Finian McGrath (Dublin North Central, Independent)

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate on the Dormant Accounts (Amendment) Bill, which is important legislation. This debate should form part of our efforts to redress the balance and divert funds to the most needy in our society. This legislation is a wealth tax and it is important that the additional resources to which it will give rise will be directed towards the disadvantaged and services for people with disabilities. We should not be behind the door and I demand that the extra revenue that will accrue should be pumped into the areas of most need. Again, however, I warn of wastage.

The Bill proposes to amend existing dormant accounts legislation, principally in respect of decisions on disbursements from the dormant accounts fund and also the role of the dormant accounts fund disbursals board. The objectives underpinning disbursements from the fund will, in a move I support, remain unchanged. These core objectives are to assist persons who are socially, economically or educationally disadvantaged or who have a disability. These objectives are an important part of the strategy. I make no apologies for taking money from the fund and spending it in the areas to which I refer.

Let us consider the position of the economically and educationally disadvantaged. We must roll up our sleeves and take action. There is no point trying to make up figures about poverty and disadvantage. The priority in this State is the 66,000 children living in extreme poverty. Surely the Government can take action in terms of reducing that figure. I have put a number of proposals to the Minister for Social and Family Affairs, Deputy Brennan, in respect of this issue and I understand he has stated on a number of occasions that his door is open to those who make constructive suggestions. In that context, I reiterate that we must target the 66,000 children living in poverty.

The second priority must be to deal with those children whose families have low incomes. Resources must be targeted at these families. There is no point in spreading the wealth around willy-nilly. If we do not take action in respect of educational disadvantage and poverty, we will damage society — particularly young people and children — and be obliged to spend more money to build additional prisons.

On the subject of child poverty, I strongly disagree with Dr. Ed Walsh of the University of Limerick who commented in recent days on single parents and their connection with crime and poverty. I worked in the inner city for 20 years and I served as principal of a small school in an extremely disadvantaged area. The school in question was one of the poorest in the country. It was assessed by the Combat Poverty Agency and was listed as one of the 33 most needy in the State. However, I had an extremely positive experience with the single parents whose children attended the school. I would not have been able to run the school without the help of the parents' council, on which many single parents served and did a great job. These people lived in blocks of flats where addicts shot up heroin in stairwells. However, their children came to school every day, dressed in their uniforms and with their homework done. These children were described as disadvantaged. Their parents played a blinder in their community and also in terms of being a back-up resource for me in the school. I challenge Dr. Walsh's assertions and I question his statistics and analysis. I accept that there are dysfunctional children in single parent families. However, there are also dysfunctional children in so-called two-parent families.

If we target the resources early, we can stop crime and eliminate disadvantage. It is important that if resources are being disbursed, particularly in the educational field, children between two and five years of age are targeted. There is no point in tackling the problem when they are in fifth and sixth classes and aged nine to 11 when the damage is done. At that stage those with a major dysfunctional problem or who are involved in anti-social behaviour are already on the way to Mountjoy Prison. The dormant accounts money and all disbursements should be targeted at the most needy in society and put into pre-school education. I know there are many examples of good practice in this regard and I commend the people who have done this over the years.

The Bill proposes that the reconstituted board retain responsibility for preparation of the disbursement plan. It should periodically review and assess the effectiveness of the plan and the extent to which its objectives have been achieved. That is an important section because we must deal with the effectiveness of the plan and the extent to which its objectives have been achieved. There is no point in spending money in particular areas and throwing it at issues if it cannot be accounted for and there is no assurance it is going to the most needy. I commend the people working in disadvantaged areas, particularly in primary schools, on the way they account every June to the Department of Education and Science for the extra, €6,000 or €7,000 spent on out-of-school activities to look after poor children. They account for every single penny. In comparison, the way some Ministers squander money is an absolute disgrace. On those issues I commend the people who are accountable.

The Bill also proposes that the reconstituted board should "prepare reports on the additionally of the spend". The board shall comprise 11 members with the knowledge or experience relevant to its functions and to be appointed by the Minister. I urge the Minister when making appointments to such boards to take into account that it is important to have the right people who should be committed and have their eyes on the ball. As regards the targeting of resources, we should also look at the plight of Travellers in our society. I thank my 18 colleagues from the Dáil and Seanad who last week joined the Oireachtas support group for Travellers' interests. Part of our focus will be to ensure that Travellers are brought into the mainstream of society. This is something that must be tackled and dealt with head on. I also encourage my colleagues in local authorities to be brave in some of the decisions they make. There is no excuse nowadays for having children living on the side of the road without toilets or water. The figure is small and if the political will exists, the problem can be tackled. I commend the Members of the Oireachtas who have become involved in this group. I hope all the Ministers in the Cabinet will listen to the different issues that arise in this regard over the next 12 months.

The new section 34 of the principal Act as inserted by section 7 of the Bill provides that the Minister may remove a board member, including the chairperson, if that person "has become incapable through ill-health of performing his or her functions or has committed stated misbehaviour, or if the member's removal from office appears to the Minister to be necessary for the effective performance of the Board's functions". This section is very important because one cannot have people on board who are not committed to the issues. Neither can there be anyone on board dealing with the disbursements of such funds who has any type of track record of serious misbehaviour. The new section 34 also provides that "A member of the board ceases to be qualified for ... and ... hold office if [he or she] is adjudicated bankrupt, makes ... arrangement with creditors, is ... sentenced to imprisonment, or is disqualified or restricted from being a [company] director ...".

The new section 38 of the principal Act as inserted by section 7 of the Bill provides that persons who are nominated to Seanad Éireann or are elected as Members of the Oireachtas, the European Parliament or a local authority may not hold office as board members. I welcome that even though I know some people might have reservations about it. I see that as a positive step. It obviates the risk of political influence. It is important to ensure that one has people committed to the ethos of the legislation, whether it is from the viewpoint of educational disadvantage, people with disabilities or services for the most needy. That section provides for matters I believe are important.

The new section 39 of the principal Act as inserted by section 7 of the Bill provides that the board, subject to ministerial approval, may engage such consultants, advisers or support staff as are necessary for the performance of its functions. I have reservations about that section because I become concerned when I see phrases such as "subject to ministerial approval, may engage such consultants, advisers" etc. This is a wake up call. A sufficiently bad image has been created in this House regarding the spending of money on advisers and consultants. I advise the Minister to be extremely careful with section 39 because he is leaving himself wide open. He must ensure there is accountability, effectiveness, leadership and people committed to the area.

Section 12 of the Bill provides for the chairperson of the former board to remain accountable to the Committee of Public Accounts in respect of disbursements by that board. This is an important section, dealing with the Committee of Public Accounts. As well as being accountable to the Cabinet, it is vital the board is accountable to the Committee of Public Accounts in which we can scrutinise, cross-examine and deal with the issues raised. We can also challenge and question the spending of the money. Again, the priority must be the poorest children and the most needy in society. We must also be creative, in dealing with issues such as poverty, disadvantage and housing. As for people's rights and civil liberties, there was an interesting debate yesterday in the House. We should seriously examine the idea of adopting a rights-based approach when dealing with issues such as poverty, educational disadvantage, disabilities and related issues. The reality is that we have a very prosperous and wealthy country with unemployment at a low level. However, there is a small core section of society at which resources and services could be targeted. The public, as citizens and taxpayers, will recognise the wisdom of such an approach and it would be a major boost for our society.

There are some very positive elements in this legislation. I have criticised certain parts as well. Overall, I believe the Bill could be tougher, tighter and somewhat more democratic. I urge the Minister and the Cabinet to target the money available at the people who need it most.

See this speech in context