Dinny McGinley (Donegal South West, Fine Gael)

It is usual for spokespersons and other contributors on Second Stage to welcome a Bill and in the past I have often had occasion to do so. However, this is a Bill I do not welcome into the House. Fine Gael was in favour of the first Bill dealing with dormant accounts when it was introduced in 2001 because it thought it had a new, honest and above board approach to the distribution of these funds. We welcomed it and thought it was a new departure because we had been used to the abuse of other funds by Ministers and politicians on the Government side.

I remember being in the Dáil when the National Lottery Act was passed almost 20 years ago. Fine Gael was in Government at the time so it must have been 1986 or 1987. I remember that afterwards the legislation was departed from and the lottery funds became just a slush fund for various Ministers and Government supporters to distribute to their pet projects in every part of the country. The proof is there that this still goes on. I say this as a Donegal representative, like the Acting Chairperson, Deputy Keaveney. I suppose we had the good fortune to have a Minister from Donegal in charge of the relevant Department for a while. I am sure that Deputy O'Shea would agree Donegal got the lion's share. We got it when Fine Gael was in Government or when a Donegal Minister was in charge of the national lottery fund.

The money in the national lottery fund is not Government money, no more than is the money in the dormant accounts fund. The people who buy tickets contribute the money to the national lottery. This money and the money collected from dormant accounts, uncollected insurance policies, intestate legacies etc. is not money collected through taxation. It is just a windfall in the coffers of the Government. If we are about to follow the precedent of the national lottery, I understand why this Bill has been introduced to depart from the original intention to distribute the funds through an independent board not subject to the control of a Minister or the Government. That is the core of the Bill before us. As politicians, we know all too well that the public has become increasingly cynical about politics and politicians. This is reflected in the growing disillusionment with local representatives and low voter turnout at elections. It is also reflected in a greater public disenchantment in people's ability to have their voices heard.

The public is not to blame for the high levels of dissatisfaction with the political process. Much of the blame lies with politicians. As a class, we must put up our hands and bear some of the responsibility. In recent weeks the political landscape has been sullied by perceived political scandals, real or otherwise. A former Minister has been jailed for corrupt practices. An allegation has been made that a major bank robbery was carried out by an organisation which has strong links with a party represented in this House. A cloud of suspicion hung over a serving Minister in regard to the awarding of lucrative public relations contracts. It is irrelevant whether these allegations can be substantiated or not, the reality is they stick in the public mind and reinforce the negative ideas which people already harbour about political representatives and the wider political process. The responsibility lies with Members of this House to clean up the sleaze and scandal which has become associated with politics but the Bill and the thinking behind it is not designed to address that.

It is our duty to restore public confidence in political processes and in the supremacy of political transparency and openness. The public cannot continue to believe that cronyism is alive and well, that after years of tribunals and scandals having been exposed, nothing has really changed. Favouritism and inside dealing cannot be allowed to continue after years of tribunals. That train of thought brings me to the Bill before us. Unfortunately the tone and content of it does nothing but reinforce all the negative aspects of politics. It harks back to another era and smacks of cronyism of the highest order. The possibility of dubious political processes and a lack of accountability are all present in this Bill and it will do nothing but further undermine public confidence in the lack of fairness and equity in the spending and allocation of public finances.

The Bill is a prime example of an underhand attempt by the Government to put its hand in the cookie jar and take out the treats contained in the dormant accounts fund and use these significant funds for its own benefit. It is clear the bottom line agenda, no matter how the Minister will try to justify it, is that two years away from an election the Government hopes to buy the election by flashing the cash and giving to its own pet projects. The fund will be used to extinguish bushfires between now and the election. The result will be that those groups, often the most marginalised and disadvantaged, which for whatever reason are not regarded by Fianna Fáil election strategists as key vote-gaining targets, will be bypassed, overlooked and ignored. It is also likely that other community groups which do not find political favour with the Government will lose out when the decisions on to whom and what to allocate this money are taken. This process of favouritism is already well entrenched within the Department by the Minister, Deputy Ó Cuív.

My colleague and spokesperson on Social and Family Affairs, Deputy Stanton, met with members of the Community Workers Co-Op who have had their core funding removed because they disagreed publicly with the policies of the Government. If one criticises the Government or any aspect of the polity one will be penalised. The lesson has not been lost on the community and voluntary sector. The message coming from the Government appears to be that it does not allocate funding to groups on merit or on the grounds of fairness and transparency. The message is that those who dare to bite the hand which feeds it face severe punishment. This is unacceptable behaviour on the part of the Government.

The sum of money contained in the dormant accounts fund is not to be sniffed at. It is a rolling fund and is likely to yield hundreds of millions of euro for years to come. The fund contains almost €200 million. The Minister referred to over €200 million and it could rise significantly. A figure of over €400 million has been mentioned, but the reality is that it is likely to be a great deal more than that, as the amount in unclaimed bank accounts and life insurance rises each year. We have no way of knowing how much money the fund will eventually yield. However, we can be certain that the money it contains should and must go to the most disadvantaged and worthy in society.

The community and voluntary sector continues to be one of the most underfunded sectors in society. It continues to make a significant, and often largely unrewarded, contribution to the community. It is only right and proper that money from the dormant accounts fund should go to such groups. This money has been allocated to projects that are attempting to improve community life in the areas in which they operate. Projects which have benefited from the fund include the building of a care centre and sheltered housing in County Donegal, the provision of training for three women's health projects in Kilbarrack, Dublin, and the provision of a lifelong learning centre for people with disabilities in Dún Laoghaire. We welcome the fact that a significant amount of money has been distributed. We are not critical of this. These are but a few examples of the projects which have benefited from the fund and are typical examples of sectors in society which the Government has neglected in recent years.

I remind the Minister of State, Deputy Noel Ahern, and the Minister, Deputy Ó Cuív, that we are talking about the same projects and community groups which were so delighted with the Taoiseach's announcement before the general election in 2002 that the RAPID scheme would fasttrack €2 billion in funding into our most disadvantaged communities. The reality has been very different. Very little money has been fasttracked to disadvantaged communities.

See this speech in context