Brian O'Shea (Waterford, Labour)

I do not want to go back over the same ground repeatedly. As my family got bigger and older, I converted what was a three bedroom house into a five bedroom house to cater for events as they unfolded. As it was designed as a three bedroom house, I ended up with four doors into my kitchen and two rooms with only one door into them. When something is designed to fulfil a specific purpose, it is virtually impossible to adapt it in a way that gives rise to substantial change. The Bill suffers from this syndrome. While it is difficult, I agree with the Minister that we should not become hidebound in what we do and leave no room for manoeuvre. A sensible balance needs to be struck.

Even in the time when I was a Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children, I can remember how committed Deputy Neville was to addressing the problem of suicide which, if anything, appears to be worsening. The need to do something substantial as the Deputy has striven to do has never been greater. On Committee Stage I mentioned the rural social fund, the innovation introduced in the budget before last. I strongly support that scheme which should be adopted further. However, I was upset that at the time of the Budget Statement of the then Minister for Finance, Mr. McCreevy, the Minister, Deputy Ó Cuív, had not made contact with the Dormant Accounts Fund Disbursement Board to discuss obtaining the €10 million required for the scheme. The Minister made my argument for me in saying the money that would accrue from the fund should not be regarded as being available on an ongoing basis. If there was a worthwhile project dealing with suicide, as Deputy Neville said, and the Minister of the day was convinced of the case — even given the Minister's actions regarding the rural social fund — he or she could write to the board and ask it to consider a substantial, one-off contribution to get services up and running. That obviously would be welcome. An experienced councillor, Senator or Deputy — any public representative — knows all too well that there are limitations on schemes that are not desirable and prevent important cases from being addressed.

The area the Minister emphasised was disability. Some aspects must be reviewed and have new conditions applied. I agree with all those arguments in a certain context. However, this is a simple amendment to make drafting of the criteria for the disbursement of substantial funds the sole responsibility of the new board that the Minister is to establish in order that he may not be able to throw them out in theory — although I am not suggesting that any Minister would — and take a different direction. What is the point of having a dog and barking oneself? What is the point of having a board appointed by the Government — I am sure the next will also be appointed by it if the two year scenario to which the Minister keeps returning is correct — to make recommendations and work on a plan if that plan is to be changed substantially?

I am open to the argument that some general tweaking might be considered to cater for a segment of society as distinct from any group or constituency. However, the Minister has not convinced me that there is merit in what is proposed in the Bill or that the proposal in my amendment is not superior. We are obviously not going to agree and I am left to having to pursue my amendment. While I agree that the legislation has not been rushed, I will return to my analogy of extending the house. Ultimately, when one seeks to alter substantially something designed for a different function, there will be faults. I cannot enunciate all of them but have no doubt that in the fullness of time other problems will emerge. However, that speculation is the work of another day.

There will be no meeting of minds on this amendment; that much is clear.

See this speech in context