Michael Mulcahy (Dublin South Central, Fianna Fail)

While not particularly welcoming the Bill, I welcome a second major piece of legislation dealing with dormant accounts funds. The only element of the previous speaker's speech with which I agree is that nobody anticipated the extent of funding that would become available as has happened with many recent financial issues. Nobody, not least the Department of Finance, has quite understood the extent of growth in the economy and the amount of money in financial institutions. For whatever reason I do not believe anybody fully understood the nature and sheer scale of funds that would become available from dormant accounts.

We should acknowledge that the dormant accounts structure is a dual structure. The primary purpose of dormant accounts legislation is to enable individuals or in the case of deceased people their estates to apply to financial institutions to reclaim their money, which has been lying dormant. To this extent nobody can deny that the original legislation has been extremely successful. The total amount of money reclaimed to date by people with dormant accounts is approximately €265 million, which represents an extraordinary benefit to those who have got their money back. An old provision existed whereby people with life assurance policies or pensions bought an annuity from the life assurance company and if the person died one year into their pension, the entire benefit of the pension was wiped away. A change was made in one of the Finance Acts to remedy this anomaly. I put this legislation into the same bracket. On the first strand of its activities it has been a great success.

I am sure the Minister of State agrees that the jury is still out as to whether the grant-in-aid that has been made to many worthwhile organisations through the various disbursements under the second strand, which is for want of a better phrase the charitable end, has been successful. I have never seen a comprehensive review assessing the effectiveness or otherwise of these moneys — perhaps it is still too early. I have the benefit of a very comprehensive list of the recent grant allocation of approximately €41 million made to 420 different organisations, which results in an average grant of approximately €100,000. The taxpayer is entitled to know whether the State has got value for money. While I do not say this in any critical sense and I believe there is scope within the Bill for this, among the most important work the Minister of State and his Department could do would be to evaluate as quickly as possible the effect of these grants in RAPID, CLÁR areas and other disadvantaged areas.

From reading the list my impression is that it has been a broad sweep and I am sure every county has been looked after. However, it seems to be somewhat of a scattergun approach. The moneys have been directed geographically and by social group. However, what is the broad policy thrust? Are we really trying to target youth groups, disabled groups and other forms of disadvantaged groups? Quite a disparity is apparent between the average capital amounts allocated to various counties. Carlow got an average of approximately €52,000, Kildare got €140,000 and Roscommon got an average of €91,000. Wicklow had only eight projects and got €1.286 million which gives an average of approximately €160,000. Dublin got an average of €101,000 for its projects and was nearest to the mean national average. No consistency is apparent in the average net grant which groups in any part of the country received. I would like to see more thought put into the matter. Should we give more grants that are smaller? Should we focus our attention on flagship projects? Should every county get just one, two or three major grants? I am not convinced that sufficient thinking has gone into the allocation rationale.

I am disappointed at the general tenor of all the Opposition speeches regarding the approach to the Bill. They seem to suggest we should continue with the existing process whereby the money is distributed by ADM, which is a sort of semi-State organisation, and politicians should have no say in the matter. I simply do not accept this argument. Under the Constitution, as politicians we are ultimately responsible for the disbursement of all moneys. The Minister is responsible to Members of this House for the disbursement of all moneys. Most grants are distributed by Departments, including the well-known example of sports capital grants. If a club wants to build a new clubhouse, it applies to the Department of Arts, Sport and Tourism. Rigorous criteria are applied and points are allocated for social disadvantage, contribution by the club, private fundraising, public access etc. Committees of experts examine all the applications to determine whether they meet the criteria and ultimately the Minister decides. The Minister is then answerable to this House for that decision. I challenge the Opposition to tell me why it should be otherwise. Where is the benefit in, if one likes, letting politicians off the hook? Where is the benefit in allowing an unelected body make all these decisions?

I do not agree with everything in the Bill. I ask the Minister of State, Deputy Noel Ahern, to consider some suggestions for its improvement. The Government engaged ADM Limited to process and evaluate applications for grants under the dormant accounts fund. I do not know whether ADM has contacted other politicians to ask their opinions on the 420 projects that have been approved. I have never received a letter or a telephone call from ADM, asking me for my opinion on the matter.

I was elected to Dublin City Council in 1985 and served for 17 years until I had to resign in 2002 after I was elected to this House. I have also served as a Senator and as Lord Mayor of Dublin. I know my constituency intimately. I have a good working relationship with almost every organisation in my constituency that will receive grant aid under this scheme. I was not consulted by ADM, however, and I presume that none of my fellow public representatives was either. Is it not evident that a local politician would be one of the best people to consult about the value of projects in a given constituency? Have politicians joined the class of untouchables to the extent that their opinion no longer counts?

I challenge bodies like ADM Limited to talk to local public representatives so that our genuine and democratic voices can be heard. When I contacted ADM Limited on one or two occasions, I found that its officials were courteous and provided as much information as they could. I never found that they were overly flaithiúlach with such information, however. As ADM's evaluation process was not particularly transparent, I was not in a position to evaluate its evaluation of the projects. One of the most important challenges the Minister of State and the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs faces is to review the success, or otherwise, of the grants allocated so far.

As a Deputy on the Government side of the House, I wish to state clearly that of the 420 projects funded under the dormant accounts disbursement system many should have been funded by the Exchequer through the departmental Vote system. Moneys from dormant accounts should not have been used in many cases, such as for youth facilities and bus services for disabled people. Funds to support such projects are required and properly payable under various departmental headings. Therefore, such funds should be made available through a departmental Vote.

I was under the impression that moneys from dormant accounts would be used to fill gaps in areas generally untouched by normal Government expenditure. That should be the case. When allocations are being decided on in the future, funds should be made available for exceptional matters, such as new and positive developments to support the weakest and poorest in society. I suspect the Minister of State might share my view that the Exchequer should have funded many of the projects essentially funded by ADM.

I understand the system will have two phases. The Dormant Accounts Fund Disbursements Board will prepare and submit to the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs its plan for the disbursement of the moneys acquired from dormant accounts. Having received the plan, the Department will decide, in accordance with a transparent set of criteria, whether various projects should be grant aided. I do not see any problems with such a logical system. Independent bodies should have set out a comprehensive policy framework. It would be good for democracy to ensure that the Government and the relevant Minister are responsible for making decisions about the spending of every euro. They should be accountable to this House for such decisions.

I am sure the Minister of State agrees that we are adopting a centralised approach to the distribution of these funds. After the Dormant Accounts Fund Disbursements Board has prepared a plan outlining its policy objectives and philosophy, perhaps we should give the funds to the local authorities, in the same proportion as they receive funds from the local government fund, to be distributed as they see fit. The area committees of the local authorities could be charged with dispersing the funds in accordance with the philosophy outlined by the disbursements board.

We have a tendency to over-centralise matters in this country. Given that local authority officials and politicians are responsible people who are in touch with their communities, there is a strong argument for allowing them to distribute the funds accruing from dormant accounts. Such people are closer to what is happening at local level than those at departmental level. They operate under strict ethical guidelines and are accountable to the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. We are too keen to adopt a centralised approach to the management of our affairs, by and large. Although Ministers meet deputations, etc., they cannot be expected to have an expert knowledge of every project in every corner of the country. Who has a better knowledge of such matters than county managers and regional officials working on the ground in local areas, or councillors who live and work in such areas?

There is a bad and dangerous tendency in society and in legislation to write politicians out of the picture. We no longer seem to have the right to be consulted or to sit on State boards. It has gone too far. If we do not restore politicians to the middle of the picture and make them accountable, there will be a decline in democracy and sovereignty. In such circumstances, supremacy will be retained by the unelected Government of Ireland — civil servants who are not accountable to the public, are rarely if ever fired and do not face election every five years.

Despite my criticism of certain aspects of our handling of this matter, I welcome the Bill before the House as a fresh approach to the distribution of a fund that is much larger than we initially thought possible. I hope the Minister of State will consider my comments on the Bill as it progresses, for example on Committee Stage.

See this speech in context