Jim O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay South, Fianna Fail)

I will use the example of the community safety fund. This is my first year going through the latter. I did so before the summer. I just make an announcement from the Department saying that the fund is open for applications and people should put in their bids. The application form is relatively simple. There are officials in the Department who assess them. Many of the rejections related to applications for funding for things that did not relate to community safety. An application has to relate to people who are doing something for the safety of the area, like helping those who are caught up in drug addiction or whatever. Some people just thought that this is a fund you can apply to for money. The Department processes the applications. I get to look at the applications and see what is involved. It is worth having a look at the ones that got funding this year. As I said, my concern is that a lot of very worthwhile but large organisations that know how to apply did apply. They were given money because theirs were good applications, but I have asked that next year we try to focus the fund on smaller community entities.

My concern about the amendment is that it would turn the process into a very legalistic one. If the amendment were made, before I did what I did informally, which was to put out a call for applications for funding, I would have to:

... ensure that a review of the financial supports to disadvantaged communities, identified in the Pobal HP Deprivation Index, that are affected by crime, is conducted in public consultation with individuals and stakeholders,

The Department is going to say that in order to comply with that, we would have to set up a public consultation process and consult with stakeholders. The people the Deputies want the money to go to are not those who would be involved in that process. A review would then have to be undertaken every 24 months at a minimum, or more frequently, and a report laid before the Houses identifying any additional financial support. Preparing the report would be a very big process in the context of making sure it complied with everything in subparagraph (c) of the amendment. I, as Minister, would then have to give due consideration to the recommendations of any review, which is fine because it would not be too onerous. I would then be obliged to ensure that a report on the use of moneys realised in the making of disposal orders under the legislation was laid before the Houses. This would turn what is quite a simple, straightforward process into a pretty complicated statutory process whereby, if we tripped up in respect of one part of it, we would be in breach of the law. The Deputies can be sure that if I did not comply with the very strict statutory provisions laid out here, the large entities that know how to apply for funding would challenge me.

The Deputies may say that from a transparency point of view we are better off setting this down in law, but there is a benefit in having one or two schemes which are informal and in respect of which we put out calls for funding. It will facilitate the smaller entities we all want to see getting the money if it is more informal. I do not think the sports capital grant is set out in the statutory regime, but it is a very onerous task for clubs around the country. It is the ones that have the human resources that generally succeed. If we put what is suggested in place, it would have the impact of disadvantaging further smaller entities we all want to see getting the money. For that reason, I cannot support the amendment. However, I welcome the discussion on it. The objective set out in the amendment is the objective I have as the Minister giving out the money.