Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)

I did not hold it against the Minister concerned. I am probably wrong and should have learned to take a leaf out of the book of the Labour Party.

Let us be honest, when announcements are made by the Dormant Accounts Fund Disbursements Board, Members telephone me but I have no say in the matter. They all want to tell their constituents the news. There is not a politician in the House who does not interact with his or her constituents and various groups and go through the motions on their behalf. I am very tolerant of this and get great personal satisfaction when I see statements from Opposition Deputies in the newspapers welcoming all the announcements I have made on various schemes. That is a compliment and I am delighted with it. There is a colleague of the Deputy in County Mayo who always welcomes my decisions. He tells his constituents how good he is to announce what I do.

While that happens, it will not take away from the fundamental issue which is whether we act fairly. Do we act in the public interest? Do we act honestly? Are their proper criteria? I would be the first to accept there was a tightening in the past ten or 20 years which was badly needed. I do not want us to reach a stage where we tie ourselves in so many knots that we cannot do what is sensible. That is where the equation becomes tricky.

When I introduced Scéim mBóithre Áise, allegations were made about it. When I reinstituted the scheme in 1997 I decided to introduce more clear-cut criteria, similar to the local improvement scheme criteria. I was complimenting myself on being clear that there had to be a house and another landowner on a road, other than public utilities, piers, burial grounds and so on. I was reasonably happy that the criteria were fair, open and transparent until one day at my constituency clinic a person inquired about having a road provided. I said to the person concerned that he was not eligible as the road would run between two family houses. He then said his brother was in a wheelchair and the reason for having the 300 yards of road tarred was to enable him to travel over and back on his own. They could not afford to have work done as both families were on the dole. I went away and thought about the matter long and hard and said I could not make an exception in an individual case.

Rules that prevent us from doing what is sensible such as providing a disabled person with access are wrong. We wrote and changed the rules as Deputy McGinley will be well aware. I do not know about Deputy O'Shea or if any case has arisen in Waterford but I brought forward a rule that if a social worker, doctor or whoever made a case, what we call costarnocht, we could give the grant outside the normal rules. There have been cases that have been assessed by the local scrúdaitheoir and passed. That was a case of good ministerial interference. If it had come from the Members opposite, I would have dealt with it in the same way because it is right that cases should be treated in a humane way. Therefore, I believe in the political process and political decisions and a political input into decisions as some practices have changed for the better. However, I do not believe in doing something for friends and neighbours on a nod and a wink basis. Any politician who thinks that will work is making a big mistake.

I amended section 31 included in section 7 and sections 43 and 44 included in section 8 of the Bill in the Seanad because there were concerns. Members will agree the Bill is tight. In addition, there is an ombudsman who, in the event of maladministration, can bring someone to book. Under section 31, the functions of the board are to review and assess from time to time the effectiveness of the strategies. When all those checks and balances are taken into account, one will find that what one is worried about will not and could not happen, whether we or the Members opposite are in government.

Section 43(b) reads, "the criteria to be applied in assessing applications made in response to the invitation . . .". Therefore, the criteria will have to be set out. Section 44(2) reads:

The results of the assessments under subsection (1) must include—

(a) a list of

(i) the assessed measures forming part of a programme, and

(ii) where appropriate, the assessed projects,

(b) a recommendation as to whether or not each of those measures and projects should be recommended under subsection (3) for a disbursement from the account,

(c) the reasons for the recommendation, and

(d) if a disbursement is recommended, the amount recommended.

There is recourse to the ombudsman where there is maladministration. Therefore, if we start to jiggle, the rules will have to be followed. I have independent persons who assess cases. People come to me who are convinced of the merits of their case but I have had to say to them that if they did not believe me, they should go to the ombudsman who will get to the bottom of the case. I have recommended that people do this where I cannot persuade them something is not unfair. Most people trust the ombudsman to ensure fairness in decision-making. When all the rules are taken together, one will find the Bill is much tighter and much less discretionary in its individual decisions than one might have thought. It gives reasonable scope to Ministers to lay out good schemes and amend them within the plan to ensure effective, fair and good distribution of funds.

I have a legitimate concern about the open application process. What I mean by the open application process is where somebody places an advertisement in the newspaper seeking applications under broad headings. Two problems arise from such methodology, the first of which is that many more applications are made than one has money for and people who expend time and effort are inevitably disappointed. The second which is more serious is that it becomes a presentation exercise, not a real needs exercise. That is not good.

It is not the way one fills in the form but the merit of one's case that should count. Otherwise those with the most resources, experience and advice and probably the least disadvantaged will have an inherent advantage in making applications. All politicians have seen a small group with an incredible plan and a track record but unable to write the fancy essays that score highly in the assessment processes. I would like to change the methodologies and use, for example, in the RAPID programme areas the area implementation teams. The area implementation teams in the RAPID programme areas are working on the ground and have drawn up plans for their areas. They know the issues not covered by existing Government programmes and are able to identify in a non-bureaucratic way the programmes which will genuinely deliver.

Some of the islands have communities of five, ten or 20 people. I cannot expect them to compete with the big organisations dealing with the issue of disadvantage on a professional level. The AGM of Comhdháil Oileáin na hÉireann was held at the weekend. It has been given access without overweening bureaucracy to take action. I would like to develop the systems by which this money will be disbursed to ensure it will get into the nooks and crevices of greatest disadvantage, not that I would personally pick them. RAPID programme communities are the most obvious when considering educational and social and economic disadvantage. I would like to focus the effort through the RAPID programmes plans as the Deputy suggested.

I do not think I can say anything to allay the Deputy's suspicions. I predict in two years time he will be surprised on two counts: that we will not have spent all of the funds because it is not our intention to do so in that period of time and that we will have operated the fund because there is no other legal option. We will be required to operate to the highest standards because the mechanisms in law will require us to do so, even if we are not of a mind to do so. The Deputy queried what would happen. Anybody who tried to act in the way the Deputy suggested would find they would be stopped quickly by the provisions of the Bill. They would be required to answer to various watchdog organs of the State not in existence 20 years ago.

I have another reason I cannot accept the amendment. The board proposes a plan, the Department operates it and the board reviews it. If the board was to lay down the criteria, it would be reviewing itself. If it was involved in establishing the criteria for the disbursement fund and then adjudicating, it would be a jury in its own trial which would not be desirable from a procedural point of view and should be avoided.

It is very important to keep the procedures clear. My problem with freedom of information provisions was discussed. I undertake to work with my colleague, the Minister for Finance, to ensure once the entity is in place, the Act will be implemented. For legal reasons, it cannot be done the other way round. I concur with the Deputy. It would be my intention long before I leave office — allowing for the fact that nothing unforeseen happens — that the Freedom of Information Act would be extended to cover the board. I do not understand why it did not cover the previous board but I was not the Minister who brought it through the House.

See this speech in context