Cecilia Keaveney (Donegal North East, Fianna Fail)

I am delighted to make a brief contribution on this Bill as the Chairman of the Committee on Arts, Sport, Tourism, Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs. I find it fascinating that a fellow politician would insinuate or make the accusation that politicians cannot be impartial. From what has been said, it appears that all politicians are incapable of being fair. I refute those remarks and do not wish to be associated with them. They are very unfair. It is a very sad day for politics if we are to spend a considerable amount of time undermining each other and the concept that we can be impartial and fair in presenting the case for our constituents. It is sad to imply that Ministers cannot consider assessments and sign off on what has been agreed by a body without some ulterior motive.

Prior to the launch a week ago of a report on volunteerism in Ireland, the committee which I chair spent a great deal of time listening to voluntary agencies. We found that one of the major problems they faced in the context of funding involved the multiplicity of people both within and outside Departments to whom application for funding must be made. Applications were required to be assessed by a significant number of groups, organisations and State bodies. One of our key findings was that ad hoc, multi-agency funding makes it difficult for organisations to plan ahead. We recommended that all funding for voluntary organisations and volunteering should be channelled exclusively through the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs to improve efficiency and transparency. Funding commitments should be entered into over a number of years which would greatly facilitate the monitoring of State expenditure. We agreed on this report which issued more than a week ago. The streamlining of the administration of funds was debated and we went on the presentations made by various groups. I am, therefore, surprised the Opposition spokespersons did not allude to this. However, this issue can be debated on Committee Stage. It has not come out of the woodwork without warning. Our committee spent months examining the issues facing voluntary groups and individuals who seek funding.

While I reject the accusation that politicians are untrustworthy, we give away many powers to ensure we have nothing to do with taking decisions and, therefore, the people given the powers are more accountable to the House than its Members. However, the public can only get rid of Members and not the individuals to whom such powers have been delegated. We are Members for the duration of a Dáil, however long that may be, and we are not on three or five-year contracts. We were lucky the previous Dáil lasted five years but on many occasions the Dáil has dissolved more quickly than that. The system is wrong and, as Deputy O'Dowd stated, this will be pointed out by the public during the upcoming by-election campaigns. If we make decisions, we should be accountable for them, particularly when we go to the electorate.

I agree that the amount of the fund is important. Many agencies do good work and they fund essential projects. I was asked to comment at the conclusion of the PEACE II programme about the development of a PEACE III programme. I replied that the opening of a new premises is always a grand occasion but often a few years down the line I am contacted by the people running it to say they have nobody to manage it. Volunteers are not available because they have become fed up or they cannot manage the workload. When a significant sum of money is involved, it is important that a strategic, sustainable approach is adopted regarding its disbursement.

People should examine what happened under the PEACE I and II programmes by visiting the old projects and asking those running them how they are getting on and what are their needs. New projects are continually invented. People are excited about them and a great deal of effort goes into them but the planning and development of such projects is an issue. I was contacted earlier by two different groups who have beautiful facilities but who do not have somebody to manage them and do not know where to obtain funding for such posts. If this fund allocated moneys to pay personnel for a year, does that give people false hope and string them along for another year?

A strategic approach for the next ten years should be adopted whereby groups are not tied over until the next round of funding because there will be a time funding will not be available from as many agencies. As Deputy McGinley will acknowledge, Border counties can access sources of funding that many other counties cannot. Once off decisions are okay and we have a day out when projects are launched. I could list many worthwhile projects in my area but we must be seen to spend money strategically to ensure each project is sustainable and not funded in the interest of short-term political security and glory, as was alluded to by Opposition Members. We are looking for the day out the with cup of tea and a sandwich. We are members of communities and we will still have to go before those communities for election. There should be long-term planning for projects which we celebrate and laud when funding is sanctioned.

Deputy McGinley referred to pet projects. Under the national lottery and sports capital programmes, the Minister has emphasised the transparency of the application process. All applications are subject to the freedom of information process and groups can establish where their applications failed. It is disingenuous to make the accusation that every application is subject to a political lottery. I am slightly taken aback that Deputy McGinley is upset that Donegal received significant funding under the national lottery programme.

See this speech in context