Dáil Éireann Debate, Tuesday - 21 March 2006
60 Mr. O’Shea asked the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs his views on amending the Dormant Accounts Act 2001 to allow emigrant organisations to seek funding from the dormant accounts fund; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [10958/06]
Amharc ar fhreagraI have no plans to introduce further dormant accounts legislation. As I indicated in reply to Question No. 913 on this topic on 25 January 2006, the Government is fully committed to providing supports to vulnerable Irish communities living abroad. This commitment is clearly demonstrated by the allocation of significant funding directly from the Exchequer to support emigrant organisations. In 2005 alone, more than €8.25 million was allocated for such services and this figure will increase by 45% in 2006 to more than €12 million. This allocation demonstrates the Government's continued commitment to funding emigrant organisations without the need to expend time and resources on new legislation or to specifically earmark dormant accounts funding.
With regard to the dormant accounts fund, disbursements are designed to assist three broad categories of persons, those who are economically or socially disadvantaged, those who are educationally disadvantaged and persons with a disability. In light of the significant funding for emigrant organisations as outlined above, I intend that allocations from dormant accounts in 2006 will remain focused on tackling disadvantage in Ireland. In this regard, following Government approval, I announced details on 4 January 2006 concerning the allocation of €24 million for the purpose of supporting programmes and projects tackling economic and social disadvantage.
Does the Minister of State agree the Government had no problem introducing legislation to convert the dormant accounts fund into a slush fund to aid it in the run-up to the next general election? Does he further agree that a significant amount lodged to the dormant accounts fund came from bank accounts belonging to emigrants to England, in particular? They lodged money in Irish banks with the intention of returning to Ireland and using it, but that never happened. Does the Minister of State concur that equity and fairness is an issue in this regard and that an appropriate amount, based on the proceeds of accounts of emigrants who intended to return but did not do so, should be used to support emigrant services?
The task force on emigrant services recommended the provision of €34 million for such services by 2005. In 2006, €12 million will be provided, one third of the recommended allocation. It is not the case that great things are being done for our emigrants. Does the Minister of State agree that not alone should the €34 million recommended by the task force be provided, but additional funding should be provided through the dormant accounts fund and it is incumbent on the Government to introduce amending legislation? It would not be as complicated as the legislation introduced to convert the dormant accounts fund into a slush fund.
I do not agree the money collected from the dormant accounts of emigrants should be used for emigrant services. That is not the direction the Government is taking. We have agreed three categories for the disbursement of funds and these funds assist people in disadvantaged areas. We do not have data on the locations of accounts, for example, how many were in Ballymun, Ballyfermot or Ballybunion, or how many were held by people living abroad or in Ireland. We will not go down that road because if we did, the money would not be invested in disadvantaged areas, given that it is likely few of the accounts were held by people from these areas. Funding will be provided for the three categories agreed by Government.
Significant funding is being invested in emigrant services. I acknowledge the Deputy's comments on the task force recommendation but funding this year has increased by 45% and that is huge by any standard. Given that the funding is on such a curve, additional funding will be provided in the coming years. This year's budget is 12 times what it was seven or eight years ago. Significant funding is being allocated to emigrant groups. Funding could be spread thinly but the Department of Foreign Affairs, which is the sponsoring Department, is looking after such groups and it is not our intention to allocate money from the dormant accounts fund in this regard. Since that Department is providing funding, it is not our intention to provide money from dormant accounts, while accepting that money is needed in this area. Money is being provided by the sponsoring Department and whether it should have been provided years ago is another issue.
I cannot fathom the Minister of State's logic regarding what the Government decided. Money in the dormant accounts fund is used for emigrant services and for the purposes he mentioned. Will the Minister of State at least acknowledge that a substantial number of dormant accounts, the proceeds of which were diverted into the dormant accounts fund, were held by emigrants to England, in particular? The report of the task force on emigrant services was accepted by the Government in August 2002 but only one third of the recommended budget will be provided this year. Does the Minister of State not agree that if dormant accounts money is additional to State funding within the State, the funding for emigrants should be dealt with similarly? There is inequity in the situation. Many of our people in Britain, in particular older people, are in need and the services for them require additional funding. We should remember these people. They did not go to Britain by choice but because Ireland could not provide them with a living. A proportion of the dormant account funds should be used to help those who went to Britain and who have fallen on bad times, whatever the reason.
I do not have the data on the locations of the——
Will the Minister of State try to get it? Apparently a private individual is trying to get in on this act.
I do not have it and do not know if I really want it. The Deputy may want to know whether it is possible some of the accounts were held by people abroad. I am sure some were. We are spending the money on social and economic disadvantage. What does the Deputy want? Does he want us to distribute the money in areas from which it came, probably wealthy areas because it was presumably the wealthy who——
That is illogical. It does not make any sense.
It is not. Presumably, it was people with money who had these accounts. The Deputy appears to be trying to undermine what we are trying to do by suggesting we send the money back to wealthy areas.
People who were not very well off saved hard.
I will not take that direction.
