Dan Boyle (Cork South Central, Green Party)

The Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs is one of the newer ones and as a result may not have gathered a sufficient head of steam to produce more than its share of legislation in the House. In this 29th Dáil, we have seen only a handful of Bills, such as the Bille teanga and a functions Bill regarding how the Minister was meant to be running his Department and granting him certain powers. It is somewhat strange that, even at this early stage in the life of this 29th Dáil, we are revisiting a Bill, albeit one originally introduced by the Minister for Finance. It says much of the Government's sense of priorities that we are amending this Bill when there are others within the remit of the Department that those of us on this side of the House and many outside this Chamber would like to see given greater priority. In citing that example, off the top of my head I could ask why there has been such a delay on the charities Bill, which could radically reform legislation on community and voluntary organisations. It should be before this House, discussed, debated and implemented into law.

Instead the Government is introducing an amendment Bill. If one considers the Government's legislative programme and progress since June 2002, one suspects that the number of amendment Bills in this Dáil has been far higher than in any other. It seems that the amendment Bills have arisen for two reasons. Many of them have had to be introduced on an emergency basis, since the Government, in the way it put the legislation through the House in the first place, failed to ensure that it received proper scrutiny, despite arguments from this side of the House. Those Bills were subsequently shown by the courts system to be legally flawed. The second, more insidious reason is that the Government has sought to change legislation to its own political advantage within a very short time period. This Bill is one of the crasser examples.

As someone who has worked in the community and voluntary sector for a long time, I have many reservations about the existence of separate accounts meaning that services provided in that sector cannot get the proper recognition they deserve from the State regarding guaranteed Exchequer and multi-annual funding. These special funds — the national lottery was the first obvious example — tend to represent a sticking-plaster approach towards the funding needs of many voluntary organisations. They are given in such piecemeal fashion that, even where an independent structure is involved, there is meant to be some sense of obligation to the political patronage of the Government of the time. That is no way to recognise the voluntary sector, on which we still depend to a far greater extent than any comparable European country. We get our social services on the cheap and reward providers by playing silly political games, establishing funds on which people depend but which do not even meet their everyday needs. The Government, through its political philosophy, is especially guilty of that. It cannot be argued that the original legislation introduced by the former Minister for Finance, the establishment of the board and the subsequent distribution of those funds was everything Members of this House and those outside it hoped it would be. There was a necessary degree of independence and a fair distribution of funds to particular groupings throughout the country. The new suggested structure involving the dismantling of the board and the establishment of a new board, and the degree to which the Minister is being put into the picture in terms of approving an overall plan, being able to alter such a plan and come up with a subsequent one by consulting his Cabinet colleagues, will be overtly politically influenced.

It is no coincidence that this change is being proposed half-way into the life of the 29th Dáil when we are now in the electoral cycle towards the election of the 30th Dáil. The Government might think it is a wheeze to suggest these changes that allow access to the fund are being made for its own naked political advantage so that it can buy largesse among the electorate which, in the previous election, showed what it thought of its overall policies.

A much more sinister aspect needs to be portrayed, and I was glad to hear it mentioned in earlier contributions. Not only does the Government want control of funds of this nature and not want the voluntary sector to be brought into a system in which it does not depend on political largesse but is instead guaranteed that its needs for the services it provides will be met through Exchequer and multi-annual funding, the Government has since intervened to introduce the principle that if community and voluntary organisations do not tow the line and do what the Government expects them to do, and if they even go so far as to point out the effects of Government policies in many disadvantaged communities, it reserves upon itself the right to pull the plug on the funding. That was seen recently in the decision to refuse funding for the Community Workers Co-operative. Its only crime appears to be that it is working in disadvantaged communities and operating the basic principles of community development to empower people to identify their needs and try to have those needs met first within their own resources and subsequently from the agencies of the State. Its wants to ensure their needs are met to the same extent as any other citizen. The naked political nature of that decision cannot go unprotested. It has inculcated fear in the community and voluntary sector that future Government funding will be dependent on the extent to which such organisations tow the line in terms of the political philosophy of the Government which, as I stressed in other contributions, appears to derive from a Victorian notion of the deserving poor.

If the Government is not prepared to face up to the fact that it is not really concerned about community development but is only playing political games by shifting funds it believes give the maximum effect, I warn it that despite the access to such a large amount of money, it runs the risk in the election for the 30th Dáil of being seen to be as cynical as many of us on this side of the House already believe. It is not enough to say that money will be made available in a kind of utilitarian way and that those who are happy for most of the time will mean there will be a continuance of this particular Government. It is very unhealthy in terms of the way we want to develop our democratic system to think that when Governments change, as they should and must and I hope this one will after the next general election, the systems will be in place for those who enter Government to play the same game. That is the reason there is a responsibility on us to examine this legislation. My inclination is to reject it outright because if the legislation is to be changed, it should be in such a way that it becomes more difficult for anyone in the political system, be they a political party or individual politician, to take advantage of such a fund and the political uses to which it can be put.

The Minister of State, when he returns to the Chamber, and the Minister might argue that they are sincere in their intentions but this is legislation that confers power not only on the individuals in office at that Department but all those who subsequently hold that office. It would be remiss of us to grant such powers to a future Minister and the future intentions he or she might have to use such a large sum of money.

I cannot stress strongly enough my opposition and that of my party to the Bill, an opposition I am glad to see is shared by Members of the Opposition. I appeal to those in Government, particularly those who have experience of the community and voluntary sector, to recognise this nakedly cynical exercise for what it is and react with whatever shred of conscience exists among them. They should put to rest once and for all the type of State interaction with the community and voluntary sector that results in those who provide the services we need in our society feeling beholden to our political system.

See this speech in context