Cecilia Keaveney (Donegal North East, Fianna Fail)

If Deputy McGinley is concerned about pet projects, perhaps he should highlight projects that should not have obtained funding in the past. Every project I have visited deserved funding and they should receive multiples of their current funding.

It is not popular to criticise funding agencies and to quiz their decisions or approaches to applications. However, I am concerned about continuity and the strategic approach to projects in terms of what happens in five or ten years rather than in 18 months. If every Member debated the funding issue rather than playing politics with it, they would agree funding agencies overlap and a number of projects fall between two stools. These issues must be addressed by the new board, the Government and whoever will progress the board's programme. Communities identify what they want, contact a funding agency and sometimes they get what they want while on other occasions a feasibility study is granted. The money is then spent on a report outlining what the communities know anyway and, therefore, the report adds to information that is known as opposed to recommending solutions. This is similar to not awarding grants to students who pursue a second degree course or a lesser qualification. It may not happen in all cases, but it does happen. I know of cases where people have cried halt because although there are many reports the money is not available for the projects on which they want money spent. There is an overlap in some funding and falling between stools in terms of other levels of funding.

I take this opportunity to mention those who come out of the woodwork to volunteer to present and put together the applications for community ventures. The voluntary effort in all our communities is significant. We spent months considering the work of volunteers before putting together the report. I am glad the Minister of State, Deputy Noel Ahern, is here and that we will have an opportunity before Committee Stage to consider the issues of volunteering and volunteers. Our report made straightforward recommendations to keep the volunteers we have, to encourage other volunteers and to send out the good message that not only does volunteering help the community but there is also an added bonus for the volunteer.

In that context, I often meet people who have gone through the process of trying to get an application from A to Z to get their project up and running. Some of these people are weary. Perhaps two or three of those seeking funds for projects have different impressions of what they want in the end and a tussle develops between what one or the other funded. The people caught in the middle are the volunteers. They are not professional funding people but ordinary people who have given up their time to try to do something for their community.

Streamlined funding application processes mean those applying for funds must have the ability to make the application and get the project done. There are a number of very frustrated people who have put much time into projects, but have got caught on petty details. There can be petty jealousies within their community and petty problems between the multiple funding agencies. These are issues which can stand in the way of volunteers. Some people have come to me about particular projects and said that if they knew at the start what it was going to be like, they would never have started. However, I know that when there is a conclusion, when the door opens and the project gets up and running, they get over their worst feelings.

One thing about the Bill that I would change is the proposal that all the members of the board must have knowledge or experience of matters relevant to the board's functions. In as much as we try so hard to keep politicians away from decision making and decision taking, we try to ensure that these boards are made up of people who on paper are incredibly intellectual and knowledgeable. This may not be a fair representation of what is meant in this Bill. However, I know from speaking to ordinary people on the ground that they think it would be much more useful to have the normal person on the board who has tried to get a grant, to have someone with that experience on it.

The Opposition often feels it must challenge the appointments made to boards, no matter if they have been selected from Who's Who, because it feels the Minister might know the person. Often, a person who has no qualifications on paper but who has on-the-ground experience of trying to do the type of work for which the board is responsible has as much to offer. Therefore, I wonder whether it is necessary that all board members should be whizz kids or expert in the dormant accounts area.

Form filling is another issue that causes a difficulty for individual projects. We have had the PNR in our area and I could list the wonderful projects that have been developed under that.

As Mr. Willie McCarter retires this month as chairman of the International Fund for Ireland, I acknowledge the solid projects to which that fund contributed, for example, a car ferry across the Foyle that carried 700,000 passengers in the first two years of its existence. This project came about as a result of the agreement by Mr. Charlie McCreevy to release European funds, supported by the International Fund for Ireland. That is a sustainable project. It has brought the two sides of the Foyle together, new tourism interests and reconciliation on all levels because people go to shop on both sides of the Border. This is the type of project people like to see because they know it will still be there in ten, 12 or 15 years' time and will have fulfilled an important need.

We must look at the bigger picture. In the week that is in it I would like to acknowledge the huge job done by Mr. Willie McCarter. Some people might say that he lives in Inishowen and that much of the money probably went there because of that. That is not true because he was totally impartial. However, that accusation would not be made as fast as if he was a Minister from Inishowen with responsibility for the disbursement of dormant accounts funds.

On the matter of the 420 projects and the €42 million already spent, my area of Inishowen has a population of 30,000, the same size population as Counties Leitrim or Louth, and covers a broad area, yet only small parts of the area got into the CLÁR programme on the second evaluation of that programme. Much of Inishowen is not in the CLÁR area, yet in overall terms it has suffered one of the greatest declines in the textile industry in the country and, therefore, significant job losses. However, the area covered by CLÁR is small, it does not have a RAPID programme and it is not in a drugs task force area.

Location should be a consideration. I know there are criteria in terms of social and economic disadvantage and in terms of disability. We have many projects relating to disability and I hope the disability aspect of the funds will not be placed third or fourth in comparison to that of the task force or the CLÁR and RAPID area status. Many of the projects waiting for funding, including many in my constituency, are not under consideration currently on the basis that they have not prioritised under the criteria set down. However, I believe they are as eligible as many of the areas in central Dublin or elsewhere that are so designated.

Retrospection should be an element of this Bill. We should look at projects post-funding to see how they have done. I think an element of this is provided for in the Bill. There should be a facility for the newly constituted board to look back after funding has been granted. This is one of the issues put forward by the Opposition which is concerned that projects will be chosen politically, which I refute. At least, there must be retrospection in terms of checking years later to see how the money was spent, whether it was well spent and whether further funding is needed.

It may not be popular to say this, but a few projects well carried out is better than a plethora of unsustainable projects. It is better to have a strategic approach so that we can stand over the fact that the projects will be there into the future. We have some examples of this, but we also have examples of projects where people have been left high and dry after getting the good news story and a good day's celebration with the tea, red ribbon and scissors. Sporting organisations and many others know what it is like to have a wonderful facility with nobody to run it.

This issue should be central to this Bill. We must have a system where we can challenge on the floor of the House, or through the Votes of the Ministers in the Estimates each year. I expect to see much more of this Bill before we finish and hope the Minister will be open to the tweaking of issues that genuinely need tweaking. I look forward to working with him and bringing the Bill through Committee Stage.

See this speech in context