Noel Ahern (Dublin North West, Fianna Fail)

I thank Members for their contributions in which some interesting points were made. I noted the views expressed. I do not think everyone who spoke read my Second Stage speech because I made it plain that the purpose of this legislation was to build on the progress made and to rectify deficiencies in the system. I noted the spin some were putting on this legislation. It is easy to talk about disappointment, cynicism and frustration but those talking about such things should ask if they are the cause of them and not this proposal from Government.

The dormant accounts have given us an opportunity to address many problems of educational disadvantage and social exclusion. That is the point on which we should concentrate. We all know the economy has done very well over the past ten years as have many people. However, not everyone has benefited and funds such as this give us the opportunity to concentrate on them and to try to do some good work. That was the thinking when the Government introduced the dormant accounts legislation four years ago and it remains the thinking, that is, to distribute the money to areas and groups most affected by disadvantage in society.

When the dormant accounts fund board submitted the disbursement plan to the Minister and the Department, the principal amendment made by the Minister and the Department was to ensure that a significant element of disbursements would specifically target the most disadvantaged areas. We laid down ground rules that a significant proportion of the money would have to be spent in RAPID, CLÁR and drugs task force areas. Obviously, that has resulted in complaints which I heard today and on the previous occasion. Some Members said their constituencies did not get enough. It is hard to design a system whereby everybody is happy. I could look at what a board, group or Minister might do and perhaps agree with 90% of it but say I would do 10% of it differently. Even today Members came at this from different points of view. Some said how wonderful the current system was but in the next breath, they complained that their constituency and the project in which they were interested did not get funding. It is hard to get everything right but it is important that the funding is clearly targeted at those most in need.

Concerns were expressed as to the extent to which the changes in the Bill will adversely affect the impact of spending from the fund. Deputies McGinley and O'Shea questioned the reasoning behind the legislation and made the charge that we were trying to form a slush fund, which I totally reject. Nothing could be further from the truth. In many respects, politics is a gas game. Charlie McCreevy has received many glowing tributes since he left but when he was here he was criticised, which we do to one another. It is extraordinary that a quote he made some years ago is now constantly used, although perhaps not in the sense he made it. It is extraordinary how we value and appreciate his comments now he has gone but when he was here he was slagged, which we do to one another.

I explained why the changes are being made. The size of the fund has influenced thinking. The structure set up for a fund of a particular size changes if that fund turns out to be much larger than originally envisaged. Deputy Deenihan spoke about re-activations. I think the financial institutions originally identified €420 million, which was whittled down. I am surprised the community group in his area was not contacted by the bank because when the financial institutions went through the old accounts, they contacted people. One of my country cousins was phoned by the bank advising of an account that had been dormant for 25 years even though it only contained a few hundred pounds. Efforts have been made and I was surprised to hear Deputy Deenihan speak of a person in a small community group not having been contacted. However, this can still be done and the account resurrected. A sum of €420 million was originally identified by the financial institutions, which was significantly reduced by the success of the financial institutions in tracking down the account holders.

The Government has a duty to ensure that the arrangements for disbursing such large amounts are robust and adhere to the best standards of corporate governance. Having reviewed the arrangements late in 2003, it became clear to Government that obvious deficiencies existed in the structures, which I outlined in my original contribution. These related in particular to accountability arrangements, an organisational structure for the board and linkage of spending from the fund with policy priorities of Government. Policy priorities of Government are important and are influenced by views expressed here, including those of the Opposition.

I do not know why we criticise ourselves and feel that anybody except us can do a perfect job whereas anything we do is somehow tainted. It most certainly is not. We all deal with communities and have considerable knowledge about influencing how Government policy should be directed. I agreed with a point Deputy Mulcahy made about ADM, which has been used by the board to administer and process the applications up to now and may continue to do so. Somebody mentioned that we had got rid of ADM. However, the Bill is neutral on the matter. We may or may not use ADM; that is a matter to be decided from time to time. Deputy Mulcahy referred to ADM contacting people and said it had never contacted him for his views on an application, which is an interesting point. I have heard of ADM contacting many other people to check on applications. He has a point in suggesting that ADM or such organisations should communicate with public representatives, be they Deputies, Senators or councillors, of all political persuasions. A cross-party check will yield a view as to whether a particular group is good or not so good. I do not know why we belittle and criticise our opinion and always feel everybody else's opinion is perfect and that we have nothing to add.

Under the new system the funding will be provided through the Votes of individual Departments and therefore the relevant Secretaries General will be accountable. It was a deficiency in the original Bill and most unfair to expect a part-time chairman who has given enormous time to the board or anyone in such a position to be accountable to the Committee of Public Accounts for enormous expenditure. If we allowed that to continue and a problem arose in two, four or five years' time, we would hear hollers from whoever happened to be in Opposition at that stage asking how a Government allowed such a structure to exist. This approach in the Bill ensures that the expertise, knowledge and capabilities within existing public bodies will be utilised in administering the funding programmes. In future decisions by Government will take place following a transparent decision-making process, which will ensure that spending from the fund will be co-ordinated with policy priorities identified by Government and debated in the House and at committees.

Deputies Keaveney and Deenihan spoke about the very good report on volunteering recently published by the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Arts, Sport, Tourism, Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs. The Department is examining the report and we hope to make an announcement in that regard in the near future. I agree with Deputy Deenihan that other funds should be added to this dormant accounts fund and he highlighted money taken in by the Criminal Assets Bureau. Some community groups spend half their time chasing Departments and Government agencies and looking through various programmes to try to source funds for their activities. The Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs was established principally to co-ordinate many of these schemes. I am glad to hear that the Opposition believes that it would be better from a State administration point of view as well as from the point of view of the groups trying to source funds to know that they only had to knock on one door. Having obtained their funding, the groups could spend 95% of their time using the money for the activities for which they were originally established.

The negativity of some of the speakers was incredible. One would wonder why people try so hard to be elected to this House. I used to have a sticker on a filing cabinet that claimed there were three types of people in the world: people who want to get things done; people who observe what is being done; and people who spend their time wondering what happened. Some people believe in making an input here in an effort to make things happen and improve the lot of the communities in their constituencies. Others just seem to want to complain and talk about what is wrong and are more content in getting on their soapboxes and complaining about what is wrong in their constituencies without wanting to do anything about it when they have the opportunity. I find that way of thinking to be rather strange. We should collectively have more confidence in ourselves and try to make a greater input into decisions like this.

The Bill provides for a two-stage process through which the Government will make decisions. The Minister will make an initial proposal to Government based on the board's disbursement plan outlining the programmes and types of projects for which applications will be sought. Applications received will be assessed against published criteria and then submitted to Government for final decision. A list of approved projects will be published, laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas and will be available for people to discuss. The key monitoring functions of the board are set out in the Bill, including that the board will review and assess the extent to which the objectives it sets out in the plan are being achieved. The board will also track Government decisions and make detailed reports which will be available to the Opposition and the public based on whether the allocations have been in accordance with the disbursement plan. The purpose of the Bill is to ensure that moneys are directed at the most disadvantaged groups and communities in the most efficient manner, using the expertise accumulated in Departments and agencies. That is what we are doing. We have to try to maximise our use of the fund, which is finite and will not last forever. We could have put in place an enormous structure to administer the fund, but there would have been no point in doing so because we would have been stuck with that structure when the fund dries up in a couple of years. It is obvious that we should use the knowledge and expertise available in Departments and agencies.

Deputies Lynch, Costello, Howlin and others spoke about the RAPID programme. It is extraordinary that Deputies have attempted to find some significance in the provision of €8 million under the Estimate of the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs. That money has been provided for relatively small items which were identified by local RAPID groups. The RAPID programme was developed to fast-track major infrastructural projects which are being developed by Departments and various agencies in disadvantaged areas. Deputy Costello claimed some minutes ago that the Government is claiming credit for assisting projects under the RAPID programme which would have happened anyway. It is easy to make such an allegation.

As part of my role as Minister of State at the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, I have visited housing projects in Deputy Costello's constituency and elsewhere. I refer to expensive remedial work and regeneration schemes, which have upgraded the standard of living of many people on both sides of the River Liffey. It is easy for Deputies to claim that such projects do not pertain to the RAPID programme and would have been developed in any event, but that is untrue. Various communities have proposed projects of all sizes under the RAPID programme. The small projects are being funded as well. I accept that the programme was slow to get out of the starting blocks when there was an economic downturn between 2002 and 2004. The ideas and plans which have been proposed are being implemented and are having a big effect.

Deputy Mulcahy and others spoke about the average amount that has been allocated to each constituency from the dormant accounts fund to date. He asked whether the fund should be used to support flagship projects or smaller projects. Applications of all sizes were made to the Dormant Accounts Fund Disbursements Board, which assessed them on the basis of the information supplied to it. For example, the board considered whether the applications were in accordance with its disbursement plan. Some Deputies who complained about the changes being made to the current system said that certain constituencies, such as Cavan-Monaghan, received very little. The board has not operated on the basis of geographical considerations. A politician might operate in such a manner, but I do not think such matters were considered by the board as they did not fall within its remit. There are different ways of doing it and it is hard to have it all right.

Many speakers spoke about the distribution of national lottery funds. I do not have the full details of the manner in which that money is distributed. There seems to be a general belief that all national lottery money is allocated to the sports capital programme, but that is most untrue. I am somewhat surprised to learn that various funds, programmes and projects under the Departments of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs and the Environment, Heritage and Local Government are funded by national lottery money. Although there is no political involvement in such projects, some people like to suggest that there is political involvement in the allocation of all lottery moneys. That is not the case. We are doing politics a huge disservice by talking like that.

I took note of the many points which were made, some of which were reiterated by other Deputies. The Government believes this Bill is essential. It builds on the previous legislation in this area. The wise changes being introduced will correct the faults in the original legislation. I listened carefully when the Bill was amended and passed by the Seanad. I look forward to considering it further on Committee Stage. If Members have good ideas for further improvements to the Bill, I will consider appropriate amendments to that effect. I thank Deputies for their contributions.

See this speech in context