Seán Crowe (Dublin South West, Sinn Fein)

Every Member of this House recognises that the decision to use the dormant accounts fund for public benefit was a positive and welcome development. It is far better that these funds be used to target disadvantage in our society than to remain dormant in some sort of never-never land where they would only benefit the financial institutions that held them.

On 7 January the Dormant Accounts Fund Disbursements Board announced that its latest list of grants approved totals approximately €12.2 million. All those projects are worthy of support and clearly fall within the criteria of social and economic disadvantage, educational disadvantage and disabilities. In my constituency, the Tallaght Centre for the Unemployed will receive a grant for a play bus and I understand funding is also available for a family support model in Jobstown.

The fund is designed to assist communities in sectors of society affected by those forms of disadvantage, but some of the projects stretch that definition somewhat. However, they are all deserving projects. I suppose the Minister would call on me to name those that are not deserving but some of them do stretch the area of credibility. The approach taken with these funds appears to be to disburse them as widely as possible. Given that the fund is limited and will eventually run out, is this the best course to follow? Would it be better to target specific areas of disadvantage or a particular need in disadvantaged communities, for example, play facilities for children or recreation facilities for young people rather than the sort of scattered approach that appears to be adopted? I accept the fund is weighted towards RAPID, CLÁR and drugs task force areas, and rightly so, but I am concerned that the Government is not making the best possible use of it for maximum long-term benefit. As other speakers said, it is a specific fund but it will run out at some stage.

Some of these grants will go to local authorities for developing recreation facilities, open spaces or play facilities, but what happens to those facilities when the money runs out? In my own area funding was allocated for a playground but the difficulty was that no one was appointed to open and close the playground. For nearly two or three years we had a playground which the children could not use, which was like waving sweets in front of children. Subsequently, somebody set fire to many of the facilities in the playground.

If local authorities were adequately funded, Dundalk Town Council, for example, would not have had to apply to this fund to develop playground facilities. It would provide these facilities, as would all local authorities. It is wrong of the Government to hold up this measure as a major contribution to addressing inequality. I agree with Deputy Boyle that it is a sticking plaster approach to the problem and should not be a supplement to long-term programmes that should be in place. Those programmes are not in place, however, and as a result, as exposed in a major report published last week, some 15% of children under 15 are affected by poverty.

To address that inequality we need policy change grounded on a rights based ethos. Massive improvements in education provision and targeted training and employment for disadvantaged areas and an equitable health system are needed. This fund is no substitute for those fundamental reforms. Without these changes, people will continue to receive only crumbs from the table.

My points relate to the fund, as it stands. Overall, I do not have a difficulty with the way it was administrated. However, I have a major problem with the changes proposed in the Bill. The Minister and the Government are giving themselves increased powers in terms of deciding which projects should or should not receive grants. That is a definite step backwards. The dormant accounts fund has been described as a slush fund or a possible election treasure trove. People can call it what they will. The Government defends it by stating that they are obliged to adhere to strict conditions but the fact remains that, under the legislation, the final say rests with the Minister. He will be presented with a list of projects and he will have the power to grant funding to some but not to others. We are creating a similar situation to that which obtains in respect of sports capital grants, in respect of which the relevant Minister has even more power in terms of doling out the goodies.

Under the Bill, the Minister must have regard to the plan for disbursement presented annually by the board. However, he will not be obliged to abide by it and the final say in respect of all projects will rest with him. This is not a personal criticism of the Minister; it could apply to any of his counterparts.

The second major difficulty with the Bill relates to the appointment of the board. We have again been presented with legislation under which all members of a board will be ministerial appointees. Provision is not made for application or open competition for these places. It is disgraceful that provision is not made for representation on the board from those working in the community and voluntary sector. Involvement of such people would strengthen the board because it is that sector which administrates these funds when they are allocated. These individuals work in youth centres, playgroups, adult education groups, disability groups, etc., but they have no say in planning where funding should go. They should have a real and direct input into the annual disbursement plans but it appears the Government wants to hold all the strings.

The Minister argued that he should have a say in this and so on. I see this in the same light as the decision to cut off funding for the community workers co-op to which Deputy Boyle referred. It seems the Government wants to keep all community groups in their local boxes in order that they will not communicate with each other and develop a common approach. The Government will, therefore, not be obliged to come to terms with any real alternative approach to its social policies. The Minister stated, in respect of the community co-op, that community groups and workers were represented. That is nonsense, particularly if one considers the work that was being done. The work to which I refer involved co-ordination and establishing links between different groups, which is vital in the community sector.

The Minister defends the Bill by stating that the fund must be administered. Nobody objects to the fund being administrated more efficiently and in a more accountable manner. However, he and the Government are treating the fund like a bag of goodies to be handed out. Government Deputies will parade around constituencies boasting about their generosity and that of the Minister. We have seen this before. They act as if it is their money and as if they are giving it away out of the goodness of their hearts. This is people's money and it should be used in a properly planned, fair, accountable and effective way. The type of behaviour to which I refer demeans not only those who engage in it but also politics and politicians in general.

The Bill is a recipe for poor planning, unfairness, unaccountability and ineffectiveness. The Government's approach will become more piecemeal and more open to favouritism. I may be wrong but that is my reading of the Bill. I remind the Government of what the former Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy, stated when the original legislation to establish the fund was introduced in 2002, namely:

To get away from the problem of having the Government blamed as having a slush fund, it has been decided to establish a board of trustees. This board will distribute the money, subject to guidelines and without the direction from the Government.

We are now moving the goalposts. What Deputy McCreevy said was somewhat rich, given that Punchestown was his pet project. However, he clearly identified the need for independence from Government. This has now been thrown out the window and the dormant accounts fund is being treated like a pork barrel, as they say in America. What we are seeing is pork barrel politics. The dormant accounts fund is a slush fund. The Bill should be withdrawn and the Minister should listen to the Opposition and those working in the community sector. If it is not withdrawn, we will have no choice but to reject it.

See this speech in context