Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)

This is not good practice. I am aware that Ministers are touring certain constituencies to meet social groups and sporting and cultural groups in particular, to hear supplications in respect of lotto grants that might become available but of course, disconnected to any possible political event that might be happening. This is not the way to deal with public moneys or moneys that are available for good use.

I wish to enter this caveat. I am not a believer in the view that politicians should not be involved in making important decisions about disbursement of moneys and that independent bodies are always superior to political ones. As a rule, I do not subscribe to that view. There are occasions when politicians must make decisions about appointments or about disbursements that can be stood up and defended in this House because they are elected and accountable. Politicians often put into place mechanisms for a more transparent regime that turn out to be much less transparent in reality because of cronyism and the old pals network. At least politicians have the virtue of being accountable in this House and ultimately to the public.

In the minutiae of disbursement of moneys, I believe the Government is wrong in its approach and that this legislation is unnecessary. The old maxim of, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" should certainly apply. It is less than four years since the Oireachtas enacted legislation providing for the establishment of an independent Dormant Accounts Fund Disbursements Board, for which a less difficult name could be suggested. The board was to have responsibility for payments from the dormant accounts fund to groups and organisations working primarily with disabled people but also in areas of economic, social or educational disadvantage. The board has not been operating for long and its plans have only really started to flow in recent years. Why are we changing tack, particularly given that, as many Members noted, the former Minister for Finance, Mr. McCreevy, predicated the legislation on the virtue that the board was independent and the disbursement of funds would not be tainted with the colour of politics? What has changed?

Why do we need to draw the dormant accounts fund into the maw of political disbursement? I have not heard a Deputy from the Government benches give a coherent reason for this decision. The only coherent reason is the scale of the money involved. It was all right when the fund was perceived as relatively small but the position changed when it emerged that we are talking big bucks which would have a major impact and, therefore, could colour political decisions and future voting intentions. The fund will amount to more than several hundred million euro over time, which is a significant sum.

In other times, the Government's brazen decision to dismantle an independent and robust regime supported by the House and much-vaunted and exalted when introduced four years ago by the same Government, albeit with one or two different Ministers, would have created a greater scandal. The principle of transparency, the linchpin of the original Act, has been made redundant without a coherent reason being given, apart from the one I posited, that is, that with big bucks available the Government cannot bear not to have the levers in its hands. It is a profoundly disappointing development which would have attracted much greater public focus and anger in other circumstances. The Government is blatantly attempting to undo a good system and replace it with one which constitutes a step backwards in the march towards more transparent administration, which all Members thought we were making in all walks of life.

The backdrop to this development is that we have moved forward in terms of ethics and electoral legislation, some of which has been good and some bad. The Freedom of Information Act, for example, is important legislation, even if it is difficult to live with on days such as this. It is part of the openness of our democracy to public scrutiny which is pivotal if we are to maintain public confidence in the way we do our business.

This legislation is one of the few steps backwards we have made in recent times. In most cases, we have made progress in trying to create greater transparency and build confidence, although I remind the House that some of the excellent work in the original Freedom of Information Act has been rolled back, which is a pity. This Bill is in the same genre and its introduction will be regretted by the political system because it is not the correct way to proceed. People want to have confidence in the manner in which Members do business in their name. This is particularly relevant in the context of disbursal of moneys, a fraught and difficult issue.

I am delighted the Minister of State, Deputy Killeen, will be present for the comments I am about to make. One of the primary purposes of the primary legislation was to ensure a focus on the disabled and areas of social, economic and educational disadvantage. The RAPID initiative was one of the instruments established in recent times to this end and was widely welcomed in the hope it would deliver infrastructure and support for disadvantaged communities.

The Government played up the RAPID programme in my town of Wexford, which has three RAPID areas, including two large areas, Maudlintown and Coolcotts. Community groups and the public were summoned to major meetings to analyse community need and identify what people wanted. This raised expectations that needs would be met rather than exclusively debated. However, instead of allocating money to the areas in question, all of which have a tremendous sense of community, an instruction was issued to re-label all normal expenditure in the communities concerned as RAPID expenditure. For example, if a local authority builds a community house, it is designated a RAPID initiative. The expectations of communities starved of resources and in need of community facilities have been dashed.

The result of this has been to create another layer of cynicism. Communities believe local government cannot deliver effectively and national Government is too remote and does not care. There has been no significant follow-through on an initiative which local community activists, voluntary groups, local authority members and officials expected to be delivered. The Minister of State will inform the House that billions of euro have been earmarked for the RAPID initiative but, as matters stand, the tax on the petrol one uses driving through a RAPID area will be classified as RAPID expenditure in the accounting systems of the Department.

I hope the genuine sense of disappointment can be undone, even at this late stage, and vulnerable communities with tremendous spirit are given the resources they need, including proper amenities and sports facilities. The new cry emanating from the health services and those interested in the health of the nation relates to the increase in obesity and diabetes among young people which has become a significant health issue for all communities. Exercise is critical in tackling both conditions, although diet and genetics also have a role in diabetes. Many communities have no sporting facilities, which links us to an issue in which the Minster of State is particularly well versed, namely, the need to identify causes. Young people have nothing to do and there is no community focus in terms of sports facilities that would absorb their natural energies. Such facilities must be established. Disadvantaged communities expect and hope to receive significant new resources but they have yet to be delivered.

Deputy Mulcahy posited the notion that local government should be the agent for disbursal. While this is not a bad idea, local authorities would be cynical because they were originally intended to receive part of the income of the national lottery. This great scheme involved local authorities vetting applications for lottery funding. In other words, they would inform applicants who did not qualify for funding that their applications had been rejected, while applications approved for funding would be submitted to the Minister who would announce the good news. It was a great system whereby local government would give the bad news and the Minister would give the good news. That type of system will not work in this instance.

See this speech in context