made. Section 5 states the Minister shall ensure that within one month after receipt of the Government's approval of the submission, a statement containing a list of the approved measures and projects specifying the amounts to be disbursed from the account for the purposes of each of them is laid before each House of the Oireachtas and made available to the public. If we ignore that provision, the board would be on us like a tonne of bricks.
The Government has a role to play if it wants to identify more plans further down the list and allow for a lower threshold. However, it will cause itself much grief unless it does so systematically.
The Government already does so.
A substantial amount of money has been sanctioned by the board. Under the current system, I have never queried anything it has done. My approval is already required in cases involving amounts greater than €300,000. The only case I queried was where current funding was provided and I asked a legitimate question regarding sustainability. It is a fair question for a Minister to ask. I did not refuse or accept the request. I asked the board to come back and tell me if the project could be sustained after two years. There is no point establishing a project for two years and then closing it down.
The Cabinet was not involved in that decision.
There is not a great deal of difference between the Cabinet or myself being involved.
There is a great difference.
Maybe but maybe not. It was a legitimate and well-founded question. I am genuinely concerned that much of this money has been dealt with in such a way as to raise serious questions about sustainability. People from all walks of life come to me and ask about these bodies. "Who are they?" they say, "I never heard of them in my area. I did not know they existed." I shrug my shoulders and say the board assigns the money. People seriously query how certain bodies received the money, but I trust that Area Development Management, ADM, used fair criteria. It is difficult to be objective because the criteria is too wide. It becomes an essay competition. However, that is how ADM did it. If either Senator ever becomes Minister——
Senator McHugh might, but I will not.
Senator Ryan might become a Minister from the Senate. There are precedents, such as Senators Seán Moylan and James Dooge.
Those days are gone.
Stranger things have happened.
Perhaps the Minister is making an offer.
A Senator cannot become Taoiseach or Minister for Finance but can get any other job. However, no matter who has the job of making decisions, whether it is a Leader company or a peace project, one is told a certain political group has control, does not follow fair criteria and decisions are upside down. A valid case was mentioned on the Adjournment last week, but I had to wash my hands of it because it involved a Leader company decision, not mine. I must accept the decision. The person who raised the question hoped I would be able to bring some influence to bear, but I explained I could not. The person, a member of the Opposition, was deeply unhappy with the decision. I explained it had been devolved and that I have no say as long as the company followed the criteria on a national level. No matter what structure is in place, these situations arise all the time. There is always an inherent danger.
I cannot abide the essay competition we have created in life because it means the professionals keep winning. It may not be the greatest project in the poorest area that wins. I have been involved in that sector for the past 20 years and I dislike that type of system. One should get funding as a matter of right.
Mention was made of capital sports grants. I had to get lessons on how to fill out forms for that grant and they were very beneficial. Of the nine applications I had to consider that year all were filled in incorrectly. The substance of the application was not changed but criteria such as disadvantage were added. A GAA club had to include criteria on free training and free transport to matches. While every GAA club provided such services it was taken for granted and not written down. They were also asked if they supplied food for the children following a match. Does anyone know of a club that does not do so? However, the fact they did not include such information on the form was to their disadvantage. I dislike that method of disbursing money because it misses those who are busy on the ground but not great at keeping records.
I would like to see a less open-ended system so that the person who writes the best essay does not necessarily become the winner. To be honest, that is what I think has been happening up to now. I would rather there was much more focus on disadvantage and that the system was simpler, similar to that operated for RAPID or CLÁR. We should provide for those who really need funding. I do not know what is the perfect system. The Government and Minister must have discretion in the matter. I accept the section as drafted is bare. While I studied it carefully I have not been able to come up with an amendment which would on the one hand provide the freedom to do the sensible thing and, on the other hand, would restrict the cherry-picking of favourite-son applications, a matter about which Senators are concerned.
I will not accept the amendments today but will reflect further on the matter to see if we can come up with a way of dealing with Senators' concerns which, I accept, are well intended. I believe there are enough guarantees and checks to ensure that does not happen but I will reflect on the matter. If an amendment is found, I will bring it before the Seanad. I am not promising the section will be amended. As I said earlier, I spent a great deal of time considering the section. It is not an easy matter with which to deal but I do not want to create a suspicion of a capricious view being taken to applications.
The Minister's response is disappointing. I have listened very carefully to what he had to say and either he is wrong or he is being disingenuous. There is nothing in this legislation which states that the Government when dealing with the Minister's bringing forth of results of assessments to Cabinet must have regard to anything. The Minister must have regard to the approved plan when preparing the proposals out of which come the invitations for people to apply. Such applications must then be evaluated according to what appear to be more transparent criteria. That is fine though it is not what I would like to see in the Bill. I prefer the old system. The additional Government amendments make that system better and less open to suspicion, whether valid or otherwise.
However, no conditions or criteria are contained in the following subsections as listed on page 13. I recall that a previous Minister for Social Welfare, a member of the Minister's party, when small grants for voluntary organisations were first instituted, went around with the cheques in his pocket and gave them out to the various organisations as he met them. I do not know what criteria were used but the clear statement was one of a Minister bearing gifts. I have lived with the reality of politics. No self-respecting politician will try to gain political credit for anything over which he or she has any influence. I do not believe anyone of us are that naive.
It would be possible to redraft the section and to state that only proposals for expenditure in excess of €300,000, the figure used by the Minister, will go before Cabinet. A great deal more could be done. How is it that in the old scheme of things small-scale expenditure of less than €300,000 could be decided on by the board without reference to anybody? Incidentally, I agree with the Minister's question on sustainability. It is a perfectly reasonable question to ask. I have no problems with it. However, I do not understand how what the Minister says he wants is reconcilable with an open-ended invitation to Government, given the political pressures under which Governments operate, to bend the rules. Of course there will be political flak for not doing so. Governments know that whether they do something or not there will always be political flak. It will be the political judgment of Government at a particular time as to which decision was the most politically expeditious. I do not suggest Governments do so all the time but there can be times when they decide it is better to ignore those rules and grant the money to what is considered to be most useful politically.
Despite the Minister's best intentions, once these matters go to Cabinet they are out of his hands. I do not understand why he is allowing that to happen unless it is as suspected by many of us that a particular person in Cabinet wants access to the funds because the issue is so big it could be politically useful. Otherwise, the matter would end with the structure of evaluation and some role for Cabinet on major expenditures to ensure good sense prevailed. The idea that a proposal to grant €10,000 to a small community project, áit éigin in iarthar Chorcha Dhuibhne, 230 miles from Dublin would have to go to Cabinet for approval suggests either that we will collapse under paperwork or that there is some malevolent intent involved.
I am open to persuasion. The Minister is very plausible and I am capable of being persuaded. However, he has not yet persuaded me that there is any genuinely good reason, in terms of good public administration, to leave such flexibility open to Government.
Section 8(43)(1) provides that the Minister must follow a detailed process which includes going to Government regarding schemes and programmes. That provision is included because not all these programmes will be relevant to a particular Minister's Department. Some will relate to the Department of Education and Science and others may relate to the Department of Health and Children. For example, assessment as regards disability would take place at the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform or the Department of Health and Children. Different Departments are given tranches of schemes and programmes to apply. They will then follow the instructions given. The question that then arises is whether each matter should be referred to its line Minister only or to Government which, in the interests of joined-up government, checks that matters were dealt with according to the programmes agreed? That is the nub of the matter. The Bill clearly states that all programmes must have regard to all the different criteria, including the Government's final decision. The purpose of the final Government decision is to ensure that each line Department and agency fulfilled what was agreed in the first place. It cannot be left to a single Minister, as he or she cannot have control over various Departments. The only body with an overview is the collective Government.
Not everything done under this will be under the remit of the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs. ADM, with its small staff, in trying to cover all areas of expertise, such as disability and social and economic issues, has shown what a mammoth task it is. It has dealt with it manfully. I do not want to criticise it but I know the limits of its expertise. Section 8, which, inter alia, amends section 44 of the principal Act, must be read in the context of the source being the Government, under the provision of section 43(1), deciding a programme and having the final say whether it adhered to the agreed programme.
I understand the matter of concern to Senator Ryan and I will examine it when the Bill is taken in the Dáil as I am sure the Senator's colleagues will raise it. If I can come up with a way of dealing with what the Senator fears without cracking the nut with the proverbial sledgehammer I will take it on board. It must be remembered that the Minister must publish the decisions and everyone will know what was recommended for these bodies. If the Government, without good reason, was to act contrary to the recommendations made, everyone would know. It is well known that I do not make the individual decisions on the RAPID programmes. My Department merely checks they were completed to the given criteria. However, if a call has to be made on a case, it has universal application to the other areas. In that context, the Government would collectively act as it will not affect just one Department. There is no malevolence in this proposal. The process is all connected and it is not a case of the Government coming in at the end of it.
I remind Senators that Report and Final Stages are to conclude at 5 p.m. We can get stuck in these amendments but other amendments will not be dealt with.
We are on amendment No. 24. Amendments Nos. 12 to 24, inclusive, are being discussed together, along with section 8.
Members must stick to the point as it will become repetitive.
I can suggest a number of variations. The Minister has made plausible points, however, another plausible point is that different Ministers will have different expertise. The Minister could confine the Government's approval to it being satisfied that the criteria already set out were followed in the decision-making process. If the reason behind the process is to ensure rules are not being broken and because a Minister may not have the necessary expertise, then the Government's role should be to ensure that the recommendations are in accordance with its criteria. That is a reasonable decision for the Government. In this regard, the Minister is correct in his argument of a scenario where the Government acts more at variance than in accordance with the criteria.
This is a large fund. This month there is a crisis with hospital accident and emergency departments. Some of the dormant accounts fund is unallocated. The Minister for Health and Children could argue that if she had €10 million of it, she could provide a service to deal with the crisis. However, it would create a storm from all the community groups arguing it is their money.
Boards do not resign. Last week, the advisory committee on overseas development co-operation was criticised when a solemn promise to reach a target was broken. However, the board did not resign. In my experience, boards do not resign in Ireland. Sometimes they are sacked but they never resign. The board of Combat Poverty went through ups and downs but never resigned.
The Minister has not convinced me of his argument. I am pleased that he is listening and may reconsider the matter. However, I suggest a threshold of scale of expenditure below which Government approval would not be required. The idea of the Government continually examining proposals to give €5,000 to an organisation is a bad example of public administration. The Bill could state that the Government shall be satisfied that the procedures, plans and criteria laid out were followed. However, it is unacceptable to make a bald statement to the effect that while the Government could pay a political price for doing so, there is no legal restraint on it choosing to ignore everything.
The Cabinet can be the watchdog and safeguard against any discrepancies in plans not being followed, as Senator Ryan rightly pointed out. The Dormant Accounts Fund Disbursements Board should be used to decide which projects, on the basis of merit, deserve funding. The Minister and his team may be thinking this through, but we still need a commitment on the safeguards. That is the kernel of the issue.
The Senators are not looking at it in its totality. If one examines section 43 of the principal Act, the amendments will not allow me to do what Senator Ryan is proposing. Section 43(1) states: "After consulting with the appropriate Ministers, the Minister shall, ... submit to the Government for their approval, with or without amendment, a proposal concerning the programmes or types of projects in relation to which applications for disbursements from the account should be invited." Section 43(5) states: "Following the Government's approval of the proposal, the Minister shall ensure that the invitation to apply for disbursements is made available to the public." I would have to go through all the existing procedures but this amendment would require additional criteria. When I go back to Government all these hoops have already been gone through.
Why does it need to be amended?
If one goes through all the hoops and yet the Government believes it has not adhered to these criteria, one has to go back and do it correctly. The Government would want good reason for doing so.
The Government rather than the Minister makes the ultimate decision because three or four Ministers could be involved. There is no way it can be done outside the terms of the plan, as it would be illegal. If the Minister for Finance gives the say so to the disbursements board, it is the Government that controls the flow of the money. Again, we are being careful not to do what the Opposition alleges we would, by getting rid of all the money between now and 2007. We have tried to control the spend of the moneys within a reasonable timeframe. We increased the amount available to the board by €60 million at its request as it had so many applications. As the programme was a year behind schedule, it was felt to be prudent to do so. We want this to last into the indefinite future to ensure sustainability of the projects.
Senator Ryan overstates the worry. We are seeking to do what I have said we are seeking to do. I will reconsider the matter but when I thought about it previously, I could conceive of no way to amend the section cogently given the built-in safeguards. The legislation requires a public application for funds, an assessment, adherence to the criteria and the publication of results. If one were to change those requirements capriciously, one would be for the high jump.
I move amendment No. 16:
In page 12, line 16, to delete "is to have regard" and substitute "shall strictly adhere".
I wish to inform the House that arising from an omission to vote by a Senator who was present in the Chamber, the result has been amended to read — Tá, 29; Níl, 18 — and will appear as such in the Official Report.
Amendments Nos. 30 and 31 are consequential on amendment No. 25 and it is proposed, therefore, to discuss amendments Nos. 25, 30 and 31 together, by agreement.
I move amendment No. 25:
In page 12, line 33, to delete "Minister" and substitute "Board".
I oppose the amendment.
Amendment No. 26 is a Government amendment. Amendments Nos. 26 and 27 are consequential on amendment No. 28 and it is proposed, therefore, to take amendments Nos. 26 to 28, inclusive, together by agreement.
Amendment No. 29 is out of sequence and, with the permission of the House, it will be taken after amendment No. 35. Is that agreed? Agreed.
By agreement, Private Members' business will be from 5.30 p.m. to 7 p.m. We expect to finish the Dormant Accounts (Amendment) Bill, which has been going on since 2 p.m., between now and 5.30 p.m.
We normally have two hours for Private Members' business.
I am aware of that. I sought agreement ——
The Opposition has been helpful on this matter.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 34:
In page 15, to delete lines 41 to 44.
The effect of this amendment is to delete section 10 of the Bill. Section 10 is consequential to the board's chain regarding decision making in that it moves the accountability of the chairperson to the Public Accounts Committee for decisions under disbursements made by the former board. Removal of this section would create an anomaly whereby the board would no longer make decisions on disbursements, but its chairperson would remain accountable to the Public Accounts Committee for decisions in which he or she no longer had a role.
This amendment is one of a number which try to effect change to the purpose of the Bill.
Amendment No. 29, which was out of sequence, will be taken now.
I move amendment No. 36:
In page 17, between lines 44 and 45, to insert the following:
"16.—The Freedom of Information Acts shall apply to all aspects of or relating to the functions and activities of the Minister and the Board under this Act and the Principal Act.".
All the activities of the board and the Minister should be subject to the Freedom of Information Act. I presume there is a stipulation which allows this. If not, there should be.
I support this amendment. Unfortunately, the Freedom of Information Act as filleted by the Government will mean many of the Minister's proposals to Government will not become public knowledge until after they are disposed of, amended or approved. We will get some historical information, but will not have any access to the processes until after the event. Nevertheless, to the extent that one would worry that it might not be covered by the Freedom of Information Act, I support the amendment.
This amendment would apply the Freedom of Information Act to all aspects of the administration of the board under this Bill and the principal Act. Following the enactment of this legislation, the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act will apply with regard to the operation of Departments involved in the process of receiving and assessing applications for assistance from the dormant accounts board. In addition, all correspondence, analysis and advice provided by the board to me, my Department or Government will come within the scope of the FOI Acts. It would be more logical and coherent to deal with freedom of information in this way rather than introduce a standalone provision. For this reason I oppose the amendment. The normal FOI regulations will apply because it is all Department business.
Ba mhaith liom buíochas a ghlacadh leis na Seanadóirí ar fad as ucht an pháirt bhríomhar a ghlacadar sa díospóireacht. Ta súil agam go bhfuil an Bille níos fearr anois ó tá roinnt leasaithe déanta ann. Rinne mé iarracht éisteacht lena moltaí agus tá súil agam nuair a achtófar an Bille go bhfeidhmneofar go cothrom agus go cuíé. I thank Senators for their useful and robust participation in the Bill. This is the place for debate. The Bill has run over time and I thank the Senators for the effort and commitment they have given to it. We have made some amendments which I hope will improve the Bill. I hope time will prove the commitments I have given will stand up and that people will see that the Bill will provide for better disbursement of the funds.
Is mian liom ár mbuíochas a chur in iúl don Aire. Déarfainn go n-aontóidh gach éinne go raibh díospóireacht fiúntach againn ar an mBille seo agus go raibh an t-Aire ag éisteacht leis, mar a d'admhaigh Seanadóirí eile. Bhí sin thar a bheith tábhachtach. Cé gur thóg an díospóireacht roinnt mhaith ama, tá sé níos fearr deacrachtaí a réiteach anois. Molaim an t-Aire agus gabhaim buíochas le hoifigí na Ranna as an obair atá déanta acu. Tá sé soiléir go déanadh an obair sin go cruinn. Chabhraidh sin go mór linn mar ní raibh aon mí-thuiscint faoi cad a bhí ins an mBille.
Ní aontaím leis an mBille ach tá sé níos fearr anois ná mar a bhí sé nuair a tugadh isteach é. Dá bhféadfaí déileáil leis an gceist bhunúsach a bhíá plé againn le trí cheathrú uair an chloig tá gach seans go bhféadfaimís a bheith ar aon aigne.
I thank the Minister for agreeing to the somewhat unorthodox procedural move of recommitting amendments to Committee Stage. It is not often Ministers are that agreeable. As a result we managed to debate the nub of the Bill in a way that we never got around to before the summer and we are all the better for that.
The Bill is better because of the Minister's amendments. It is possible to deal with the major outstanding concern that we on this side of the House have in a way which does not involve any climb-down by the Minister on what he believes to be the correct procedure. The criteria he set out for how bodies funded by the State working in local communities should operate are ones to which we would and should all adhere. However, as long as the legislation remains as it is, it will follow the path of every other fund. The social insurance fund has been raided by various Governments, even though it is meant to be for a very specific purpose. Every fund, including the national lottery, gets raided unless there are firm and unshakeable legal criteria protecting it. It is the nature of government to raid every available fund. That is not a judgment on any political party. The fundamental issue is the capacity of Government to change or ignore the rules, but that is a contentious issue which we will not debate now.
I thank the Minister for his willingness to put time into the discussion and to listen even though he does not agree with us. I am glad to see his energies are back to full scale judging by his enthusiasm on this occasion.
I thank the Minister who stimulated the debate. He does not just follow the party line but gets involved in the issue. We set out our stall in regard to future distribution of State moneys and public funds through what I hope is a more organised multi-State agency approach.
As a point of reference, we must look at the whole area of process. I use the example of progression in regard to community employment participants whose progression reports are sitting on desks collecting dust and do not provide any value in terms of expenditure. All sides of the House are in agreement that this is not a matter of appeasing the electorate.
I thank the Minister and his officials for their patience but most of all for coming back to the House following the last discussion on this legislation before the summer recess. At that time, as Senator Ryan said, the Minister said he would consider the recommital of part of the Bill, which he did. That, in itself, was very helpful. The approach of the Minister was to find consensus in the Seanad, which he mostly did. I watched most of the debate on the monitor in my office and was fascinated by how vocal Members were on the Bill.
I echo the good wishes extended to the Minister. It is good to see he is safe and sound. Thankfully, the accident has not affected his brain or his mind, but he also has a cold which made speaking difficult. All in all, the exercise has been a good one. I thank all Senators, our spokesperson, Senator Ó Murchú and Senator Brady. I wish the Minister and his officials a happy Christmas.
