Cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire Gnóthaí Pobail, Tuaithe agus Gaeltachta. I welcome the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht affairs, Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív. We have convened to consider Committee Stage of the Dormant Accounts (Amendment) Bill 2004.
Dormant Accounts (Amendment) Bill 2004 [Seanad]: Committee Stage.
Section 1 agreed to.
SECTION 2.
Amendments Nos. 1 and 22 are related and may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 3, line 25, after "Act" to insert the following:
"and the Freedom of Information Act 1997 shall apply to the Board as and from the establishment day".
This is a straightforward amendment which seeks to ensure that the Freedom of Information Act 1997 will apply to the new board, thus ensuring greater transparency in its operations. Section 2 would be altered to read: "The Minister shall by order appoint a day to be the establishment day for the purposes of the Act and the Freedom of Information Act 1997 shall apply to the Board as and from the establishment day."
Does Deputy McGinley wish to move amendment No. 22, which is also related to the application of the Freedom of Information Acts?
I intend to move that amendment later and I generally support what Deputy O'Shea said in respect of amendment No. 1.
On Amendment No. 22, it is important to have transparency. Whatever applications are submitted, people should be entitled to find out what is there. It is now almost par for the course that freedom of information applies across the board. In my view, it should apply in this instance.
I oppose the proposed new section under amendment No. 22, and I would like to explain why. I do so for mainly technical reasons.
It is Government policy that all bodies will be covered by the freedom of information legislation. That is done through regulation by the Minister for Finance under the Freedom of Information Act 1997. It should not be a matter of putting the proposals as expressed in the amendments into the primary legislation. If we want to cover a board or new body for the purposes of freedom of information, the organisation is prescribed by regulation under the Act. This has exactly the same effect that Deputy McGinley seeks.
Until now, the dormant accounts board has been carrying out the assessments and making the decisions. Certain actions carried out by the board until now are being transferred to Government Departments. These are already prescribed under the Freedom of Information Act. Anything that the Departments do will be subject to FOI under the normal law. Items sent to a Department will become subject to the freedom of information provisions through that Department, not through the board. I absolutely accept the spirit of the Deputies' proposals. I have no problem with them in that sense. The board's role will be to develop and publish its plan. However, the mechanisms proposed here are wrong. I am advised by the Office of the Attorney General that I am correct. I must oppose the amendments. If I want to bring the board under the Freedom of Information Act, I should do so by regulation under the Act.
I accept in good faith what the Minister has just stated, specifically regarding amendment No. 1. I absolutely opposed the establishment of the new board. On the basis that what I would like to happen may very well not happen, I believe it vital that the Freedom of Information Act attaches to the board from its day of establishment. Can the Minister give an undertaking for that to happen?
I would have to consult with my colleague, the Minister for Finance. Deputy O'Shea is asking a specific question relating to a specific date. I will seek an answer to that question, which I will give on Report Stage. The Deputy may table his amendment again on Report Stage and I will then be able to answer the question.
Let us consider what the board does now and what it will do in the future. Deputy O'Shea's complaint is that the board will be doing less than it is doing at present. It would be imperative for the board to be covered by FOI now, rather than later. The board's role will be less than it is now. I have no problem with the principle of bringing the board under the Freedom of Information Act. The Government has a clear policy on that. Any of the functions that are being transferred to Departments are subject to freedom of information legislation. Such transfers do not take things out of FOI, rather — subject to the law and its restrictions — they bring them under it.
I take the point that the Minister's activities come under the Freedom of Information Act. My concern is that, for all the Minister's good intent, the new board might still not be covered under the Act in a few months' or years' time. As I want to avoid that situation, I have included a specific date in my amendment. I take the point about the technicalities surrounding the amendment. On the other hand, there seems to be no guarantee that the measure will be taken in a matter of months, years or whatever.
I take the Deputy's point and I have said that I will return to the matter on Report Stage. Government Departments already come under FOI. The board, as it is now, has a wider remit than what is proposed under the Bill. I accept there is a need for the board to come under FOI now but there was an even greater need when its remit was much wider and when it was assessing and making decisions on projects. I accept what Deputy O'Shea is saying. Perhaps he should have put the point more strongly on the previous occasion. I will return to the matter.
The Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs was not dealing with this Bill on the previous occasion.
No, it was the Minister for Finance. However, Deputy O'Shea did not have the Bill before him either.
That is the point. I cannot be faulted for not——
I was not faulting Deputy O'Shea. I would never do so.
The Minister is implying that he will ensure the Freedom of Information Act applies to the new board as speedily as possible.
I will try to return with an answer on whether it is intended to draw up a regulation. I presume this will come from the Department of Finance and that the difficulties that may be involved will become clear. I will certainly try to deal with the matter. The board's staff is very small. The only real concern about FOI is the possibility of it taking up inordinate staff time, particularly if there are fishing expeditions. I do not know, however, why anybody would engage in such an expedition with the board. We will have to ensure that staff can deal with such eventualities. The Deputy should let me return to the matter on Report Stage. I would like to give him the answer he wants but I will not do so when I am not sure of the position.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 2 agreed to.
Sections 3 and 4 agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
Amendment No. 2 involves the deletion of section 5 of the principal Act.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 4, before section 5, to insert the following new section:
5.—The Principal Act is amended by substituting the following section for section 5:
5.—Except where otherwise provided for in this Act, the expenses incurred by the Minister and by any other Minister of the Government in the administration of this Act shall, to such extent as may be sanctioned by the Minister for Finance, be paid out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas. '.".
This amendment provides that expenses incurred by the relevant Minister be met from moneys provided by the Oireachtas. That is how things are done at present but the expenses are all incurred by my Department. If other Departments or agencies are being used, we will have to create the same provision for them. Expenses incurred in doing the work of the dormant accounts board and disbursing the money may be charged against the board. This is essentially a technical amendment.
What is the position regarding the National Treasury Management Agency?
That agency simply releases the money to the board. At present, we can charge the dormant accounts board for the expenses of civil servants working in my Department for the board. That is the provision under the law. Under the new dispensation, other Departments will be doing work, assessments and so on for the dormant accounts board. We want to be able to charge their costs to the board because their work will be directly on behalf of the board.
Will the expenses incurred by other Departments come under a separate heading in the Estimates for those Departments or will they come under the general charges of those Departments?
They would be a general charge on the Department but they would be recouped.
However, they will not be specifically identified.
The accrual, in other words, the money coming back in, would have to be specifically identified. They send the bill to the dormant accounts board stating the work they did. They would have to identify that and identify the expenditure incurred under the general heading. The recoupment would be specific.
I apologise. I am mixed up. It is just charged against the Departments.
It is charged against each Department.
Yes. I apologise. It was my mistake.
It will not be a specific item; it will be under a general heading.
No, just general.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 5 deleted.
Section 6 agreed to.
SECTION 7.
Amendments Nos. 3 and 23 are a composite proposal and may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 4, line 38, after "as" to insert the following:
"an Bord um Chuntais Dhíomhaoine or, in the English language,".
The two amendments have a similar purpose, that is, they seek to insert the Irish name of the board into the Bill at those two points. Given the Department from which the Bill emanates and in the context of the Official Languages Act, I am surprised there is a need for an Opposition Deputy to table such amendments. I assume it was an oversight on the Minister's behalf and I would like to hear his observations.
Aontaím leis sin. Ba cheart go mbéadh ainm an bhoird i nGaeilge chomh maith — an Bord um Chuntais Dhíomhaoine. Mar a dúirt an Teachta Ó Sé, nuair atá Acht na dTeangacha Oifigiúla i bhfeidhm, ní fheicim cén fáth ar chor ar bith nach mbéadh an leagan Gaeilge den ainm ann chomh maith leis an leagan Béarla. B'fhéidir gur botún, dearmad nó meancóg atá ann, ach sílim gur leasú réasúnta é, go speisialta agus muid ag plé le hábhar a bhaineann leis an Roinn speisialta seo.
Gabhaim buíochas leis an Teachta as ucht an cás seo a dhéanamh agus go mórmhór leis an Teachta Ó Sé as ucht an leasú a chur síos, agus glacaim go hiomlán leis. Beidh sé mar chuid den Bhille.
Agus leasú Uimh. 23 freisin?
Perhaps we should leave that one until we reach it.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 4:
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 2005,”.
Is the Minister prepared to accept the title of Dormant Accounts Acts 2001 to 2005 as including the two Acts and this Bill? What we are seeking is self-explanatory. We require the board, not the Minister, to establish the criteria for the disbursement of funds.
I oppose the amendment. It relates to the functions of the board and has two broad themes. The first concerns transparent criteria and seeks to provide that the board will establish such criteria. Deputies will be aware that section 43 of the Bill provides that the criteria to be applied in assessing applications will form part of my annual submission to Government in regard to the funding priorities for the following year. The provisions of this section also ensure that the assessment criteria will be made available to the public. It was always my intention that tightly focused and transparent criteria would be developed in regard to dormant accounts.
On Report Stage in the Seanad I therefore introduced an amendment to section 43 providing that the assessment criteria would be published. I consider section 43 adequately provides that transparent assessment criteria will apply in regard to dormant accounts. In that context I must oppose amendments Nos. 4 and 6.
The second theme in regard to these amendments concerns additional powers for the board to prepare proposals for disbursements and to be the deciding body. I have set out on many occasions the reasons the Government decided to make changes in regard to dormant accounts and I do not propose to repeat them again. In my view the powers being conferred on the board are important. They will retain responsibility for preparing the disbursement plan which forms the framework within which all decisions will emanate. Key responsibilities in regard to monitoring and reporting on additionality of spending are being conferred on the board.
It is also the Government's belief that the arrangements relating to disbursement decisions, provided for in this Bill, will ensure a more focused and sustained approach in tackling disadvantage. Decisions by Government on applications for dormant accounts funding is a fundamental component of this Bill and integral to the approach agreed by Government. As amendments Nos. 5 and 7 would fundamentally change the decision-making process as agreed by Government, I am opposed to these amendments.
I was informed by the Chairman that amendments Nos. 6 and 7 were ruled out of order. Are we taking them in spite of that?
They cannot be moved on the basis that they are out of order.
Can we discuss them?
The Deputy can speak on them by speaking on the section which will incorporate them.
I was given the impression that amendments Nos. 4 to 7, inclusive, were being discussed together.
No.
Perhaps I can deal with amendment No. 4. What is wrong in principle with the board establishing the criteria for the disbursement of funds? As the Minister is aware, the Labour Party has a major difficulty with the Bill. Heretofore the funds were disbursed by the disbursements board which was independent, but now the Government has decided to take over the disbursement of funds, approximately €200 million at the last count, and the granting of the various sums under that fund will effectively coincide with the next general election. Objectively, it has all the signs of creating a significant slush fund to be used at the next general election for reasons that are not proper electoral ones.
Given that the Government has the votes to bring this legislation through the House, we seek as many safeguards as possible to prevent the misuse of these substantial funds, which belong to the community as distinct from the Exchequer, by this or any other Government for blatantly electoral purposes. Irrespective of what arguments the Minister may seek to put forward in defence of the present departure, human nature being what it is, if we get to a stage where the Government is disbursing these funds with a general election in the offing, the decisions that will be taken will bring no credit on the Oireachtas. If the criteria are established by the board, it will in some small way allay my fears and those of the Labour Party and others regarding the politicisation of this very substantial fund of community money.
On Second Stage, which the Minister of State took, we all spoke at length about what is involved in this particular section. In other words, the existing board that was only established three or four years ago was doing an excellent job. I have not heard any criticism of decisions it has made. It appears to have been fair and above board and everybody was happy with the amount involved in the disbursements made so far.
The dormant accounts fund was only established three or four years ago and it is amazing that already we are bringing in legislation to change the format of the board and remove its powers to make disbursements. I do not accuse the Minister or anyone else of doing anything untoward but there is that possibility. When the pressure is on and the representations come from the right direction, one can yield to such pressures because we are all human.
We have not yet got a credible explanation from anyone as to the reason it is necessary to introduce a new Bill so soon after the first one introduced three or four years ago. The only credible explanation is that these disbursements can be made on a political basis, and that is not always the best response to the greatest need.
This section is at the heart of the Bill but we do not yet have an explanation as to the reason it is necessary to discard the old board, which was made up of voluntary organisations — no one had any difficulty with it — and appoint a new board. The Minister will now take unto himself the final decision on the areas to which these moneys are to be allocated.
There are differences of opinion both in political philosophy and in practice. As a matter of political philosophy, I believe democratic accountability for decision-making is fundamental. I also believe — I know it goes against the tide of popular thinking — that the only people who are ultimately democratically accountable are ourselves because we are the only ones who can be sacked by the public at the whim of the public. I have never been particularly keen, therefore, on handing over in large section decision making to non-elected people because it puts accountability at another remove from the electorate.
We hope to get this Bill passed and to have round 2 disbursement in 2005. If we were to ignore the plan of the disbursements board and follow bad practice, that means that in 2006, a year ahead of the general election, the dormant accounts board that would remain would be in a position to write a damning report about our activities. It is not a function of the board that controls, even as of now, the flow of money. We made the decision that the figure would be €30 million. However, we acquiesced when the board asked us for another €30 million and because of the delay in respect of disbursements, we acquiesced to another €30 million being made available, making a total of €60 million. The flow of the money has always been in Government hands. It was never in the hands of the dormant accounts board.
In terms of what we are doing, the plan will be that of the board. We will have the right, as before, to bring an amended plan to Government. This time we did amend the plan in that it will give special priority to CLÁR and RAPID areas under the social and economic disadvantage criteria. We gave advantaged status to RAPID areas only. That is focusing the moneys in areas of disadvantage.
If members examine the criteria we use under CLÁR and RAPID programmes in terms of disbursements in the Gaeltacht, and I have been either Minister or Minister of State for the Gaeltacht since 1997, with the exception of two years during which the CLÁR programme was set up, it is fair to say we have improved the transparency and the modelling to ensure the system is fair and open. If the Deputies write to me about Gaeltacht roads in Tír Chonaill, for example, we write back informing them of the category given to that road by an official, be it class 1, 2 or 3. We are very open about it in that we give priority to class 1 roads, which would be the worst ones. I believe in doing things properly because, contrary to popular myth, there is no political margin in messing.
If we consider the CLÁR and RAPID money, an even closer model to what I have in mind in this legislation, every scheme is either demand led or it is done on an equitable mathematical formula. For example, I made the decision that the class 3 roads money will be €6 million. Following that we lay down criteria on the types of roads and then allocate the money in proportion to the CLÁR population in each county. The county councils select the roads and as long as they select roads within the criteria, we have no further hand in the matter. The same methods are used with the RAPID funds.
On the Deputy's question of changing what is a winning formula, I do not agree it is a winning formula, and I am not blaming the board for that. If we consider what happened in the past year, a number of weaknesses in the process were identified. I do not believe in issuing an open invitation to everybody in the country to go to enormous effort to get plans together only to break their hearts. In the few months the dormant accounts board was accepting applications, we got applications to the tune of €300 million. That meant that, on average, nine in ten applications were refused. That is not a good way to do business.
If we had left it open for another three months we would have hit the €1 billion figure. Why have a situation where we get thousands of applications from people with every kind of idea who believe theirs is the best one? They put an enormous effort into coming up with those ideas. It is now April and it has taken the board well over a year to trawl through all those applications because it did not have the backup of the experts in the various Departments and agencies.
The third weakness that became obvious is that we focused on RAPID areas. In every RAPID area we have an area implementation team, AIT, which has a plan. It is not a plan agreed by Government; it is an AIT plan driven by the people. If we are to disburse money in RAPID areas it is reasonable to first call in the AITs, as I do regularly every six months, ask them about their priorities and then focus a certain amount of money from the fund towards their priorities for projects they could not expect to be completed, because additionality is key throughout this legislation, under the dormant accounts legislation.
I will go one step further. A problem arose during the year because much of the money being authorised by the dormant accounts board went towards the current scheme. As the Deputy rightly pointed out, the dormant accounts fund is quite limited. We hope to spread it out over a reasonable number of years but it is finite. An aspect the board had not checked with us was who would pick up the tab when the money ran out and a drug problem or a youth problem was still being experienced in a particular area. If there is one problem in Government, it is setting up schemes for which there is a pilot period of three, four or five years. We have all come across this. The problem is not solved but the service being provided under the scheme is good, and then the money dries up. Deputy McGinley would be familiar with it, particularly in Border counties where there are fixed-term schemes. People come to us saying that the IFI or INTERREG will not be giving money the next time and, therefore, they ask where the Exchequer money is.
If it is decided to fund something on a current basis under the dormant accounts board and it is likely to be needed in the distant future, I would like to get a commitment from my colleagues that once the dormant accounts board money runs out, they would pick up the tab if it were still required. In that way, the group would not come back after a fixed period when the dormant accounts money was finished or when a two-year period had elapsed stating that they have funding now but it is being closed off. There is a need for co-ordination and everything is not rosy in the garden.
The high standards under which CLÁR, RAPID and Gaeltacht funding is disbursed will be maintained. I included rigid and objective criteria in the systems I introduced. In my time in the Department, Gaeltacht grants have been more systematic and there is less of an "I like this one, but I don't like that one" approach. Although I was not dealing with such matters all the time, in my seven or eight years in the Department the system has become more open and transparent. I believe in doing business that way.
I may have a peculiar view of the world but I stick to it. I have a great deal of money to give to the Gaeltacht and islands this year, and most of the islands are in the Gaeltacht. We are distributing grants now but one did not see a rush to distribute grants for roads and small piers before the general election. I announced virtually nothing before it but the grants are beginning to come through now. I told my officials that it is politically negative, as well as giving the wrong signal, to distribute grants liberally before an election. Other parties may think it gets votes but I do not. I will not stop adhering to the high standards I have adopted as Minister in the disbursement of the community's money.
This money is the community's, as is taxpayers' money. Our job in Government is to spend the people's money. This money is not significantly different to any other we hold in trust for the people. Every euro of this is underwritten by the State, a point that is often overlooked. While the money comes from dormant accounts, if everybody were to claim the funds in accounts tomorrow, the State will have underwritten the fund. The State is the people.
My final point concerns the kernel of the Bill. I hear people say the Government should not claim credit for spending what is taxpayers' money. I know it is, but my understanding is that elections are basically fought on two bases: how much taxpayer's money should be collected and by what method. In other words, how does the tax system operate? I have never heard anyone fight an election on the basis that they will spend their money to provide State services. All elections are fought on the basis of how much money should be collected and by what method. That is the taxation element.
Parties differ on funding when they seek an electoral mandate. They may say they will provide a perfect accident and emergency service but they will do so with taxpayer's money, not from their own pockets. Parties go before the people and outline their different priorities and ideas based on how they will look after the people's money and spend it. It is right for Government and Opposition to fight about how public money is spent. The day we no longer fight about that, democracy will be dead because that is the issue at all times. For all those reasons, and because I believe in the accountability of Government to the people, I oppose the amendment. I will stick with the philosophy behind the change in the Bill.
I wish to deal with what the Minister has said. He succeeded in purloining €10 million of the dormant accounts fund for the rural employment scheme. I support the concept of that scheme which should be extended, but that is a different argument. Funding for that scheme and any extension of it should come from Exchequer funds, not from the dormant accounts fund. I do not wish to personalise this argument with regard to the current Minister, but if a future Minister had a similar scheme in mind and no money was available from the Exchequer because the Minister for Finance would not give way, he or she could raid the dormant accounts fund for that scheme. I do not wish to be personally critical of the Minister, but on a policy level I do not agree with what he did in getting hold of that €10 million to roll out the rural employment scheme. That funding should have come from Exchequer money.
This is the type of matter that can arise, particularly in the context of election pressures or pressures from Cabinet colleagues who may say they need it or they will lose their seats. There is a marked difference between this money and the context to which the Minister referred regarding different parties at election time which claim to do X, Y and Z. We all make various commitments which amount to a contract with the electorate if one is elected to Government on foot of them.
Yesterday, the Labour Party's Private Members' motion dealt with the Government's promise to reduce class sizes, yet this has not happened and it is quite clear that the Government has no intention of bringing it about. Therefore, the Minister is not arguing from the strongest possible base when talking about commitments given prior to elections. This money is not collected through taxation. In theory, all the money could be claimed back at some stage. Therefore, it is money held in trust by the additionality concept. In other words, this money should be for matters not provided for by the Exchequer.
The bottom line is that this initiative concerns money that was lying around, so to speak, whether in dormant accounts or unclaimed insurance policies. We all bought into the Act whereby the money accruing to this fund would be disbursed by an independent board. The Minister has spoken of the various things he has done. I will not contradict him as, to the best of my knowledge, he has done them.
This legislation will become part of the law of the State, so different Ministers will handle it from time to time. When talking about the Government, we are not only talking about one Minister but about the entire Cabinet. I firmly believe this legislation was conceived in a way which gave rise to great cynicism from the public, that is, that this was a crock of gold on which the Government had stumbled and which would be used for electoral purposes. It brings politics into disrepute.
I understand the disbursement board's first plan was a two year one and that it runs out in June. The new plan will be brought forward after that. It may be the Minister's intention to disburse money from the fund well in advance of the next general election but I am sure there will be another allocation in the run up to it. Can the Minister say with his hand on his heart that he will not be swayed by colleagues, that the money will be allocated objectively and fairly and that political influence will not be brought to bear?
As Members of the Oireachtas, we have a duty to do all in our power to maintain the good name of politics. Events in recent years, which have been revealed publicly, have brought no credit to the profession of politics. I am sure all of us would acknowledge that only a small group of people were involved but they have done enormous damage to politics and politicians. Given the current milieu, this Bill adds to the cynicism and the disrespect for politicians. The system is being changed to one where the Government will disburse moneys which, as a result of two Acts of the Oireachtas, were heretofore disbursed by an independent board.
The Minister dwelt on his approach to these matters and on his political philosophy. I cannot help but recall that it is at great variance with that of the person who introduced the original Bill, namely, the former Minister for Finance, Charlie McCreevy. When introducing the original Bill three or four years ago, he specifically stated that he deliberately made sure there was an independent board which would have the final word on the disbursement of funds to avoid the tag of "slush fund" being applied or such an idea being promoted.
I cannot put it better than Deputy O'Shea but it is amazing to us all that after three years, the powers that be have decided that the former Minister for Finance's approach was wrong and that this is a much better one. We have every right to have reservations and to be suspicious of the motives behind the principles of this Bill.
The board will remain in place. If a Government did all the things the Deputies think it might do, I have no doubt the Dormant Accounts Fund Disbursement Board would write an absolutely damning critique of it. One must remember that each year it must write a critique on how the money was spent under a number of headings, including additionality, process and so on.
Although there is a variety of agencies and bodies which do assessments and so on and various structures have been created which are much greater than even Departments, given the way we have set this up, we cannot involve them in the process. For all I know, I might be at variance with 165 Deputies but the more I visit communities, the one thing I find very frustrating is the approach of placing the advertisement in the newspaper and asking for applications. People write in to request anything they want but there are very few criteria. We faced this problem with RAPID and with this Dormant Accounts Fund Disbursement Board. One gets an endless number of applications and one must write back to 99 out of 100 to say that, despite all their trouble, there is no money.
If I have €30 million to spend and decide to spend €10 million of it on social and economic disadvantage, I should be up front with the people and ensure the applications I get, more or less, match the money from the target areas or groups for which I have money. That is a much more honest way of approaching business. If we had not battened down the hatches, the number of applications would have multiplied incredibly. As we know, we did not have €300 million to spend in one year.
In the drive to change the system to an open application one, we created problems for community groups, about which many have told me, and there were long delays in assessment and so on. There were mechanical problems because the fund was much larger than people thought. The other problem was that the board could not use Government agencies. For example, if we had wanted to deal with people with disability, it could not go to the statutory bodies dealing with disability and the disability sector to get ideas as to the type of measure which would suit, how much money would be required and look for an application.
I will give a simple practical example which would be additional and very sensible, although perhaps the disability sector would disagree and if it did, I would drop it. There is fantastic new computer technology, including cameras and so on, to enable people with severe disability to communicate. Like a CLÁR or RAPID measure, my idea is that there would be a measure which would focus on people with severe physical or mental disability who need this top-class equipment to enable them to communicate because they cannot use a conventional keyboard, etc. For the sake of argument, we could allocate €4 million for the measure and let the sector be involved in the decision making. If the sector believes that is rubbish, we should come up with another idea.
This is small money and it should be focused on specific needs. We should engage in dialogue but we must remember dialogue should be through the whole system we have created. However, the way we created this board suggested that all the other State machinery did not exist because it was not part of it and it had no way to operate through it. The board did a great job in the circumstances, which were less than ideal.
As we have pointed out, a considerable amount of money is involved. The Accounting Officer for this money is a part-time chairperson. The people who will be responsible for the spend will be the various Secretaries General who have a serious duty of care and are answerable to the Committee of Public Accounts, the Comptroller and Auditor General and so on. That is another advantage rather than trying to hold a part-time chairperson responsible for the spend.
I am delighted that anyone would think that spending €30 million per year would win an election or make a significant difference to an election result. I do not believe it would. What makes a difference is sensible, focused spending of money which tackles real need. One must remember additionality is a core issue. Additionality is good.
Money diverted to people on the rural social scheme will continue to be paid by the Exchequer because there is a saving in social welfare payments. The dormant accounts fund is funding the extra cost as if the people in question were in receipt of farm assist. The principle of additionality is adhered to in this regard. The RSS has been one of the best measures taken to deal with farmer disadvantage. The money will have a significant effect on the lifestyles of those availing of the scheme and will change them utterly. Having long experience of working in the field, that is my view and others can have a different view. People on the scheme say it is absolutely fantastic and it has changed their lives. That is why the money was set aside. That power to do this is provided under the current Act. The amended legislation will not affect this.
Prior to the budget, the Minister did not have an undertaking from the Dormant Accounts Fund Disbursement Board. He wrote to the board following the budget and, therefore, a request had to be made to provide the money. He did not exercise a power.
I did.
The Minister made great play of the fact that the board has a part-time chairman. If a part-time chairman is not sufficient to do the job, why not appoint someone to the position on a full-time basis? Many options are open to the Minister. He stated that the board is precluded from seeking ideas. For example, two people who represent the disability sector are on the board. They have significant experience in the sector and they are in contact with various groups. Not much happens in the sector without them knowing about it. However, the Minister criticised the board and not individual members but it would have been better if he had sought to improve and strengthen the board.
I refer to the explanatory memorandum and the Long Title, which contains the word "reform". The amendment defines reform as an improvement, particularly one made by removing faults or abuses. The Minister referred to faults but, thankfully, not abuses. However, the use of the word "reform" in this context refers to disbanding the board and reforming it. The word refers to reforming processes. The reasons put forward by the Minister for taking the road he has chosen are not adequate to justify his failure to strengthen the board, where necessary. The protection of the arm's length principle from Government and the disbursement role under the various programmes would happen within the confines of the independent board.
I do not recognise the merit in disconnecting the political system from everything. I have repeated this year after year because I am continually approached by people who say they elected me and that, at least, I am answerable to them if trust is breached. Numerous Members, including those in Opposition, have stated in the Dáil that we were fools to transfer power unnecessarily to unelected officials who answer to no one. I was questioned by the Deputy in the House on a particular occasion regarding the DITs and disbursement. It was an erudite question and I agreed that DITs should have been part of the process because there is no point in diverting money to a RAPID area and not co-ordinating its disbursement with the people who drew up the plan for the area. That is sensible but it was not done this way.
Section 41 of the principal Act was amended in the Second Schedule of the Unclaimed Life Assurances Policy Act 2003, which states "The Minister, in consultation with the Board may, from time to time, specify programmes referred to in paragraph (a) having regard to the plan prepared under section 42”. As long as I acted within the plan, I could be specific. I used that power under the RSS and it was perfectly correct. If I asked the people now, they would say it was a good use of the money. It is an excellent scheme which is fairly run to the benefit of a low income group that is facing a crisis.
We ensured additionality by insisting that there was a euro for euro transfer from social welfare of moneys being paid to the applicants. It complies fully with the Act. We will never agree on this issue because we both come form different philosophical backgrounds regarding accountability. However, I have great respect for members, irrespective of their political affiliation, and I do not go along with the common, modern theory that in some way politicians are more amenable to veniality or favouritism than unelected members of boards. I would much prefer if members were making decisions rather than an unelected board because I could attend a committee meeting and have it out with the Deputy and his colleagues and ask the people not to elect them if they broke the people's trust. If unelected board members act in a way they should not or have favourites, I can do nothing because they are not elected. The Deputy is no more likely to be swayed by improper motives than an unelected board and that is the kernel of the debate. However, we will have the best of both worlds under this legislation because the entire system, as well as politicians, will be involved and the board will monitor everything. The board members will prepare the plan and they will audit its performance.
Under the proposed system, there will be a double lock rather than the single lock available under the existing legislation. A group of unelected, unaccountable people have a say on all the disbursements other than those specified under the section by the Minister. There are two checks and balances. It makes political common sense to have a good system in place and for the board to keep an eye on matters in case they go off the rails. It should be given to a group which is unelected and unaccountable on a day-to-day basis. The board cannot call on the expertise of the system. If one takes these two aspects, it is obvious that we are radically reforming and improving the mechanism.
Does the Minister agree that his approach and new philosophy to the disbursement of the fund is at variance with the philosophy expressed by the former Minister, Mr. McCreevy, when he first introduced the board? No one had any objection to this at the time and now there is a new approach. Why is there a change of mind?
There are two reasons for the change. With hindsight, there were mechanical issues that had not been worked out, which often happens. It is like a person who designed a house and, half way through building it, he or she decided to go to the architect and seek to have it changed. If they were asked why did they change their mind, they might say they did not realise the full extent of it when the job began.
My view is that we are not throwing the baby out with the bathwater. We are keeping the board, the monitoring role, the additionality, the practice and so on, and it will be looking over our shoulder, so to speak. On the other hand, we are accessing the system. In the rush for political correctness, a mistake was made which we are trying correct. The way the fund operated was not optimal, particularly given the amount of money. We are always updating, improving and perfecting systems. This gives us the best of both worlds. In April 2007, it will be recognised that this change was not for the suspected reasons and it has led to a significant improvement in the method of disbursing the funds. If I am wrong, the Opposition will have a field day at my expense, because the dormant accounts board will write a damning account about me. They will be able to say to the electorate that Ó Cuív and the Fianna Fáil-led Government went off the rails.
On the reasons put forward for introducing this legislation, it was suggested that the disbursement plan of the board indicated there was concern about the emerging size of the fund. One could read that in 100 different ways. Nothing the Minister said has changed my view that the Government became aware of a significant amount of money becoming available to the Government, and that this inspired changes rather than any other occurrence.
The Minister referred to the various agencies set up under different Departments. If we talk about democratic principles, the Act brought in by Mr. McCreevy in 2001 gave the Minister the power to nominate the chair and members of the board. Therefore, this is a substantial element of democratic containment. To the best of my recollection, no one balked on that at the time and said it was the wrong way to go. The democratic principle was adhered to in as much as the board, which would later act independently in terms of disbursement, was appointed by the Minister. We are talking about many hypothetical and futuristic matters. In the end, we are faced with the facts as they arise today. In other words, what gave rise to these changes and the change within the Government?
To go back to what I said about reform, it should be about improving and especially about removing faults and abuses. This reform leads to a situation where there can be widespread abuse for political purposes.
The fund amounts to approximately €200 million. We have already approved the spending of €60 million by the current board, leaving a balance of €140 million. I have already said that the rate of expenditure would be in the region of €30 million to €40 million a year. It is a sizeable amount of money but, if one examines my Department's budget, which is €340 million, it is less than 10% of what my Department spends each year. It will not change the world. It will focus on small issues and deal satisfactorily with them.
If the money is spent well according to the plan, what is wrong with that? If it is spent badly and not according to the plan, we will be damned by the dormant accounts board. Is the Opposition scared that because we will have access to a very large system, we will introduce good and effective ways of spending this money which will give us a huge return and, in doing so, we will be thanked by the electorate? It would be odd if one were punished for doing something well. The only way we can gain is if we deal satisfactorily with the matter and improve on the current arrangement, which I have no doubt we will. I have no doubt that many people will say it was a very good idea. I have discussed the matter with the RAPID AITs who are very interested in how we are going to spend the money because it will give them a greater say. I will get political kudos from that. What is wrong with getting political kudos for doing the right thing in the right way at the right time?
The Minister has moved in approximately 101 directions. He cannot get away from the fact that, in the end, the Government will make the decision. This has changed from the position whereby an independent board was disbursing the moneys. We can talk about all sorts of fanciful things, including the thanks of the electorate and so on, but living in the real world, every constituency is a general election in itself. The Minister said that €30 million would neither win nor lose an election. He is saying it will be €30 million, but if he comes under pressure from his colleagues coming up to the next general election, it could be much more. Strategically placed money here, there and everywhere can influence how the voters will react.
I cannot do it that way. Obviously the Deputy has not read the Bill.
I have read the Bill.
We must publish the assessment criteria. Once it is published, we are bound by it. If the Deputy believes I can place money strategically in constituencies, it is contradicted by the Bill. That allegation is nonsense. We must adhere to best practice. The Deputy suggests that while this may be set out in the Bill, we will not adhere to it. If I do not adhere to the Bill, retribution will strike me in all sorts of ways, including from the dormant accounts board. Not only that, if we look at how the money was distributed, for example under the CLÁR scheme, we will find that in every scheme none of the money was put into any particular area other than by objective criteria, or there were some demand-led schemes. The three-phase electricity scheme was demand led and anybody who fulfilled the criteria got the money. The situation was similar with the small schools.
However, where we were giving the money pre factum to health boards or whatever, we used a similar methodology, laid down criteria and divided the money by population or some other objective method. We then asked the relevant agencies for suggestions within those criteria. As long as the answers that came back were within the criteria, we accepted them fully. If Deputies check what we did, they will see that is how we did it. There is a working model that belies all that people here have tried to allege this afternoon.
There is another working model, national lottery funding, where Ministers got their hands on a significant amount of money and it is given out in a similar fashion to what is envisaged under this Bill. One does not need to be an economic genius to figure out the disbursement of that money and where it goes. If there is no Minister in a constituency, the people may be assured they will not get as much as where there is, or where it happens to be a Minister with responsibility for sport. We were glad to have such a Minister in Donegal for a number of years and we did excellently out of the national lottery. Unfortunately, not every constituency can have a Minister in that Department all the time. We have had the experience of the lottery funds as a working model for a number of years. The same method will be involved here.
My Department gets national lottery money. The one fault we have all had with the national lottery is the issue of substitution rather than additionality. Successive Governments have succumbed on this issue, but we have put protections against it in this Bill. When hard times came the argument was that they should substitute money rather than issue money. This Bill specifically clarifies that this money must be additional. I agree with the Deputy that is very important.
Look, for example, at the once-off grants in my Department which are national lottery funded. I stand over the process and affirm that Galway gets no more than anybody else. Applications are adjudicated on their merits. Galway does not get grants it does not warrant on objective criteria. Ciste na Gaeilge is national lottery funded and the Deputy knows how that is dispersed. In the past the ciste was disbursed in the old-fashioned manner. I have begun to change procedures in regard to the ciste because there were no clear-cut criteria. We have decided, for example, that for projects like Gaillimh le Gaeilge and Tiobrad Árann ag Labhairt, we would introduce an open competition with set criteria so that any group could apply. I am reforming the process to achieve these high standards so that what the Deputy suggests might happen will not happen. We will have clear criteria under which people may apply for funds, a ciste gnó.
We are currently creating a more systematic process. I accept that times have changed and that we must change how we disburse funds as a result. This must be done by deciding the criteria and the terms of reference. This will be followed by accepting applications from those within the catchment area, evaluating them objectively and then disbursing the money. I agree there is a need to make this change.
If we were to do what the Deputy alleges we do, the dormant accounts board, which will monitor everything we do, would have much to say on the matter. I would say there will be a spend in 2005 so they will save in 2006.
That depends on who is on the board.
We started on the premise that the board was a great white knight that could not be got to by anybody. Now the Deputy suggests the board could be politically influenced, but I do not think it could. All I said was that the board is, like all of us, subject to human preferences, beliefs and contacts, etc. None of us lives in a glass cage, but I do not think it would be possible for a Minister who had acted wrongly to get to the board and get it not to say so.
I want to refer specifically to amendment No. 4 which requires that the Minister decide on the criteria. The Minister alleged that I had not read the Bill and to prove that he spoke about a report that will issue well after the next general election.
It is an annual report.
I am talking about disbursement in the run-in to the next general election. That is the timeframe we are discussing.
Does the Deputy mean the 2007 disbursement?
If the Minister knows when the election will be called.
It could be this time 2007.
As we do not know when the election will be called, I will not take that road. Does the Minister mean to tell me that a Fianna Fáil-led Government will live in fear and trepidation of a post-election report from an appointed committee regarding how money was disbursed? Much of what the Minister has said may have substance, but he should not try to feed us that notion. In any event, the Minister is talking about a board that is understaffed which will be dependent on officials on secondment from the Minister's Department, whom I am sure will act in a proper manner. If, for example, a particular project in constituency X gets the money rather than a similar one in constituency Y, I am not sure the political decision taken could be unearthed or found by an exterior group. To say the prospect of this report would influence a Fianna Fáil-led Government in the run-in to an election is not something any person with knowledge of the Irish political system would accept.
It might surprise the Deputy to hear this. In the run-up to the local elections in 1999, which were held in spring, announcements were in the process of being made on roads etc., as would normally happen in April and May. Much to my surprise, after the election an independent councillor came to me and said it was a terrible thing to do to announce all that spending. I told him that he must be out of his mind because that spending just happened at that time of year.
The Údarás election was fought the following Christmas. Normally, coming up to Christmas there is another rush of applications. On that occasion I did not sign any of the applications that came to me in the ten days prior to the election. I just put them in a drawer and did not sanction them until after the election because I believe that the granting of money in the run-up to an election, as the Deputy alleges, has a negative rather than a positive effect.
As I indicated, if the Deputy's theory had any merit, I should have been in a rush announcing bóithre, áiseanna, athnuachan baile, cláracha oileáin etc. for the previous three months because everybody knows these are annual grants that are announced in the early part of the year. Were these announced or was there a rush? The Deputies know, as they are both Deputies of Gaeltacht constituencies, that there was no significant rush of announcements. Any announcements made were in line with what would have been made up to this time last year. There were fewer because of IT problems. The Deputy's theory falls flat on its face. It will not happen under me.
I will not bother with that argument. We will deal with the facts. This amendment seeks something simple that will strengthen the public's estimation of politicians. It is better if the report, of which Fianna Fáil might be terrified, is at least based on objective criteria set down by the board as distinct from by the Minister. This would be better from both a perceptual and actual point of view. The message I am getting from across the table is this crock of gold will be used as a slush fund for the next general election, come hell or high water, or come whatever is said from this side of the table.
I assure the Deputy that will not happen. I believe in good practice and I trust politicians. I do not think there is any reason not to trust politicians as we are all accountable to the electorate at the end of the day. The electorate is sophisticated and time and again we have all said we must take care not to disconnect the electorate from everything, which has become a tendency in recent years.
This amendment would be totally unworkable. The plan goes to the Minister who can amend it or not. I amended the last plan in a very transparent way because I put in the RAPID and CLÁR areas. I put the RAPID areas under two headings which was the correct thing to do. I am delighted with my own decision in that regard because it focuses on the poor. The plans go to Government, the schemes are set up and the assessment criteria are published so everyone knows how it is done. We make decisions on the schemes based on the process. The dormant accounts board examines what has been done.
The Deputy's amendment would put into the middle of this logical sequence of events a provision that the Government decision would be thrown back and forth to the dormant accounts board. In my view this is merely pat-ball and would be unworkable. I oppose the amendment.
I would have preferred to have called a vote on one of my two amendments ruled out of order but this is the amendment on which I can seek to establish the principle for which I have been arguing all evening.
Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 5; Níl, 7.
Tá
- Breen, James.
- Deenihan, Jimmy.
- Howlin, Brendan.
- McGinley, Dinny.
- O’Shea, Brian.
Níl
- Collins, Michael.
- Glennon, Jim.
- Keaveney, Cecilia.
- McGuinness, John.
- Ó Cuív, Éamon
- O’Flynn, Noel.
- O’Malley, Fiona.
Amendment declared lost.
Amendments Nos. 5 to 7, inclusive, are out of order.
Amendments Nos. 5 to 7, inclusive, not moved.
I move amendment No. 8:
In page 5, to delete lines 30 to 35 and substitute the following:
32.—(1) The Board shall consist of a chairperson and 10 ordinary members appointed by the Minister and shall include—
(a) an officer of the Minister not below the rank of principal officer,
(b) a person who, in the Minister’s opinion, represents the interests of the financial services industry,
(c) four persons who—
(i) in the Minister's opinion, have knowledge of, or experience in relation to, the purposes for which disbursements may be made, and
(ii) are appointed by the Minister after consultation with the organisations that the Minister considers to be representative of the purposes so specified,
and
(d) Four persons who, in the Minister’s opinion, have knowledge of, or experience relating to any other matters that appear to the Minister to be relevant to the Board’s functions.”.
The core of this amendment is that the board should comprise representatives of the community and voluntary sectors, as is the case with the present board, which will probably step down when the Bill is passed. The Bill is drafted without reference to any such representations. We have no guarantee or undertaking of who will be on the new board. We are very happy with the membership of the old board, which represented various interest groups particularly from the voluntary and community sectors.
The Bill gives the Minister a free hand to decide where to get these people and whom they might represent. When considering the membership of some boards one would wonder why certain people were selected and what qualifications they had. It is not unknown for people to be appointed to boards because of political services rendered. We all know what has happened with prison boards, etc., where people have travelled the country to be members.
The new board will not be as powerful as the old board. However, at least as the Minister has said it will be a monitoring committee and will be in a position to publish its critique of how this is carried out after the general election.
It should happen well before the general election.
It depends on when the general election is called.
The general election should happen in 2007 and we should see a critique in 2006.
My amendment seeks to restore the participation of representatives of the community and voluntary sectors, who have done such an excellent job so far. They have proved themselves in the past three years and they have a role in the coming years while the money is being disbursed.
The Deputy has placed emphasis on the proposed section 32(1)(c)(ii) where he has used the word “representative”. A member of a State board is not meant to represent anybody and should only represent the interest of the board. While I know it has become common, I am not keen on State boards comprising representatives with a particular interest. On joining a board, the board’s interest must be the only interest of a member. If a board member sees himself or herself as representative of an organisation and that organisation then makes an application, the member is in an invidious position as he or she is on the board by virtue of the nomination of that organisation, which can lead to all sorts of conflicts.
While I agree with the thrust of what the Deputy has said, his amendment will not stop what he seeks to prevent. All Governments have in the past appointed to boards people who have not been up to the job. When making appointments we must select people who bring to the board some particular personal characteristics and knowledge relevant to what they are meant to do. All the members must meet certain criteria and must have relevant knowledge and experience, otherwise they should not be on the board.
However, it is more appropriate to widen the pool to bring in people with relevant knowledge and experience not necessarily nominated by particular interest groups as this means we are not trammelled in picking the best talent available. We do not have to pick from among people who have gone crawling for a nomination from some organisation. They are not tied by having been proposed by an organisation. For this reason I cannot see the amendment being beneficial.
The amendment requires consultation with "the organisations that the Minister considers to be representative of the purposes so specified". If I were to decide on 40 bodies it would become like getting a Seanad nomination. People could go to any of those 40 bodies and ask to be placed on its list. However, the Minister is still obliged to pick the best people, which means covering a variety of interests, a variety of personal talents and obviously providing for gender balance.
It also means having very good people, some of whom represent the common man and the common woman, rather than some sectional interest. If there is a new tyranny in this country, it is the tyranny of experts and of people who hold positions in large organisations. When Deputies return to their constituencies at weekends, they meet the people who really get things done. While they might not have a high profile or be considered nationwide figures, they know their jobs and get things done. They might have spent 30 years quietly working to deal with social disadvantage. They might not be members of big organisations, but they might be working at the coalface. Such people have a place on a board of this nature. I trust my colleagues to pick the best people and I am sure Deputy McGinley does likewise. We will pick the best people from those who fit the relevant criteria and we will put in place the best board.
Amendment No. 8 is not a revolutionary proposal. There are many examples of boards consisting of representatives of various bodies. I am sure many different interests are represented on the board of An Bord Pleanála.
The Deputy knows the problem in that regard. Tá chuile dhuine ag tabhairt amach go bhfuil iomarca tionchar ag muintir An Taisce ar An mBord Pleanála. Nach é sin an fhadhb atá ag Rialtaisí? Thug an Teachtas droch-shampla.
Various different interests are represented on the boards of Bord Bia and many other agencies. There is somebody to represent the interests of na hoileáin on the board of Údarás na Gaeltachta.
Níl sé ainmnithe ag na hoileánaigh mar a ainmnítear TD. Chuala mé scéal faoi sin go luath. Chuir mé duine ó na hoileáin ar an mbord. Ní raibh mé in ann a rá go gcaithfeadh oileánach a bheith ann, ach ní dúirt mé go gcaithfeadh sé a bheith ainmnithe ag na comharchumainn, mar shampla.
It is well known that such people are serving on boards at present. When one takes up a position on a board, one does not just articulate the needs of one's organisation all the time. One's other experiences and interests are of benefit as one conducts one's duties as a member of a board. One might have gained experience and interest from one's work in, for example, the voluntary or community sectors. One can, therefore, bring a great deal to the boards on which one serves. As one is not tied down, one can make up one's mind. If an organisation that one represents makes an application, an established procedure is in place to allow one to be absent during the relevant part of the meeting at which the matter is being discussed.
I accept that. I would prefer people to be there by virtue of a straight combination. The Deputy's view is the conventional one but I have never been particularly enamoured of it. There is nothing to stop any organisation from making a suggestion to the Minister. When I am appointing the members of a board, such as the board of the Western Development Commission, I normally look at certain criteria so that I can justify my strategic reasons for putting them in place. That is important. In the case of the Western Development Commission, there is a need for every county in the west to be represented and a balance to be struck between male and female members. We want people with business and public service experience to be on the board. The board includes a county manager and representatives of union and business interests. All of that has to be done. I think it is better to give the Minister the discretion to choose the names.
I agree with the Minister's point as it relates to the nominees of organisations. However, the amendment before the committee is not at variance with that. It states that one of the members of the proposed dormant accounts board should be a person who "represents the interests of the financial services industry". Deputy McGinley might like to speak about that aspect of the matter. Nothing in the amendment will tie the Minister's hands in any way. It merely obliges the Minister to consult certain organisations but it does not go beyond consulting. That is all the amendment is seeking. Consulting is good.
The Deputy is saying that the Minister will have to choose from the pool of people who will emerge from the consultation process.
No. The Minister is interpreting the amendment in a certain way, rather than accepting it as it stands. The amendment proposes that the Minister should make appointments after he has engaged in consultation. That does not tie the Minister's hands in any way. The amendment does not mention that he will have to choose from the pool of people that will emerge from the consultation process. That process might produce the name of a person who has given a great deal of service in a certain sector but who is no longer active in an organisation in that sector. Such a person might have a great deal to offer the proposed dormant accounts board.
I do not understand the Minister's objections to the amendment. It retains the number of members of the board proposed by the Minister. The only change that will be made in practice is that the Minister will have to consult before he or she makes a decision. The Minister's hands will not be tied in any way. It is always good to engage in consultation without condition. If one participates in consultation, that does not mean that one has to choose from a specific pool.
One of the members of the current Dormant Accounts Fund Disbursement Board was specifically nominated to represent the voluntary and community sector. Other members include the chief executive of the Irish Wheelchair Association and a representative of the Irish Bankers Federation. The latter nominee could be said to represent the interests of the financial services industry. The board also includes a representative of the Minister. We accept that. The members of the current board, which seems to have been operating very well, represent various interests. They act independently — their hands are not tied — when they attend meetings of the board. I do not understand the Minister's difficulty with this amendment.
This is an interesting matter. I am in two minds about the practice in this area. I am not convinced that it is a good idea to provide that one of the members of the board should be an officer of the Minister. If a Minister is represented on a board, he might be able to whisper in the ear of his representative so that the board will do all the things he wants it do. If one is not prepared to make a decision, one should not try to influence, from the back door, those who are making it.
I have chosen not to appoint an officer of the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs to the board of Údarás na Gaeltachta, for example, although I could have done so. I have taken the view that it is preferable to deal with Údarás na Gaeltachta at arm's length than to have an official from the Department as a member of the collective decision-making body. The Department can then adjudicate from the outside on what the board is doing. I have reversed past practices by deciding it is better for the Department not to have an officer on the board of Údarás na Gaeltachta or the Western Development Commission. When the board has made its decision, the Department comments on it. We could spend a great deal of time talking about this matter, which is of wider relevance. I do not propose to place in the Bill a definitive formula which states whether the Minister should appoint an official from the Department to this board.
I introduced an amendment to the Bill in the Seanad to ensure that those who are working to tackle disadvantage and assist people with disabilities will have an opportunity to make submissions to me about the appointment of four members of the board. The amended section of the Bill does not contain a reference to nominated bodies. Anybody working in the sectors I have mentioned will be able to make a submission.
I have not suggested that bodies should have the right to nominate members of the board. I have said that the Minister should consult the representatives of voluntary bodies, who might suggest a few names. The Minister would retain the right to choose.
Section 7 of the Bill inserts the following new section 32(3) into the Dormant Accounts Act 2001:
Not fewer than 4 of the 10 ordinary members appointed under this section are to be persons who—
(a) in the Minister’s opinion, have knowledge of, and experience relating to, the purposes for which disbursements may be made under section 41, and
(b) are appointed following consideration by the Minister of any submissions received in response to a published notice indicating that appointments will be made to the Board and inviting recommendations relating to those appointments. Given the purpose of the board, the people will have to come from social, economic, disability and educational disadvantage groups. I will place an open advertisement and if any group, such as the Dunloe disadvantaged education group or the Society of St. Vincent de Paul, wishes to send a submission, it can do so.
According to the Bill, I must decide which are the representative bodies. As a rural representative, Deputy McGinley knows that many people in my neck of the woods will ask what the head honchos of Dublin bodies know about rural disadvantage. The advantage of my formulation is that a disadvantaged group in, for example, west Kerry will have an equal right to submit a name as one of the bodies which I consider to be representative. The provisions adequately cover the point raised by Deputy McGinley.
The Minister has given an undertaking that there will be consultations.
It is in the Bill in section 32(3)(b) of substitute Part 5.
Will the Minister consider broadening the proposal on Report Stage?
While I will look at it again, I have already changed the provision and in doing so attempted to take on board as much as possible of what has been said. I would not mind appointing a person from the financial services industry, and probably will do so, as such a person would be useful to the board. I do not want to constrain a future Minister, however. There are two views and I am open minded.
It has been asked whether an officer of the Department should be appointed as the Minister's representative. I have not made such appointments to some boards as I have foreseen certain difficulties. Another Minister might take a different view. I will leave the matter to the discretion of the Minister of the day. While I do not have an absolutist view, practical experience indicates it is not always the best thing to do. As I will also have to make up my own mind in this instance, I have left the provision open.
I understand the Minister's dilemma having been in the same position. There are certain scenarios in which an officer of the Department with a wide understanding of legislation and rules can represent a very positive addition to a board. While the view may arise that a civil servant board member is the Minister's spy, it is probably a question of horses for courses. There are some instances in which a civil servant has a great deal to offer a board which it would be very difficult to obtain from another source.
There are three possibilities. It can be left to the discretion of each individual to make the decision, which is how the provision stands. I have not excluded the possibility. The second possibility is to do as Deputies suggest, which we will consider before Report Stage. The third possibility is to make an officer of the Department the secretary of a board. While the officer would be a non-voting member, his or her advice would be available if needed. I will consider the matter and revert to members on Report Stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed: "That section 7, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
We oppose section 7 in its entirety. We have discussed it for two hours and have a basic disagreement with its approach which we also outlined on Second Stage. All the arguments have been made.
Question put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 7; Níl, 5.
Tá
- Brady, Martin.
- Collins, Michael.
- Keaveney, Cecilia.
- McGuinness, John.
- Ó Cuív, Éamon.
- O’Flynn, Noel.
- O’Malley, Fiona.
Níl
- Breen, James.
- Bruton, Richard.
- Howlin, Brendan.
- McGinley, Dinny.
- O’Shea, Brian.
Question declared carried.
SECTION 8.
Amendments Nos. 9 to 13, inclusive, are related and amendments Nos. 10 to 12, inclusive, are cognate. The amendments may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 9:
In page 11, line 11, after "or" to insert "submission to the Government for their".
The purpose of the amendment is to provide for the board's disbursement plan to be approved by Government rather than the Minister as provided for under the current arrangements. The purposes for which funding from the dormant accounts fund can be disbursed are to support programmes and projects tackling disadvantage and assist persons with a disability.
Deputies will appreciate that this is a wide-ranging amendment which cuts across the activities of several Departments. The amendments have been proposed to ensure the board's disbursement plan, which provides the overall framework within which funding proposals and decisions will be made, is considered and approved by Government rather than a single Minister. The current position in law is that once the Minister receives the plan, he may amend it and then approve it. In practice, I recommended amendments to the plan before bringing it before Government for consideration and approval. While this was not required of me under the legislation, given the nature of what we are proposing to do, it is preferable that this power is exercised by joint Government decision rather than a single Minister.
The purpose of the amendment is to obtain approval from the Government rather than an individual Minister. Is the Minister passing the buck to ensure the Government at large rather than he alone will be held responsible for any devilment? Will the proposed changes result in the Minster being subject to greater influence than would have been the case if the current procedure of requiring only the Minister's approval were maintained?
The Deputy has bad gut feelings about his colleagues.
I seek an explanation for the Minister's proposed change.
The explanation is simple. The position until now has been that I suggested some amendments to the plan primarily with regard to the RAPID and CLÁR programmes. I then brought the amended plan to Government because this appeared to be a sensible approach given its importance. Under the current legislation, the Minister has the right to accept, reject or amend and then approve the plan. I preferred to have the plan approved by the Government rather than a single Minister.
If, as the Deputy fears, an individual Minister were to seek to influence me, it would be much easier to do so on a one-to-one basis in the context of no requirement to bring the plan before the whole Government. It will be much more difficult to exercise influence if the Government must make a collective decision. Ireland has become a suspicious nation in which we always try to find some hidden meaning in the obvious. The reason for the amendment is that it is preferable to have Government endorsement of the plan, particularly given its other roles further down the line, including the requirement to agree to disbursements. The arrangement in the current legislation is inconsistent.
The amendment relates to the plan as distinct from the disbursements.
Yes. We will deal with the disbursements later.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 10:
In page 11, line 24, to delete "Minister" and substitute "Government".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 11:
In page 11, lines 26 and 27, to delete all words from and including "The" in line 26 down to and including "Government" in line 27 and substitute the following:
"The Government may, on receipt of a submission from the Minister".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 12:
In page 11, line 35, to delete "Minister's" and substitute "Government's".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 13:
In page 12, line 5, to delete "Minister" and substitute "Government".
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 14 is out of order.
Amendment No. 14 not moved.
I move amendment No. 15:
In page 12, line 29, to delete "is to have regard" and substitute "shall strictly adhere".
To retain some semblance of fairness and equity, I propose that when preparing a proposal for the disbursement of moneys, the Minister must not only have regard to the approved plan but must strictly adhere to it. The current position marks a continuation of what we discussed in section 7 in that it too reduces the influence of the board. The board is obliged to prepare a plan and forward it to the Minister and in the current Bill the Minister is required to "have regard" to the plan. I do not know what exactly this means. Will he read it before casting it aside? Will he decide not to read it? If the board goes to the trouble of preparing a comprehensive plan, is it not logical and proper for the Minister to adhere to its recommendations and findings? Is it not logical and right that the Minister should adhere to the recommendation or what is embodied in that plan? It gives some relevance to the board.
I know what is worrying the Deputy. I will go back and look at this again. I am not a legal buff, but we have to try to get a fix on this. I presume that "is to have regard to" in this context means that one cannot ignore the plan. Obviously, if one did, the dormant accounts board would act when one returned for the annual check-up. I presume one would be fairly constrained within the plan.
I would worry about the phrase "shall strictly adhere to", however. As Minister, I have found that such words have a strange habit — because the plan is not a legal document — of making the obvious and desirable impossible by constraining matters too much.
I do not know what "shall strictly adhere to" would mean. I will seek legal advice from the Parliamentary Counsel. I know where the Deputy is coming from, but I also know why, for very valid reasons, I do not want some future Minister to be tearing his hair out because an official says that he or she cannot do something absolutely desirable, despite the fact that it is within the spirit of the plan and the Act, since it does not strictly adhere to the former. Ultimately, if we want to change the plan proposed by the board, we can do so, even under present legislation, but we must do it in an overt way. If we change the plan, we go public. Even if one had the word "strictly" and we found it constraining, we could amend the plan. I will consider it.
In legislation, we must seriously be very careful. The country has become very legalistic. There are a great many lawyers looking at the small print of everything, and we are beginning to tie ourselves up in knots. Sometimes in the House we over-legislate and do not trust each other. I trust that, if the Deputy gets into office, he will operate this Bill fairly and properly, and I hope he is similarly confident. We will have to learn to trust each other a little more, since everything is being constrained too much, and we end up with the most ridiculous results in day-to-day administration. I will examine the matter on behalf of the Deputy.
The dilemma is that "is to have regard to" could mean that one could consider something without being bound by it. On the other hand, I can understand what the Minister is saying regarding "shall strictly adhere to". Surely, if there is a proposal, it is better that it be strictly adhered to than simply left very loose in the other formulation. However, Deputy McGinley is taking on board what the Minister is saying, and what he tells me in good faith is acceptable to me. He will examine this and produce the best solution in the public interest before Report Stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 16 is out of order.
Amendment No. 16 not moved.
I move amendment No. 17:
In page 13, between lines 26 and 27, to insert the following:
"(4) Prior to exercising a function under this subsection (3), the Minister shall request the Board to furnish him or her with a draft submission relating to the matters referred to in subsection (3), and the Minister shall have regard to such draft submission, and shall, in the event that the Government decides to depart from such draft submission prepared by the Board, publish a statement giving details and reasons for any such departure from the Board’s proposals.”.
Essentially, this deals with the section relating to the assessment of applications and the publication of decisions. Specifically, it seeks to insert a further subsection between subsections (3) and (4). Subsection (3) currently reads:
Following receipt of the results of each assessment, the Minister shall submit to the Government for their approval—
(a) a list of the measures and projects that, based on the assessments, are recommended for disbursements from the account, and
(b) the amounts proposed to be disbursed from the account for the purposes of each of the recommended measures and projects.
I am seeking to include a further safeguard, namely, that we should insert a new subsection (4). That is the kind of detail that will not be in the report of which the Minister has spoken, and I believe that it is necessary for public confidence in our political institutions that the Minister accept the new subsection.
I oppose the amendment for several reasons. First, the system put in place under this legislation is designed to be transparent and focus funds on disadvantage through responsible Departments. The applications, when received, will be assessed in accordance with agreed and published criteria. The disbursements must be made on the basis of a detailed and transparent process. That is all provided for in the Bill's totality, and we made amendments in the Seanad to ensure that. There is the plan, the detailed and transparent process up front, and then the assessment of the application according to that process. The decisions of the Government concerning the disbursement must be published, after which they are to be reviewed by the board.
The Deputy is suggesting that another step must be inserted and that the board review the transparent and fair assessment made by transparent and fair criteria. One is immediately struck by two problems. The board would be an appraiser but also an adviser. That would be strange. It would be appraising applications at one stage, after which they would go to the Government. Then it would be advising on the decisions made by that whole system, including itself, at the end, rather than simply saying, "Here is the plan, the decisions, and this is how the process worked out", and appraising the plan.
There is a second problem. I guarantee members that, when they are Ministers, they will curse the day we inserted so many steps into the process for making the smallest decisions. I am all for good process, but not to the extent that one must go back over everything, with more reports, analysis and delays when the decision that should be made is obvious and people are screaming at one to get on and make it.
If I receive one letter from Deputies, I must receive 1,000. They ask when, under the present arrangements, a decision will be made by the dormant accounts board and get very frustrated when we say they will all be made by November, December, January or February. I remember coming into the Department and speaking to a senior civil servant about piers in Gaeltacht areas, an issue of particular interest to Deputies McGinley and O'Shea. I complained bitterly again and again that it was stated regarding certain piers "Breathnófar ar an scéal, agus déanfar cinneadh in am tráth.".
I asked why, if they were not going to be done, the official did not say no fast. It was obvious that, after two or three years, no one was going to make a decision. I do not know whether members ever saw the film "A Man for All Seasons". Somebody tried to get to Sir Thomas More over a judgment. He said he would give the same judgment that he would give his own daughter, a fair one. The second thing he said, namely, the word "fast", always stuck in my mind. If one checks the records, one finds, as his reputation in history indicates, that he cleared the backlog. One thing that has become the curse of the system, in my view, whether legal or political, is convoluted methods that lead to slow decisions.
Justice delayed is justice denied.
Exactly. It is the same principle. It does not add much and I ask the Deputy to withdraw the amendment.
Will the Minister note that the scenario he has outlined is not what this amendment actually seeks? It is not seeking to delay the decision-making process. It is asking that after decisions have been taken, and where they are at variance with the assessments received by the Minister in the first place, that he or she should publish them. I am seeking that the Minister, not the board, should publish the material.
This is a reasonable, well thought out and logical amendment which asserts that there should be a report on items that have not been successful which should indicate why that was the case. That amendment advocates transparency and openness and is worthy of support.
These are decisions which will not be taken by the board but by the Minister.
No, they will be taken by the Government.
We are talking about after the decisions have been taken, we are not talking about delaying the decision-making process in any way. We are saying "shall, in the event that the Government decides to depart from such draft submissions prepared by the Board, publish a statement giving details and reasons for any such departure from the Board's proposals". If the Government is to behave in a kosher way, it will accept this amendment. I can see difficulties from an administrative viewpoint if there are wholesale changes and this is information which can probably be obtained under freedom of information initiatives in any event.
The amendments states:
Prior to exercising a function under this subsection (3), the Minister shall request the Board to furnish him or her with a draft submission relating to the matters referred to in subsection (3), and the Minister shall have regard to such draft submission, and shall, in the event that the Government decides to depart from such draft submission prepared by the Board, publish a statement giving details and reasons for any such departure from the Board’s proposals.”.
The Deputy may correct me if I am wrong but my understanding is that he wants us, before we go to the Government with the assessments, to approach the dormant accounts board. There is, of course, a problem as regards the adviser and appraiser. We are to ask the board whether it is satisfied with the assessments and the proposals being put to Government.
That is not what I am saying. Once the Minister gets the assessments from the board, its function will have ceased for the time being.
Should we go to the board for this?
No, the amendment states“Prior to exercising a function under this subsection (3)”. Subsection (3) states that following the receipt of the result of each assessment, the Minister shall submit for Government approval a list of measures and projects that, based on the assessments, are recommended for disbursements from the account. I am stating that if there is any departure from what is submitted by the board, the Government should provide the reason for this.
We will get the assessments on projects from the various Departments. The Deputy is saying that prior to the Minister submitting assessments for Government approval, he or she should put them to the board.
I am not saying that.
The Deputy is saying that, if he reads what he has written. He says that prior to exercising a function under subsection (3), the Minister shall request the board to furnish certain information. Subsection (3) employs the term "following the receipt of the result of each assessment, the Minister shall submit to the Government". The Deputy is referring to the time prior to submitting to the Government.
I am saying that the Minister should request the board to furnish him or her with a draft submission relating to the matters referred to in subsection (3). That will happen in any event.
If the Deputy reads what he has written, he is saying that before I go to Government I should ask the board for its opinion on the assessments.
Let us return to the wording used, namely, "assessment of applications and publication of decisions". Applications received in response to invitations under section 43 shall be assessed, in accordance with the published criteria, by and on behalf of public bodies and the results of the assessments shall be reported to the Minister by those bodies. When the board establishes the scheme, will it be completely out of the picture when the applications have been submitted to, as would be the case here, the various Departments?
The plan is very general, even as it stands. We will then set up the schemes and operate them, make the decisions according to transparent and open criteria, etc., assess them objectively, put them to Government, make the decisions and then the board will appraise our work. That is the sequence. What the Deputy is saying is——
Is the Minister saying the board will assess the work by a report which comes well after the event?
That is correct.
If any of the submissions that go to the Minister are not objectively assessed, he might push certain recommendations, made by Departments, to the Government.
If they are not objectively assessed, we will not have been adhering to the law.
My amendment seeks to provide that they will be checked before any error is made. If an error is made in good faith or otherwise, the Government should be in a position to justify it in writing.
This is all "to be sure, to be sure" in nature. Two things are true about human existence: first, no matter how many people check something, there is still a tendency for error; and, second, this internal double-checking, treble-checking and quadruple-checking just causes total stagnation. People want us to get on with it.
The Deputy is also asking me to take on an advisory role on matters that will go to Government, the members of which will appraise the action at the end. That puts them in a totally invidious position. Imagine, for example, that an item comes through which has, in line with the Deputy's theory, been unfairly assessed or whatever. It goes to Government and is found to be fair. Then when it comes to the appraisal stage, it must be stated that it is unfair even if the Government has proven that it was absolutely fair. That would be crazy and it would lead to the mechanism being tied up in knots.
If particular Departments have pet projects that are at variance with the criteria, will the Minister be in a position to assess them in his Department before he makes recommendations to Government?
The Deputy can go and check if Departments, under the CLÁR or RAPID programmes, ever tried to put anything to me that does not follow the criteria.
I am not being personal.
I appreciate that but the system provides that my officials go back and, in effect, say "Sorry, we said ‘X'". There was a situation with the CLÁR programme last year where we gave a project limit as €600,000. People came back with projects for €700,000 and €800,000 and we just put a line through them and sent them back. This took months and we kept eyeballing such applicants and asking whether they could not read the criteria. The Deputy is forgetting one major aspect of this equation. The Civil Service is marvellous. If one part of it attempts to put one over on another part, the people concerned tend to be caught short. It is well known that we have had to pull up local authorities and Departments when they submitted material which did not adhere to the criteria. We have taken a fairly tough line with them. They have to adhere to the criteria.
Supposing we decided that we would put €3 million into a project and we got 60 marvellous applications that came to €5 million. The Government can state that the assessors recommended all the projects and that it should come up with the remaining €2 million. They fit within the criteria and they are the next on the list.
In the current round, the Department got 1,600 applications, some of which were eligible and some of which were not. The assessors felt that €30 million would leave many good projects out in the cold, whereas €60 million would cover most of the good projects. They asked for more money and I acceded to that request. I did not change the order in which projects were given aid, but if we have twice as much money, we will jump the fence. The whole thing is geared towards acting reasonably but allowing a little freedom in order that a Minister can act sensibly. It is not for the reasons about which I read in the newspapers. It is purely for good practice.
It sometimes happens that we are faced with difficult cases. A Deputy will get on to me about someone who was left in a wheelchair following a car accident. He or she will tell me about the bad road leading to that person's house and that it is a sad case. The Deputy will ask me to sanction more money because the person cannot wait a year for it and the family will suffer great hardship. As a politician, I cannot see why we want to lock ourselves out from such sensible solutions. We are not taking anything from anyone, but we are just helping someone out. I do not want us to lock ourselves out from sensible decision-making.
I did not mean to cast any aspersion on the ability and integrity of civil servants. I have worked with civil servants in two Departments and I can only speak highly of them. Looking at this legislation carefully, there is no assessment process after the recommendations come in. The legislation states, "Following receipt of the results of each assessment, the Minister shall submit to the Government for their approval ...". There is no further vetting process provided in this legislation between the time the Minister receives the various assessments and the time they go before the Government.
Let me take the example of the CLÁR and RAPID programmes. For health facilities in RAPID areas, we have demanded that the area implementation teams have to be satisfied that they are what they want. There are two forms of assessment involved. The first form of assessment deals with the health facilities needed. We feel that a combination of the health authorities and AITs is best equipped to decide on that assessment. My Department ensures that the criteria laid down are adhered to, but we do not check whether it should have been a different health centre or day care centre to the one chosen. The AITs and health authorities are the agents in the State with the expertise in that area. We assess them financially to see if they are within budget and if the projects are within the remit of the Department.
For example, when we are receiving applications on class 2 and class 3 roads, we get the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government to check that they are not class 1 roads. Once that is done, we do not check it again as we know nothing about roads. Once it is decided that the roads are class 2 or 3 and once the total amount of money matches the amount we gave the applicants, we give the project the go ahead. We cannot double assess everything forever.
I am withdrawing this amendment in order that I can resubmit it on Report Stage. I will look at further amendments in that context. I believe there is a need for tightening up the regulations of this process.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 18:
In page 13, lines 29 and 30, to delete "within one month" and substitute "as soon as practicable".
When the Government decides what projects are to be supported, I cannot understand why the successful and unsuccessful applicants are not notified immediately. Why does the Government need a month to do it? With improved communications, there is no need for a delay of a month before letting the applicants know whether they have been successful or not. Most Government decisions are known the day they are made or the following day at the latest. This is a very reasonable amendment that speeds up the process.
The Bill leaves it up to the discretion of the assistants to decide what is practicable. The Deputy is wrong and he is right. In spite of e-government and other improvements in communication, we have now made the system so complicated that things are getting slower. Things are happening at a slower pace than a few years ago because decision making was much simpler. The length of time it takes to build a road is reducing, but the time for planning and designing it is getting longer. We should always leave a specific time, because "as soon as practicable" is as long as a piece of string.
In the normal course of events, decisions are communicated much faster than within one month. However, if a board meeting took place on December 23, it might not come before the Oireachtas until January. Various difficulties can then arise. One month is the outer legal limit and that is reasonable. I always prefer a fixed definition, even if it is a bit on the generous side, because I believe the Deputy's definition will end up being longer than mine. I agree with the principle, but the amendment would give someone much more scope.
According to subsection (4), the Government may approve the submission with or without amendment. Therefore the Government decision is taken on a particular day. Why can the decision not go out on the day it is taken, with or without amendment?
The decision is made and any amendments must be made to the announcement. There is also an issue with concurrently informing people they will receive money. It is an outer limit, not an inner limit. We can examine the matter and see if it can be curtailed. However, whatever we do with this amendment, we must put a fixed time in place. The issue of loose wording was opposed earlier because it gives too much freedom. I would rather a fixed amount of time, even if it is generous, than something as nebulous as the term "as soon as is practicable". Somebody might argue six weeks was not practicable because, for example, the person in charge had gone on holidays. However, if they are obliged to do it within the month, they will do so. Whatever way we deal with the amendment, there should be a fixed time limit to protect us all.
Will the Minister have a look at the proposed amendment?
I will.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 19 and 20 not moved.
I move amendment No. 21:
In page 14, between lines 5 and 6, to insert the following:
"(7) Any fees payable by public bodies to consultants or advisers engaged in relation to the assessment of applications received under this section shall be paid by the Agency out of the reserve account.".
The purpose of this amendment is to provide expenses from the dormant accounts fund to cover public bodies through the engagement of service providers to process applications. Decisions on applications will be made following the assessment and the subsequent submission by me to Government of a list of recommendations for dispersal of the fund. Given the scheme's wide remit, it is likely that funding programmes will be administered by seven different Departments which may engage service providers to assist in the process of receiving and assessing applications. The purpose of this amendment is to provide that the cost of engaging such service providers will be recoverable from the fund, as is the case with the existing Dormant Accounts Fund Disbursements Board. If the dormant accounts board employs ADM Limited to carry out the processing work, it can pay from the fund. Under the new arrangement, if a Department employs an agency to do the work, it too can recover the cost from the fund. The amendment merely retains the status quo in light of other changes made.
What is the reserve account?
It is comprised of dormant accounts money which is used to pay for administration.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 8, as amended, agreed to.
Section 9 agreed to.
SECTION 10.
Question proposed: "That section 10 stand part of the Bill."
I oppose this section which seeks to amend section 47 of the principal Act which was itself amended. Subsection (2) states that whenever required by the Committee of Public Accounts, the chairperson of the board shall give evidence to that committee on any matter relating to the functions of the board under the Act.
The Minister earlier informed the committee that the amount of money involved is so great that there were problems with regard to holding a part-time chairperson responsible. However, if we are concerned with the issue of transparency, why prevent the chairperson of the board from appearing before the Committee of Public Accounts when requested? There would be a very substantial reason for the chairperson to be summoned before that committee.
The section also seeks to delete subsection (3), which states that:
When performing duties under the subsection, the Chief Executive of the Agency or the chairperson of the Board, as the case may be, shall not question or express an opinion on the merits of any policy of the Government or of a Minister of the Government or on the merits of the objectives of such a policy.
Is a chairperson a chairperson if he or she cannot appear before the Committee of Public Accounts to give evidence when requested, particularly in light of the large sums of money involved? The second amendment seems to exonerate the duty of the chairperson when performing duties under this subsection. The chairperson of the board, as the case may be, shall not question or express an opinion on the merits of any policy of the Government or a Minister of the Government. Therefore, the chairperson can have a go at the Minister or the Government if he or she wants. I cannot see any justification for precluding the Committee of Public Accounts from summoning the chairperson of a State board which is handling vast amounts of money to give evidence on any matter related to the functions of the board. It is mind-boggling.
We are missing the point. Dispersals will be now be made by Departments and the Accounting Officer will be accountable to the Committee of Public Accounts in that regard. The board will not disperse the money and therefore the chairperson will not have any reason to be accountable to that committee.
Section 12(3) provides for the continued accountability of the former chairperson to the Committee of Public Accounts for decisions of the former board. The chairperson of the current board, which will disperse €60 million, will continue to be accountable to the committee because he or she made the decision. The future chairperson and board will not disperse any money. That will done by the Accounting Officer of each Department and they will be accountable to the Committee of Public Accounts. To omit the section would be total nonsense.
The report came from the board retrospectively and the Minister made a great play of it. In the event of the report being critical of the Government, can the Committee of Public Accounts not summon the chairperson of the board to give evidence relating to any allegation of impropriety against the Minister, the Government or anybody else?
The issue relates to Accounting Officers and accountability to the Oireachtas. Many people who are not Accounting Officers have appeared before the Committee of Public Accounts. One cannot have an Accounting Officer with nothing to account for, which is what the Deputy wants.
I am speaking of an Accounting Officer having to account for his or her report.
He or she is not an Accounting Officer. He or she writes a damning report, but the person who will be summoned to answer for the report will not be the Accounting Officer. The Secretary General of a Department will be the Accounting Officer summoned to appear. The Committee of Public Accounts often summons people who are not Accounting Officers for examination and questions.
Presumably, if a chairperson wrote a critical report concerning an Accounting Officer and a Department's expenditure, he or she would desire to explain the point. However, he or she would not be held accountable. We are debating the accountability issue here. The person to be held accountable will be the person who spent the money, who will be the Accounting Officer of the Department.
The Minister should read the subsection which states:
Whenever required by the Committee of Public Accounts, the chairperson of the Board shall give evidence to that Committee on any matter relating to the functions of the Board under this Act.
We are not talking about Accounting Officers but about any function of the board under the Act.
That refers to the current board, but the Deputy is saying the new board's chairperson should also be called before the Committee of Public Accounts.
The Minister's reference to the current board is a red herring. The Minister is proposing to remove this subsection from the existing legislation. For our purposes here, what happens with the current board is irrelevant. This proposal suggests to me that in no circumstances can a reluctant chairperson go before the Committee of Public Accounts and that the chairperson cannot give evidence on any matter relating to the functions of the board whether he or she wants to.
Presumably anybody can go before the Committee of Public Accounts if invited to do so.
This person would be attending in a particular capacity as a representative of a board, not as some fellow who happened to be called in from the street.
Presumably all witnesses brought before the Committee of Public Accounts are summoned in some capacity. The reason for the subsection's presence in the original Act was that the chairperson was effectively the Accounting Officer.
That is not stated here.
I am telling the Deputy that the reason the chairperson is in the original Act is that he or she was the Accounting Officer. The chairperson will not be the Accounting Officer in this new situation and consequently will not disburse money. The chairperson can be invited in by the Committee of Public Accounts but will not be the Accounting Officer. The reason for the original subsection, was that the chairperson was compelled to appear before the Committee of Public Accounts to account for the expenditure of the money. The individuals who will have that function in future will be Secretaries General.
The chairperson of the board is being released from the obligation not to question or express an opinion on the merits of any policy of the Government or on a Minister of the Government or on the merits of the objectives of such a policy. However, in that context, that person cannot go before the Committee of Public Accounts. In any board that disburses money, surely it is the case whether that person is deemed——
It is not disbursing money. That is the point I have been attempting to make to the Deputy. The disbursal will take——
No, it is part of the overall sequence of disbursing the money.
The board will not disburse money. The legal responsibility for disbursal will rest with the Secretaries General. That was one of the reasons we changed the Act in order that legal responsibility for disbursing money would lie with Secretaries General, because they are——
As I have stated to the Minister approximately three times, this subsection does not confine the presentation of evidence to an Accounting Officer. It talks about the chairperson of the board.
The original subsection including compellability was inserted because the chairperson was the Accounting Officer. The Deputy is stating that in the new Bill he wants to have compellability extended to the chairperson of the board, even though he or she is not an Accounting Officer and might have no criticism to make. The Deputy should check section 47 of the Act which states, "The Chief Executive of the Agency shall, in relation to the functions of the Agency under this Act, whenever required by the Committee of Public Accounts, give evidence to that Committee", and so on.
The chief executive is a functionary of the board. The report is a document of the board.
The idea is simple. If the chairperson is not disbursing the funds, there is no reason for this subsection to be included in its present form. If he or she did so, it would have to be included. That is the reason for its deletion; the chairperson will not disburse the funds.
Let us get back to the question. The Bill concerns——
Perhaps we can save some time by cutting to the chase. The Deputy is stating that despite the fact that the chairperson of the board will not disburse funds, he wants compellability written into this Bill in order that the chairperson could be brought before the Committee of Public Accounts to air any criticisms he or she might have before that committee. I will consider it. I have not yet been convinced of its merit but I will reflect on what the Deputy has suggested. However, if we were to take such an approach, we would depart radically from the reason the subsection was included in the first place. However, we will consider it.
Under the terms of the Bill, the Minister has given the board the right to produce this report which he suggested could frighten the Government into not being bold boys or girls. Despite this, if that report is being discussed by the Committee of Public Accounts, should that committee not be in a position to summon the chairperson to elaborate or further clarify issues contained in the report?
I would imagine that if the chairperson were critical of the board and the Committee of Public Accounts requested that person to attend, he or she would be in like a shot. The only circumstances I can envisage where the chairperson might not wish to go before the Committee of Public Accounts is if he or she had no complaints, thought the report was hunky dory and did not want to waste a day attending the committee if, for some strange reason, it decided to compel him or her to attend and account for his or her activities. I cannot envisage a situation where a chairperson of the board that had produced a report highly critical of the Government would then refuse to come before the Committee of Public Accounts to elaborate on what was stated. I will think about it. However, it is a highly unlikely scenario and we have spent too much time on it. At times, too many lawyers get around in the Oireachtas, spend too much time thinking of the most unlikely scenarios that will ever happen and tie everything up.
On the basis that the Minister will return to this issue on Report Stage, will the select committee agree to——
The Minister's last comment suggested to me that he is being somewhat disingenuous. He does not really mean to have a look at it if he is making comments like "too many lawyers around", whatever that is supposed to mean. One does not have to be a lawyer to read this section.
I have been in this House for a while, as has the Deputy, and sometimes it seems to me that we all get into a hothouse atmosphere on Committee Stage — lawyers in particular fall for this — spend hours coming up with the most esoteric and unlikely scenarios and then include protection against them in legislation which ties up matters in endless complications while missing obvious issues. I am as wary of an excess of legislation as I am of a lack of it. As Oireachtas Members, we must attempt to get the right balance. Some people have a tendency to legislate excessively. However, I will seriously——
That may well be the Minister's view. It is clear to anyone, lawyer or not, that this prevents the Committee of Public Accounts from summoning the chairperson of a board that has a reporting function concerning the Government, the Minister and large amounts of public money. If that is a matter for frivolity, we can vote on it.
I will examine the issue. I have heard the Deputy's argument.
As members have a vote at 8.30 p.m., I suggest that if we have not concluded our business by 8 p.m., we break for some tea before the vote. If necessary, we can come back afterwards. Is that agreed? Agreed. We will plough on, but the intention——
The two remaining amendments have already been discussed.
Everything should move on smoothly, but members have been here for a considerable length of time.
The Minister has indicated that he will accept amendment No. 23.
We will plough on.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 11 agreed to.
SECTION 12.
Question proposed: "That section 12 stand part of the Bill."
I oppose section 12 of the Bill. This section would formally dissolve the Dormant Accounts Fund Disbursements Board. Under this section, we would dissolve an existing board, which has done a good job, and replace it with an inferior version. The new board will have less powers and influence than the existing board. It goes to the heart of the work we are engaged in today.
If I were to accept that argument, it would make a nonsense of the rest of the day's work. Having passed section 7 of the Bill, it would make no sense to delete section 12. I hope Deputy McGinley understands my argument. We have gone beyond the point of no return. It would make no sense to leave section 12 out in light of the previous work done today. The consequence of having passed all sections of the Bill up to section 12 is that section 12 is necessary.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 13 to 15, inclusive, agreed to.
Amendment No. 22 not moved.
Section 16 agreed to.
Section 17 agreed to.
TITLE.
I move amendment No. 23:
In page 3 , line 7, after "AS" to insert the following:
"AN BORD UM CHUNTAIS DHÍOMHAOINE OR, IN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE,"."
Amendment agreed to.
Title, as amended, agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments.