Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)

We need not discuss the fundamental issue again. This amendment is very similar to amendment No. 3. Obviously the Labour Party is wary of what might happen with the power in the hands of the politicians. We have discussed the matter thoroughly. When one considers the sections we discussed yesterday in their totality, the room for manoeuvre, as alleged, is very slight. Disbursements from the board will be made on the basis of a detailed and transparent process. We have inserted a process throughout the Bill. It is not like the old days when it was possible to make up one's mind and decide what to do off the top of one's head. A process is clearly detailed in the Bill. The Government will be subject to all the key provisions of the Bill. When the Ombudsman and the requirements of the Freedom of Information Act are added in, the situation is totally different to what might have applied 20 years ago.

The framework for developing funding programmes will stem from the board's disbursement plan. The Minister in developing a proposal must have regard to the plan. Applications when received will be required to be assessed in accordance with agreed and published criteria. We cannot just start to make decisions willy-nilly because criteria must be agreed. Decisions of the Government concerning disbursements to be made from the fund must be published and will also be subject to analysis and review by the board at any time. Obviously the board could make public its views. To a point it could be argued that what the Deputy is proposing is already built into the Bill.

If the board were suddenly introduced in the middle of the process then when it came to reviewing the process obviously the board would be part of the process and so would be reviewing itself. We have placed the board at the beginning of the process. The process then takes place and the board is involved at the end of the process to determine whether the basic aims of its plan were implemented. The Deputy's proposal would make the board both an adviser and a reviewer. It would be inappropriate to involve the board at that stage of the decision-making process, and for that reason I oppose the amendment. We have come to the end of the road. We believe that one cannot insert the board into the middle of the process as reviewer and adviser because there is a contradiction. Obviously, the Deputy takes a contrary view, but it would make for very sloppy legislation for us to concede on the point. I regret to say that I oppose the amendment.

See this speech in context