Alex White (Dublin South, Labour)

My contribution will be quite short because, relatively speaking, this is quite an uncontroversial proposal and one which deserves our support. Before I outline the single net point I wish to make, I endorse what Deputy Donohoe just stated in his characteristically clear and thoughtful way in respect of transparency. The Deputy made a very strong point on the reporting requirements. Where information cannot, should not or will not be placed in the public domain, best practice should be to make the reasons for this public. I accept that when one is providing such reasons, it is often possible that one will, quite unwittingly, reveal the actual information itself. I am of the view, however, that best practice should be to publish and be damned. If it is not possible or appropriate to reveal information, then the public and the Parliament should be informed as to why that is the case.

It is hardly controversial that the process relating to dormant accounts should be subsumed within the Department in order that it will fall within the remit of the Minister of the day. The question that arises for me relates to the rationale behind giving responsibility for this process to a separate agency in the first instance. As the Minister and Deputy Donohoe stated, namely, that in light of the current economic crisis and the financial pressures relating thereto, it makes sense for bodies to either be merged or to be subsumed within their parent Departments. Perhaps when he is replying, the Minister might indicate the rationale for establishing the Dormant Accounts Board in 2001. In my limited research on this matter, I have not been able to discover the nature of that rationale.

The work of the Dormant Accounts Board relates to the management of the fund and to the disbursement of moneys therefrom to different Departments. As the Minister outlined with great clarity, we must remind ourselves that the accounting approach taken to these moneys when they are being disbursed is that they are liabilities of individual Government Departments and recovery is made later by the Exchequer from the dormant accounts fund. At virtually all stages, this appears to be a Government activity. I have no wish to seek an inquiry with regard to what happened ten or 12 years ago, although such an exercise might be interesting. I am merely seeking to understand the rationale for placing responsibility for the dormant accounts fund with an outside agency. In turn, this will allow us to understand whether it makes sense, as seems to be the case, to take the fund back within the control of the Department.

In fairness, when welcoming the introduction of the Bill, Deputy Niall Collins of Fianna Fáil stated: "For too long my own party was at the forefront of diverting decision making from the relevant Ministers towards third-party quangos." That was a refreshing statement on the Deputy's party. Perhaps the Minister, when replying, might outline the position in respect of this matter. I accept there might have been governance reasons for bestowing responsibility for the dormant accounts fund on a separate agency. I do not have sufficient expertise to know whether such reasons exist or whether we might just be missing something. We are engaged in laudable efforts to reduce the number of quangos that exist and to rationalise the position in respect of the diffusion of powers across the public service in respect of the implementation of policy. Everyone understands and agrees with the need for this, particularly in light of current economic circumstances. However, it might not make sense to take the type of action envisaged in the Bill in every instance. It appears it makes sense to do what is envisaged in this case but perhaps the Minister might take the opportunity to indicate whether any governance concerns arise. Perhaps those concerns are to be found in the historical background to the establishment of the Dormant Accounts Board ten or 12 years ago.

The Bill is clear in its intent. It involves the transferring the function relating to the dormant accounts fund to the Minister. It is easy to see how this will be done. Effectively, the Minister will assume responsibility for the fund and the Dormant Accounts Board will be abolished. The Bill indicates the various assets and liabilities involved will be taken over by the Department. I presume this includes staff, etc. and that it will, perhaps, lead to savings being made in respect of premises. In view of the fact that what is being done has been presented as an exercise in economics, will the Minister indicate the net saving to the Exchequer from the abolition of the board and the transfer of its functions to the Department?

As stated, what is being done makes sense. However, we owe it to those whom we represent to delve slightly deeper in the context of whether there were any issues which encouraged the then Government to give responsibility for the fund to a separate agency in the first instance. I accept such concerns could have been misplaced, but equally they may have been well-founded. All I am seeking is an indication as to what they might be.

See this speech in context