Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)

Tá mé buíoch go bhfuil deis agam labhairt ar an mBille tábhachtach seo. Níl mé i gcoinne bunaidhm na reachtaíochta, ach ní aontaím le roinnt de na forálacha atá inti. Measaim go bhfuil sé ag dul sa treo mícheart.

During the years funds from the dormant accounts fund and the work of the Dormant Accounts Board have benefited many communities, especially those in areas which are socially and economically disadvantaged. There are many projects and programmes which have benefited from the grants paid which nobody would dispute, although some of the reasoning behind the refusal of applications of some groups has been questioned. In the main, however, the funding from the dormant accounts fund has had a positive effect on communities in helping projects and schemes to get off the ground and allowing others to develop. This occurred in an period when other funds were available, but we are now entering a different era. The bulk of the money in the dormant accounts fund has been expended and is no longer available for disbursement. This Bill changes some of the nature of the original ideal behind the dormant accounts process. I have some sympathy with those who wish to get rid of the dormant accounts board and see that responsibility ceded back to a Department and Minister but it is not the correct step. A board like this dormant accounts board should be in place, although the members should not be paid; instead, it should be an honour for people to serve on it. There is an example of how that facility has worked, with community participants, elected representatives, council officials and gardaí attending joint policing committees. They discuss policy and take decisions but nobody is getting paid specifically to sit on those board. There is not a significant administrative cost either, so it is an example of how we could have a more democratically reflective board to deal with dormant accounts. That is in preference to ending the process completely and ceding the responsibility to a Minister, leaving that Minister open to the accusation that the fund would become a ministerial slush fund. If the Minister intends proceeding that way, an Oireachtas committee should have oversight or at least should have to be consulted by him or her prior to making a decision or the committee could make the decision which would be rubber stamped by the Minister. That would allow for the transparency everybody seeks and prevent a single vested interest taking the decision, thereby dismissing charges of political favouritism that could be levelled. For example, when Ministers had the opportunity to administer grants under the sports capital programme, their constituencies benefitted much more than others. I do not have an expertise in this area but I read about these charges being levelled against some Ministers. The Minister should not open up that possibility. At the very least, therefore, the Oireachtas should have oversight of the dormant accounts fund through a committee or, preferably, a stand alone body should oversee the fund but it should not pay the attendance fees of its board members. People who are grounded in the community and who have expertise will, hopefully, offer their time for the benefit of their communities. The reason the fund was set up was to use money in dormant bank accounts, which was only benefiting the financial institutions, for the good of all. That is why I support the ideal of the fund. If the board comprised volunteers who were not paid fees, the membership could rotate and three-year terms of office could be used rather than five years. That would provide for through flow in expertise that would reflect the different fields covered by the grants and the population spread in Ireland, which is important.

Deputy Ross raised the question of the NTMA controlling the fund. The Minister should invest the money in An Post savings bonds rather than use the NTMA as the holding company for the fund, as this would boost the assets of An Post. Somebody who invests in one of the company's savings accounts is better off than those who invested in NTMA pension funds, which are under severe strain. The savings accounts yield a greater return with the NTMA not being as effective in using moneys invested with it to generate a good return. The agency may be good at managing money but it has not generated great returns for the Government. The money from the dormant accounts fund could also be invested in Government bonds which would be cashed in as required. Last year, the national solidarity bond was announced and money could be invested in that, although it is managed by the NTMA. If the money was invested in Government bonds, it could be drawn down as required when grants are paid out.

While my concerns are minor criticisms, I do not oppose the Bill. The amount in the fund is reducing and I wonder whether the fund could be enhanced. How could we boost this fund to address shortfalls in funding of community groups, in particular, and other projects in disadvantaged areas? Money confiscated by the Criminal Assets Bureau or the courts is diverted to the Exchequer because it is treated as revenue when, in fact, it is the proceeds of crime following the sale of cars, yachts and houses. I have argued with previous Ministers about this but they said such moneys could not be ring-fenced. However, I have proven that this is done. For example, the plastic bag levy is ring-fenced for environmental purposes. CAB confiscated moneys should be diverted to the communities most affected by crime. In most cases, these are disadvantaged communities. This pot of money could be transferred to bolster the dormant accounts fund and enable it to fulfil the role it was established to play.

In addition, judges often direct that money be put in the poor box. While this is administered by the Courts Service and a number of charities benefit, this process is not transparent and we do not know where the money goes. The charities that benefit know, but if this money was transferred to the dormant accounts fund, it would be recognised publicly. If the money was transferred to the fund, it could be administered openly to the benefit of all.

This is not a contentious Bill but I am adamant that a Minister should not have it within his or her gift to administer the fund. The pot of gold available to community groups in recent years has reduced and it looks like the finance available to them will be restricted for another few years. This means they have had to cut back on programmes and they have been forced to scour everywhere for money for summer projects for senior citizen outings, further education, keep fit groups etc., and for the refurbishment of community halls and so on. Previously, they could access money from local authorities or the sports capital programme but this funding has been squeezed repeatedly. If the dormant accounts fund was enhanced in the ways I suggest, that might restore the faith of some struggling communities. They have to fund raise among their own people who have been hit in their pockets through increased taxes and the increased cost of living. Many community organisations have had to scale back their hours and the opening times of their centres or had to cancel projects altogether. That is why I support an enhanced fund to ensure the community programmes administered by various Departments can be fully funded as they were previously. I appeal to the Minister to find additional sources of money, ring-fence them for the dormant accounts fund and keep the money on deposit with An Post. This would benefit the company, as its balance sheet has been struggling. It would be nice for An Post to have this pot of gold on its balance sheet and, therefore, there would be a double benefit. It would also take some of the pressure off the NTMA, which has not been delivering in terms of returns on other investments it has been asked to deliver upon.

I hope the Bill will be altered on Committee Stage to reflect some of the points made by other speakers but also to reflect some of my points. It could never then be levelled at us that we put together a Bill which ended up doing exactly what it set out not to do, namely, promote political patronage. We do not want that, and it is one of the criticisms the Dormant Accounts Board had levelled against others. We want to make sure that whatever happens here is as transparent as possible and that this is not a political slush fund for whoever is in government to disperse in specific constituencies or on specific projects for electoral purposes. This area is too important for that.

The fund is to address disadvantage, and I do not mean disadvantage that emerged this year or last year. Some of the areas that have benefited in a small way from the moneys in dormant accounts have been disadvantaged for many generations. While this pot will not solve their problems and will not address all of their issues, it might help with some of the smaller issues or give a leg-up to some of the projects and schemes, whether it is a case of educational schemes, after-school clubs, crèches, school arts and music programmes which try to lift an area in general, or the whole range of other programmes which have been affected.

In my area many people have benefited and have been very welcoming of this fund, and they were concerned about what would happen when the fund ran out. This is why I suggested the use of CAB moneys, court moneys or a similar, once-off pot of money that had not been accounted for in the past. For example, the DIRT inquiry brought in a lot of money. When money comes in which is outside the normal, it should be ring-fenced and used for abnormal projects. These projects are abnormal because they are addressing key problems and key areas of inequality in our society, which is a good thing. I hope the Minister will reflect on the points I have made.

See this speech in context