Dáil debates
Thursday, 24 February 2005
Dormant Accounts (Amendment) Bill 2004 [Seanad]: Second Stage (Resumed).
12:00 pm
Jimmy Deenihan (Kerry North, Fine Gael)
That may be why I am saying this, but I do not know how much came from the dormant accounts in Kerry. The case was made that people who collected this money, through business or whatever, did so in the local community, so it should return there.
The Minister of State published the report of the Joint Committee on Arts, Sport, Tourism, Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs, entitled Volunteers and Volunteering in Ireland. There are many young people in the Visitors Gallery today who would appreciate the people who work with committees and youth clubs, and organise sport around the country. These people go to schools to help the pupils do physical education, art and music, free of charge in some instances.
They save the country a considerable amount of money. The sum mentioned as a saving from all those volunteers who look after young people in youth clubs, and football and basketball teams, boy scouts and so on, is €485 million a year in wage bills. To replace an estimated 475,000 volunteers working for charitable organisations would cost the Exchequer a minimum of €205 million and could cost up to €485 million every year. That was a finding of the valid and credible report commissioned by the committee from DKM economic consultants.
To draw up this report the committee held oral hearings and received written submissions from approximately 21 top voluntary organisations in the country. We also referred to the white paper on a framework for supporting voluntary activity and for developing the relationship between the State and the community and voluntary sector, and Tipping the Balance, another major report on volunteerism. We did not want to reinvent the work of those reports so we studied the economic aspect of volunteerism.
The main recommendation in the report is:
The Dormant Accounts Fund should be targeted primarily at funding voluntary organisations, subject to the Board's dispersal criteria.
The ring-fencing of some CAB funds which are now coming on stream should be investigated (particularly for projects related to communities affected by the abuse of drugs and by organised crime).
Will the funds from the Criminal Assets Bureau come under the umbrella of this fund?
No comments