Brian O'Shea (Waterford, Labour)

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 5, between lines 14 and 15, to insert the following:

"(a) to establish transparent criteria for the disbursement of funds under the Dormant Accounts Acts 2001 to 2005,".

The intent of this amendment is simple. It would require the board — not the Minister — to establish the criteria for the disbursement of funds. As the legislation stands, the functions of the board include the preparation and submission to the Minister, in accordance with section 42, of a plan for the disbursement of moneys under Part 6. When this is done, the Minister will then be in a position to proceed with it. It can be either accepted or rejected, with or without amendment. This is the kernel of many of the problems we face. If the function of establishing the criteria was left solely to the independent board, it would result in a much more transparent and, arguably, equally effective method of disbursing funds. If we allow a Government which does not like the plan of the board to change it, as allowed under the legislation, we will be permitting dangerous circumstances to obtain.

I will not personalise the issue. We are passing legislation and dealing with the current Minister but this legislation will apply until such time that the issue is revisited by the Dáil. I do not understand what concerns the Government could have over criteria arrived at by an independent board. An independent board has already established criteria, made further progress and disbursed the funds in accordance with those criteria. Therefore, why is there a lack of confidence in its ability? I will not mention names because it would be improper but I must state the board comprises experienced, competent individuals who are people of integrity who would do an honest and conscientious job on behalf of the State, drawing on considerable expertise and experience that would enable them to analyse the sector and prioritise the areas requiring prioritisation. Why should the Government and the Minister finalise the criteria? This provision reinforces my argument that this is developing the war chest for the election the Minister assures us will happen in two years' time. The time frame will maximise the value of the slush fund to buy votes.

If an independent group of highly qualified people appointed by the Government but outside the political arena devises criteria, why is it necessary to remove this function from them? Did these people ask for the function to be removed? Did they ask not to have the final say, on the grounds that they did not feel competent and that Big Brother, in the shape of the Minister, must finalise the criteria? It appears the Minister could throw out their criteria and replace them with his own.

This amendment is reasonable. In terms of democracy and the transparency of the board's functions it is necessary to adopt this course. If the Minister can persuade me this amendment is unnecessary or inappropriate I will listen to his arguments, assess them and consider them objectively. He has said nothing since the commencement of Committee Stage of this Bill to convince me this is anything more than a hijack of a crock of gold to ensure Fianna Fáil leads its third Government in a row.

See this speech in context