Dáil debates

Wednesday, 11 May 2005

Dormant Accounts (Amendment) Bill 2004 [Seanad]: Report Stage (Resumed).

 

Debate resumed on amendment No. 8:

In page 5, to delete lines 40 to 45 and substitute the following:

"32.—(1) The Board shall consist of a chairperson and 10 ordinary members appointed by the Minister and shall include—

(a) an officer of the Minister not below the rank of principal officer,

(b) a person who, in the Minister's opinion, represents the interests of the financial services industry,

(c) 4 persons who—

(i) in the Minister's opinion, have knowledge of, or experience in relation to, the purposes for which disbursements may be made, and

(ii) are appointed by the Minister after consultation with the organisations that the Minister considers to be representative of the purposes so specified,

(d) 4 persons who, in the Minister's opinion, have knowledge of, or experience relating to any other matters that appear to the Minister to be relevant to the Board's functions.".

—(Deputy McGinley).

12:00 pm

Photo of Dinny McGinleyDinny McGinley (Donegal South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

This amendment goes to the core of this Bill because it deals with the composition of the new board and the emasculation of the old one. Yesterday, I said this is a reversal of Government policy for many years. There are probably more boards in this country than in many other countries of our size. There are boards to deal with every matter which does not seem to cause any problem. They seem to be operating very effectively. We all remember when planning appeals went directly to the Minister of the day and he or she had the last word on planning permission. In our combined wisdom the Members of this House did not think that was the right way to proceed so we established An Bord Pleanála. Now one applies for planning permission and if anyone is unhappy with the decision it is referred to An Bord Pleanála, which makes a decision and that is usually accepted. That system seems to be operating very effectively.

This amendment refers to the composition of the new board. The existing board has done its work very well. It has issued regular reports which we appreciate and value. I have not heard any great criticism of how it has been carrying our its work or duties so far. The new board will be chosen by the Minister and his colleagues. We do not yet know who will be on that board but whoever is on the board will have no powers whatsoever. The Minister will have the last word. I do not know what will be the function of the new board. There will be nine or ten people on the board and they will travel to Dublin regularly to meet. Is there need for such a board when the Minister will have the power to make decisions?

The heart of the matter is that the board is being dissolved and a new board, which will be just a fig leaf, will be established in its place. The powers will revert to the Government. This reverses what has happened for many years where boards were granted powers. Boards deal with several Departments. CIE, for example, has a board. The National Roads Authority does its work effectively. There are many other areas where boards exist, but this is a reversal of a policy established two or three years ago by the former Minister for Finance. At the time he was adamant that the system should be operated in this way so there would be no accusations of a slush fund or irregularities. The position has changed in two or three years. The philosophy behind the disbursement of these funds has changed.

We discussed this at length on Committee Stage, but if the provisions of this amendment are not taken into consideration, the entire philosophy behind the disbursement of funds will be changed. It will politicise the process instead of leaving it to the independent board. I feel very strongly about this, as does my party. We hope that the Minister yields somewhat on this issue.

Photo of Brian O'SheaBrian O'Shea (Waterford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

This is a sensible amendment. The Minister may be concerned that his hands, or those of his successor, will be tied, but I do not see it that way. I am not a fan of nominees on boards because, as I said on Committee Stage, some people are good at getting elected to these positions, but they may not be the people one would want. The Minister is proposing an emasculated version of the present board. The board operates in an area where, as the Minister of State at the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs, Deputy Noel Ahern, stated on Second Stage, approximately €200 million is involved.

One person will be nominated to represent the community and voluntary sector, another to represent the educational sector and a third to represent the disability sector. I will not go into detail on the personalities on the board, but there is not much difference between the proposal in the Fine Gael amendment in the name of Deputy McGinley and that in the Bill. The amendment tightens up the provision slightly.

The first proposal is that the Bill should include an officer of the Minister not below the rank of principal officer. There is a principal officer from the Department on the present board. On Committee Stage it was stated that sometimes the nominee of the Minister, a Department official, is considered as the Minister's spy, but I take a different view. Someone who has reached the level of principal officer in a Department is highly experienced, would have good general knowledge of the law obtaining in various areas and would bring expertise to the position. There are few, if any, State boards that would not benefit from having someone of that calibre from the State sector on the board.

The proposal in the Bill and in the amendment seem to be ad idem. As I understand it, there was no responsibility on the Minister to appoint someone who was not below the rank of principal officer. It is no harm including this in the Bill. For instance, a Minister may be at odds with the public service and may, for revenge, decide not to appoint a member of the public service. There is no harm in closing off that possibility. There is probably general agreement among Members in favour of having someone of senior rank from the parent Department on State boards.

There is a person on the present board who represents the interests of the financial industry. I am not sure the interests of that industry are paramount, but this person is useful in the context of knowledge of the financial industry. The former Minister for Finance, Charlie McCreevy saw that, with such large sums involved, the expertise of someone from the Irish Bankers Federation, in this case, was important. I do not see what the problem is here.

Paragraphs (c) and (d) bring a certain order to the composition of the board and refer to knowledge or experience relating to matters that appear to the Minister to be relevant to the functions of the board. One cannot have people with minute knowledge of every sector, whether the voluntary, community or disability sector. The amendment would improve the Bill and the Minister has not presented any argument that alters my view in that regard.

Photo of Éamon Ó CuívÉamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I hope I will be able to persuade Members that what I am proposing is stronger than the amendment. When one is thinking of law one has to read the words carefully. I agree with Deputy McGinley that there are roles for independent boards carrying out certain functions. We all agree with that as a matter of principle. The question we have to decide is where it is more appropriate for a board and where it is more appropriate for Departments to carry out certain functions. For example, in the case of An Bord Pleanála, I agree it should be done by an independent board. That function was much better taken out of the hands of politicians and I have no argument with that.

There are other functions that we have taken out of the hands of politicians and put in the hands of boards where we made a mistake. It is not a simple matter. It is not a case of all or nothing in these cases. If we were debating this issue a year ago Deputy McGinley might have had a slightly different view of An Bord Pleanála. We all heard much criticism of the fact that a certain NGO had a disproportionate power to nominate people representing a particular point of view and that the contrary point of view in regard to rural development was not represented in the bodies that nominate to An Bord Pleanála. There was a perception that there was an overweening tendency in one direction because of the nominating powers of a certain body on that board as opposed to the contrary view which might be slightly more tolerant and have a different perspective on rural communities, rural life, parishes and the way in which rural society works. There is an interesting debate about nominating bodies.

Let us compare what is being proposed by the amendment and what is contained in the section. I did not amend this section on Committee Stage in the Seanad following representations and arguments made by the Opposition. The knowledge, experience, skills, personalities, integrity and ability of members rather than who suggested their names is of paramount importance. All members of the board must have those qualities. The previous board required that only three members fall into that category. The issue of financial expertise was suggested when the board was being set up. One could see the money issue as relatively minor but the board does not have any function in handling money directly. In other words, it does not have to look after the investments and so on. It is a disbursement board with a social ethos. That is not to say a person with a financial expertise should not be a member of the board but I am not sure if they have to be specifically mentioned on the board. The disbursement of this money and the plan is much more about social focus than any marvellous financial wizardry. If it was an investment board that was investing and putting money aside and had to look after the investments, which in this case is done by the finance agency, I would say a person with expertise on how to get the maximum return on one's investment was needed. That is not what is at issue here, this is about a plan and disbursements. Therefore, that is a provision that has run its course given that the board is up and running.

The issue of principal officer representation on the board is interesting. I said on Committee Stage that I do not have a black or white view and I do not know if there is a black or white view in the public service about it. It is not a question of I having a different view from the public service. Doctors differ and patients die. In this case there is a different view. On the issue of State boards there are two theories, the first is that they exist, not like private companies to do as they wish but to implement Government policy. The second theory is more prevalent nowadays that the directors of the board or a nominee of the board do not have any regard for Government policy and are free agents. I am still of the former view, that is, that there is an obligation on the appointees to State boards to have cognisance of Government policy because at the end of the day anything else would not lead to coherence.

One of the arguments in favour of having a nominee of the Minister on a State board in the form of a public servant of the rank of principal or above is that is one way of trying to ensure Government policy is reflected in decisions of the board. The argument against is that frequently a board has to refer a matter to the Minister who has to get advice. Normally that advice comes from the section in the Department dealing with the particular board. For example, if Údarás na Gaeltachta, the Western Development Commission and so on, want a change in a ministerial power they would write to the Minister who would seek advice from his civil servants. Normally the civil servant who would prepare the advice would be the principal officer, the assistant secretary and the Secretary General but it is largely driven by the principal officer in the section dealing it. This is an interesting debate and I do not have a black or white view on it. If the principal officer who advises the Minister is also a member of the board who put the proposal to the Minister, he or she winds up in a slightly invidious position because he or she is advising the Minister on an issue on which he or she helped to make the decision. If the civil servant had opposed that issue at the board and it comes to the Minister and he or she advises the Minister who goes against it, the allegation would be made that the civil servant used the power to betray the Minister. There is an argument for saying the public servant is better dealing with the boards on behalf of the Minister in direct dealings with the board and the public servant acting on the Minister's behalf outside of the board. I do not have a fixed view on this matter but I am not convinced it is always the case that the best arrangement is to have the public servant on the board. I am not convinced absolutely in one direction or the other. It is an open question.

With Údarás na Gaeltachta, a board that works under the remit of my Department, we have developed a sophisticated interaction between the board and the executive of Údarás and my Department which is positive. This is achieved by regular discussion and a series of meetings but not by having a member on the board. To a certain extent it is better as it leaves the board freer and it allows the us to act as per the Department's and the Minister's interests. I do not wish to tie my successor on this issue. I am not saying firmly whether during my term of office I will put a principal officer on the board. It is a matter on which I have two views and I am not 100% certain. It is a case of making a decision as matters evolve and in the circumstances of the time and I do not want to enshrine it in legislation. In certain cases, I have opted not to put civil servants on State boards even though my predecessors did. I can see the contrary argument and I do not wish to tie my successor's hand on that issue.

On the issue of community and voluntary representation the amendment proposes that the board shall include four persons who, in the Minister's opinion, have knowledge of, or experience in relation to, the purposes for which disbursements may be made.

The Bill refers to not fewer than four of the ten ordinary members and I have stated previously that all the members must have knowledge and experience. The Bill as it stands states that not fewer than four of the ten ordinary members appointed in this regard shall be persons whom in the Minister's opinion have knowledge in fields relating to the purposes for which the disbursements may be made under section 41, in other words, social and economic deprivation, educational disadvantage and disability. I propose that the members are appointed following consideration by the Minister of any submissions received in response to a published notice indicating that appointments will be made to the board and inviting recommendations relating to those appointments.

Deputy McGinley's amendment proposes that they have the knowledge and experience but I have gone further. I have proposed something slightly more comprehensive than Deputy McGinley.

I refer to Deputy McGinley's amendment :

(c) 4 persons who—

(ii) are appointed by the Minister after consultation with the organisations that the Minister considers to be representative of the purposes so specified,

I ask Deputy McGinley to reflect on his proposal. The Deputy is saying that I nominate the bodies so that I as Minister or whoever succeeds me as Minister nominates the bodies who can send in the names. The Deputy' s amendment does not propose the Minister must take their advice on the names. I simply have to consult and I consult with bodies of my choosing. My proposal is wider. I propose putting an advertisement in the newspapers and any body who believes it is relevant can send in names. If the Deputy's amendment is accepted, the Minister is not tied to accepting the names and I accept this is also true in the case of my proposal. However, the Deputy's case does not tighten up on that. In the case the Deputy proposes, the Minister is given more power as the only bodies who can nominate names are the bodies the Minister chooses, whereas in my proposal anybody relevant to the sector can nominate a name. I am much more liberal in this regard and I am giving much less power to the Minister in terms of this consultation process.

In both cases the reality is that the Minister, allowing that very competent names are proposed, would be a fool if he totally ignored the names. We discussed freedom of information provisions yesterday. These would obviously come to the Minister and the Department and it would be easy to check on who was nominated.

I have a bit of a fetish about the next issue. I had this experience when I was in the Department of Agriculture and Food. I am not keen on bodies nominating people to boards, my problem being they become somewhat the prisoner of the body who nominates them. It is a very technical point. I am slightly keener on the idea that bodies can propose names of people to be appointed. Technically speaking the Minister makes the appointment so that if a body has nominated or suggested a name and then applies pressure for the nominee to take a narrow view of things, the nominee can say he or she is acting in the public good, will act independently and will not answer to the nominating body because his or her appointment was made by the Minister. This will give the nominee a totally free hand to act in the interests of the board and not merely representing a particular organisation or sector. This is an esoteric point but it gives board members who might have been suggested by a body that little bit of extra freedom when they are acting on the board.

In summary, I suggest Deputy McGinley reflects on what I have said. In neither case is one bound by the names nominated. In the case of the amendment to this section which is the key section and is important to all of us, the Minister will be given the right to nominate those who can nominate names whereas in my proposal, any body of the view that it is relevant to the sector, be it big or small or local or whatever, would be allowed nominate names for appointment to the board. The Minister would therefore have less control under my suggestion than under the Deputy's proposal. The Deputy may not have intended this but his amendment would give the Minister more power and allow more room for allegations that the Minister picked the bodies that he thought were friendly towards him rather than my suggestion of public advertisement. The Minister must then trawl through the names suggested. In neither case is the Minister constrained by the names suggested but one would be very foolish to ignore the names and would do so at one's peril.

Photo of Dinny McGinleyDinny McGinley (Donegal South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The difficulty arises with subsection (1)(c) where nominating bodies are given the power to nominate members or to recommend members to be appointed by the Minister. I have listened carefully to the Minister's reply. As proposed by the Minister the board will be nominated by the Minister with no nomination from the voluntary sector or the community sector and this is fine. The board is the Minister's creature, if I can put it that way. There will be the Minister's people on the board. It will be a board of ten members with a chairman. If four members are to be nominated by bodies this will strengthen the board. It will give the board some independence.

Photo of Éamon Ó CuívÉamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That is not what the Deputy's amendment says. It refers to persons appointed by the Minister.

Photo of Dinny McGinleyDinny McGinley (Donegal South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

They will be nominated by the bodies and sanctioned by the Minister.

Photo of Éamon Ó CuívÉamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I ask the Deputy to read his amendment. It proposes the Minister consults with the bodies he thinks are important and then he can nominate what four members he wishes.

Photo of Dinny McGinleyDinny McGinley (Donegal South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Does the Minister intend having discussions with these organisations?

Photo of Éamon Ó CuívÉamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am serious about this point. The Deputy's amendment proposes the members are appointed by the Minister following consultation with organisations that the Minister considers to be representative of the purposes so specified. It proposes the Minister makes the appointment, he must consult but he decides with whom he will consult.

I accept that what I have inserted in the Bill was a change brought in on Committee Stage in the Seanad and therefore there was not time to reflect on it. My proposal is that they are appointed following consideration by the Minister of any submissions received in response to a published notice indicating that appointments will be made to the board and inviting recommendations relating to those appointments. The mechanics are the same in that they are all appointed by the Minister and the only difference between us is that I propose putting an advertisement in the newspapers and any body who regards itself as representative of the interests involved can send in a submission. I do not choose which organisations those are. The Deputy's amendment is giving the Minister the power to choose the nominating organisations and to exclude those he does not favour. I propose putting an advertisement in the newspapers and any relevant organisation, whether I like it or not can nominate. My proposal gives much more power to organisations than does the Deputy's amendment which will constrain it to the Minister's choice of organisation. Does the Deputy understand me?

I know this is not what was intended. I guessed the amendment was originally drafted before my provision was inserted in the Bill which was drafted on the Seanad version of the Bill. The Deputy's amendment would hand more power back to the Minister to allow him nominate the organisations.

Photo of Dinny McGinleyDinny McGinley (Donegal South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Section 30(1) of the Bill states:

The Board shall consist of a chairperson and 10 ordinary members, all of whom are to be appointed by the Minister from persons who, in his or her opinion, have knowledge of, or experience relating to, matters that appear to the Minister to be relevant to the Board's functions.

Does it specify there——

Photo of Éamon Ó CuívÉamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Section 30(3) states:

Not fewer than 4 of the 10 ordinary members appointed under this section are to be persons who—

(a) in the Minister's opinion, have knowledge of, and experience relating to, the purposes for which disbursements may be made under section 41, and

(b) are appointed following consideration by the Minister of any submissions received in response to a published notice indicating that appointments will be made to the Board and inviting recommendations relating to those appointments.

Jerry Cowley (Mayo, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I remind Members that this is not Committee Stage.

Photo of Éamon Ó CuívÉamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am just trying to be helpful. I believe that what I am suggesting is more open. The Deputy is suggesting that the Minister gets to choose the bodies that can make recommendations. I am proposing to place an advertisement in the newspapers and anybody wishing to do so can make a submission. The Deputy seeks to give me the power to select the organisations and I want to leave it open to anybody. I am being more open. This leaves two differences between us, the other one being the Deputy's proposal to require the board membership to include a person representing the interests of the financial services industry and a principal officer. I have given my reasons for opposing that provision. I am not against it but I do not want to write it in for my successors.

Photo of Dinny McGinleyDinny McGinley (Donegal South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Do I understand that community and voluntary bodies will have the opportunity to make representations or submit names and the Minister will then exercise his power of selecting four of them?

Photo of Éamon Ó CuívÉamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

This is more or less what the Deputy proposes except that he would have me nominate the bodies. I am suggesting that any body could do so, which is more liberal than the Deputy's suggestion.

Photo of Dinny McGinleyDinny McGinley (Donegal South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

However, ultimately they will be members of a board that has little or no power. I do not know what the board will do other than writing reports on the Minister's activities. It will be very difficult for a board selected by the Minister to write critical reports of how he carries out his activities in the disbursement of these funds.

Photo of Éamon Ó CuívÉamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Aontaím leis an phointe ghinearálta, ach ní aontaím leis an leasú atá an phlé againn. Ar an leasú, is liobrálaíé an rud atá i gceist agamsa ná an rud atá i gceist ag an Teachta.

Photo of Dinny McGinleyDinny McGinley (Donegal South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Más mar sin é, níl a fhios agam cad é a shílim.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Jerry Cowley (Mayo, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Amendments Nos. 9 to 14, inclusive, are out of order.

Amendments Nos. 9 to 14, inclusive, not moved.

Photo of Brian O'SheaBrian O'Shea (Waterford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 15:

In page 13, between lines 47 and 48, to insert the following:

"(4) Prior to exercising a function under this subsection (3), the Minister shall request the Board to furnish him or her with a draft submission relating to the matters referred to in subsection (3), and the Minister shall have regard to such draft submission, and shall, in the event that the Government decides to depart from such draft submission prepared by the Board, publish a statement giving details and reasons for any such departure from the Board's proposals.".

We covered this amendment extensively on Committee Stage and we had no meeting of minds on the matter. I have again tabled the amendment because I want a high level of transparency and accountability. The Minister's major criticism was that this would insert another layer of bureaucracy. As a point of departure I agree that bureaucracy should always be minimised when dealing with such areas. However, my amendment essentially gets to the kernel of my and the Labour Party's difficulty with the Bill. I still await solid reasons from the Minister as to why this was necessary. I would like the Minister to expand on how the board reacted to the changes proposed.

When we get to the stage of assessment of applications and publication of decision, section 44(3) states that following receipt of the results of each assessment, the Minister shall submit to the Government for its approval the assessments and the amounts. We suggest that as a penultimate step the assessments should be referred to the board to make an assessment. This is not proposed to tie the Minister's hands in any way. The only reason for this proposal is that if the Minister were to depart from what is recommended, as he or she would be free to do if the amendment were accepted, a full explanation would need to be given as to why that departure took place. This is an added safeguard, which admittedly adds to the administration. However, at times it is not wrong to increase administration.

There was no meeting of minds on Committee Stage and I would be amazed if there was a meeting of minds now. I expect I will be forced to put the amendment to a vote.

Photo of Éamon Ó CuívÉamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

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.

Photo of Brian O'SheaBrian O'Shea (Waterford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We have worked around and debated these issues, and there is no meeting of minds, so I will press the amendment.

Amendment put.

The Dail Divided:

For the motion: 49 (Bernard Allen, Dan Boyle, Pat Breen, Tommy Broughan, Richard Bruton, Paul Connaughton, Joe Costello, Jerry Cowley, Seymour Crawford, Seán Crowe, John Deasy, Jimmy Deenihan, Olwyn Enright, Eamon Gilmore, Tom Hayes, Séamus Healy, Michael D Higgins, Brendan Howlin, Paul Kehoe, Enda Kenny, Kathleen Lynch, Pádraic McCormack, Dinny McGinley, Finian McGrath, Paul McGrath, Liz McManus, Olivia Mitchell, Arthur Morgan, Breeda Moynihan-Cronin, Catherine Murphy, Gerard Murphy, Dan Neville, Aengus Ó Snodaigh, Fergus O'Dowd, Jim O'Keeffe, Brian O'Shea, Jan O'Sullivan, Séamus Pattison, Ruairi Quinn, Pat Rabbitte, Michael Ring, Eamon Ryan, Seán Ryan, Trevor Sargent, Joe Sherlock, Róisín Shortall, Emmet Stagg, Billy Timmins, Mary Upton)

Against the motion: 62 (Barry Andrews, Seán Ardagh, Niall Blaney, Johnny Brady, Martin Brady, John Browne, Joe Callanan, Ivor Callely, John Carty, Donie Cassidy, Michael J Collins, Beverley Flynn, Mary Coughlan, John Cregan, Martin Cullen, John Curran, Noel Davern, Síle de Valera, Noel Dempsey, Tony Dempsey, John Dennehy, Jimmy Devins, Frank Fahey, Dermot Fitzpatrick, Seán Fleming, Mildred Fox, Pat Gallagher, Noel Grealish, Mary Harney, Seán Haughey, Jackie Healy-Rae, Máire Hoctor, Joe Jacob, Cecilia Keaveney, Billy Kelleher, Tony Killeen, Séamus Kirk, Tom Kitt, Brian Lenihan Jnr, Tom McEllistrim, John McGuinness, Micheál Martin, John Moloney, Michael Moynihan, Michael Mulcahy, Éamon Ó Cuív, Seán Ó Fearghaíl, Liz O'Donnell, John O'Donoghue, Ned O'Keeffe, Fiona O'Malley, Tim O'Malley, Tom Parlon, Peter Power, Dick Roche, Mae Sexton, Brendan Smith, Michael Smith, Noel Treacy, Dan Wallace, Mary Wallace, Joe Walsh)

Tellers: Tá, Deputies Stagg and Kehoe; Níl, Deputies Kitt and Kelleher.

Amendment declared lost.

1:00 pm

Photo of Éamon Ó CuívÉamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 16:

In page 14, lines 28 to 30, to delete all words from and including "or" in line 28 down to and including "section" in line 30 and substitute the following:

", advisers or other service providers engaged for any purpose relating to applications for disbursements under this Part".

This is essentially a technical amendment the purpose of which is to modify slightly an amendment I introduced on Committee Stage. The effect of this amendment is to provide that all appropriate expenses incurred by Departments through the engagement of service providers to process and assess applications will be met from the dormant accounts fund. The amendment I introduced on Committee Stage provided that the costs incurred by public bodies of engaging service providers to carry out assessment work on applications would be recoverable from the fund. I have since been advised that the wording of the Committee Stage amendment could be interpreted in a narrow way and might not provide that all appropriate costs would be included in the event that it is decided to engage service providers to assist at various stages of the process.

This amendment ensures the appropriate costs incurred in the assessment of applications, such as inviting, receiving, assessing and notifying, are included. Deputies are aware the existing board engaged Area Development Management Limited as a service provider to administer the initial round of funding on its behalf. The board reimburses Area Development Management Limited with all relevant costs incurred in carrying out this work. Under the new arrangements, similar provisions may apply, with Departments engaging service providers to assist in the process of receiving and assessing applications for funding. For this reason, I am advised this amendment is necessary to provide the required flexibility.

I will put this in simple terms to avoid the legalese. Under the current arrangement, the board has engaged Area Development Management Limited and the latter's expenses are recuperable from the fund. The new arrangement means any expenses incurred by Departments will come out of their administrative budgets. In the event of a Department engaging a service provider such as Area Development Management Limited to do work on its behalf, however, the money would be recuperable from the fund. This effectively restores the status quo. The Committee Stage amendment was deemed not to cover notifications and other parts of the process. This technical amendment rectifies that and I ask Members to agree to it.

Amendment agreed to.

Photo of Brian O'SheaBrian O'Shea (Waterford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 17:

In page 16, to delete lines 27 to 30.

This amendment proposes to delete section 10 of the Bill which states:

Section 47 of the Principal Act is amended—

(a) by deleting subsection (2), and

(b) in subsection (3) by deleting "or the chairperson of the Board, as the case may be, ".

Subsection (2) of section 47 of the principal Act, the Dormant Accounts Act 2001, reads: "Whenever required by the Committee of Public Accounts, the chairperson of the Board shall give evidence to that Committee on any matter relating to the functions of this Board under this Act." Subsection (3) states: "When performing duties under this section, the Chief Executive of the Agency or the chairperson of the Board, as the case may be, shall not question or express an opinion on the merits of any policy of the Government or a Minister of the Government or on the merits of the objectives of such a policy." It is clear that if the chairman of the board cannot be summoned before the Committee of Public Accounts, the issue of expressing an opinion on the merits of any Government policy or the merits of the objectives of such a policy does not arise.

I listened carefully to the Minister's arguments in support of this section. For me it boils down to the fact this is the chairperson of a board which, at the time of the Second Stage debate, had €200 million to disburse. I am sure we would all agree that is not an insubstantial amount of money. The Minister wants to amend the legislation so that the chairperson of that board cannot be requested to appear before the Committee of Public Accounts, although the chief executive can be. When the board had a wider function, the chairperson could be summoned to appear before the Committee of Public Accounts under the principal Act. However, the board will now have a reduced function and the chairperson will be released from the obligation to appear before the Committee of Public Accounts.

The Minister advanced arguments in regard to who the Accounting Officer is and so on. However, if one looks at this objectively, it appears that the Minister is protecting the chairperson of a State board which is responsible for a fund of €200 million and that he wants us to legislate so that this person cannot be summoned before the Committee of Public Accounts. I listened to the Minister's arguments carefully and I am happy to do so again today. Reasonable members of the public will read that the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs has decided that the chairperson of a State board, which is responsible for a fund of €200 million, does not have to appear before the Committee of Public Accounts.

I present a simple argument which I have repeated a number of times because it must be stressed. The arguments put forward are fine but is this the case with the chairperson of any other State board? Does this exemption apply only to this board? I await the Minister's explanation.

Photo of Dinny McGinleyDinny McGinley (Donegal South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I agree with Deputy O'Shea that this is a very reasonable amendment. It is unthinkable that the chairman of a board, which is a very powerful position, would not be obliged to explain decisions before the Committee of Public Accounts. I have never been a member of the Committee of Public Accounts but I have watched the proceedings occasionally. If I am not mistaken, chairpersons of other boards are obliged to appear before the Committee of Public Accounts to give an account of their actions and what they do. Perhaps the Minister will explain why it is not the case with this board. Is this an exception? Are we setting a precedent?

Photo of Éamon Ó CuívÉamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The effect of this amendment is to delete section 10. This section is consequential to the board's changed role regarding decision making in that it removes the accountability of the chairperson to the Committee of Public Accounts for decisions on disbursements made by the former board. Removal of this section will create an anomaly whereby the board would no longer make decisions on disbursements but its chairman would remain accountable to the Committee of Public Accounts for decisions in which he or she no longer had arole.

We have considered this matter and have consulted but we are still of the same opinion. When the new board arrangements come into place and a disbursement takes place, the person accountable for that disbursement to the Committee of Public Accounts will be the Accounting Officer of the relevant Department. Therefore, if one is unhappy with a disbursement, one wants an explanation or one wants to call someone to account and one is a member of the Committee of Public Accounts, the person one would call in is the Secretary General of the relevant Department which disbursed the money. To call in the chairman of the board, who would not have made the disbursement, would create an anomaly because one would be calling in the wrong person. This is about having one person accountable for the spend and not two people. We must make the agencies making the disbursements, namely, Departments, accountable.

We checked this matter and in the case of bodies which do not make disbursements directly, the relevant chairperson is not accountable to the Committee of Public Accounts.

Photo of Brian O'SheaBrian O'Shea (Waterford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

To which boards does the Minister refer?

Photo of Éamon Ó CuívÉamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That is a rule where offices and boards do not make disbursements. Where they make direct disbursement, they are accountable for the money to the Committee of Public Accounts. For example, Oifig an Chomisinéara Teanga only has administrative money and does not make disbursements and, therefore, it does not have a responsibility——

Photo of Brian O'SheaBrian O'Shea (Waterford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Does he have a board?

Photo of Éamon Ó CuívÉamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

No, but he has an office. He is not an accounting officer in terms of being answerable to the Committee of Public Accounts. It is not a question of whether he has a board since the office only handles administrative money. The same applies to this board in that there is no disbursement function directly attributable to the board. The disbursements will be made by Departments.

Let us suppose my Department made a disbursement under the new arrangements and the Committee of Public Accounts wanted to query it and call in the person responsible to discuss the issue. The person it would call in is the Secretary General of the Department and not the chairman of the board. It would be invidious to call in the latter who would have had no role in the disbursement. We are not talking about policy decisions but about disbursements and accountability for money. We could not call in the chairman of the board and the Accounting Officer of the Department.

In the arrangements we have made, it is clear the accounting officer would have to account for the spend. That is the way we have constructed it. The chairman of the board could not be held accountable to the Committee of Public Accounts for actions over which he or she had not control. The Deputy is trying to put the chairperson in an impossible position.

The chairman of the former board will remain accountable for the disbursements it has made but the new board chairman could not be held responsible for disbursements over which the board had no responsibility. That would be a matter for the Secretary General. It is not a question of nobody being responsible to the Committee of Public Accounts but the Deputy is looking for the wrong person to be responsible. The Secretaries General will be called in. When one thinks about it, two people could not be responsible. Under the arrangements made, it must be the Secretary General. For that reason, I must oppose the amendment as it would create an unfair situation for the chairperson.

Photo of Brian O'SheaBrian O'Shea (Waterford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am still not satisfied. Section 47 of the principal Act refers to the chief executive of the agency performing duties. Is the Minister telling us the chief executive of the agency is the Secretary General of his Department?

Photo of Éamon Ó CuívÉamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

In that case, it is the National Treasury Management Agency which is managing the fund. It refers to what we were talking about earlier in regard to investment and so on. The NTMA does that and transfers the money to the Dormant Accounts Fund Disbursements Board which then disburses the money. This is why there is a reference to the chief executive of the agency. As the Deputy is aware, the Dormant Accounts Fund Disbursements Board does not have a chief executive but the NTMA does. The chairperson is responsible because the board performs the disbursements. The chief executive of the NTMA remains responsible for the management of the fund, but disbursement will be performed through Departments. Consequently, the relevant Secretaries General will be responsible.

Photo of Brian O'SheaBrian O'Shea (Waterford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

This gets worse. Yesterday I noted that the Minister introduced these changes to the legislation because the Government wants to get its hands on the fund before the next general election. However, section 47 of the principal Act as amended is a muddle. It refers to a chief executive who is a chief executive of another agency as far as handling the money is concerned. It refers to a chief executive of the board when there is not one.

Photo of Éamon Ó CuívÉamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

There never was one.

Photo of Brian O'SheaBrian O'Shea (Waterford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Then why is a chief executive mentioned when none exists? Is this fantasy legislation?

Photo of Éamon Ó CuívÉamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

There is one.

Photo of Brian O'SheaBrian O'Shea (Waterford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Minister has found him.

Photo of Dan NevilleDan Neville (Limerick West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Minister should make up his mind.

Photo of Éamon Ó CuívÉamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

If the Deputy checks the definitions in the Dormant Accounts Act 2001, he will find that "agency" means the National Treasury Management Agency. Anywhere that the word "agency" is mentioned in the Dormant Accounts Act 2001 and in this Bill, it refers to the National Treasury Management Agency because that is what the definition at the front of the Bill states. Therefore, anywhere the Bill refers to the chief executive of the agency, it refers to the National Treasury Management Agency, commonly known as the NTMA. The chief executive of the NTMA will be accountable, because he is accountable for the good management of the total fund to the Committee of Public Accounts. At present, the chairperson of the Dormant Accounts Fund Disbursements Board is accountable to the Committee of Public Accounts because currently, the board makes disbursements. The term "board" is also defined in the definitions. Under the new arrangements, however, the board will not make disbursements. Two activities are involved here, namely the management of the fund by the NTMA and the disbursements by the board. The management of the fund remains with the NTMA and therefore its chief executive will still be responsible to the Committee of Public Accounts. However, the disbursements will be made through Departments and therefore the accounting officer becomes the Secretary General of the relevant Department. That person will be called before the Committee of Public Accounts, not the chairperson of the board as heretofore. To do anything else would create——

Jerry Cowley (Mayo, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I remind the Deputy and the Minister that this is not Committee Stage and that the Deputy has the floor. The Minister will have the chance to respond.

Photo of Brian O'SheaBrian O'Shea (Waterford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

This becomes more muddled as we go along. There is an enormous need to go back and redraft this section. The Minister made an analogy with An Coimisinéir Teanga. As he conceded, An Coimisinéir Teanga does not have a board. In terms of accountability to this House, to whom is the chairperson of the board responsible? Obviously, the Committee of Public Accounts or any other committee cannot hold the chairperson of the board responsible for actions for which he or she is not responsible. Surely however, as a modern-day democracy it should be within the power of the Committee of Public Accounts to summon the chairperson to deal with those issues for which he or she has responsibility and which could impinge on the decisions taken by the chief executive of the other agency, the National Treasury Management Agency. This becomes more incredible as we go along.

My suggestion has some merit. However, because of the overall sloppiness in the Bill's structure and drafting, the Minister should go back to Committee Stage and return with a properly amended section 47 so that its purpose is clear to anyone reading the legislation. There is a principle whereby a chairperson of a board involved with a fund of €200 million is not being accountable to the Committee of Public Accounts for the actions for which that person is responsible. I have not ever come across anything quite like section 47 of the principal Act as we seek to amend it.

Photo of Dinny McGinleyDinny McGinley (Donegal South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am trying to follow the Minster's explanation to the best of my ability. As I understand it, the current board, which will be disbanded when this Bill goes through has a chairperson but no chief executive. The chairperson of the current board is responsible for disbursements and is obliged to appear before the Committee of Public Accounts for any disbursements that are made. Like the present board, the new board to be established will have a chairperson and no chief executive. Although the incoming board will have a chairperson, he or she will not be obliged to appear before the Committee of Public Accounts. The obligation to do so will revert to the Department and it will be the Secretary General of the Department who is obliged to appear before the Committee of Public Accounts.

Photo of Éamon Ó CuívÉamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Deputy has got it in one.

Photo of Dinny McGinleyDinny McGinley (Donegal South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

In addition to being the accounting officer, will the Secretary General of the Department also be the chief executive of the Dormant Accounts Fund Disbursements Board or will there be no such position as a chief executive? I thought the chief executive was mentioned in the Bill?

Photo of Éamon Ó CuívÉamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

May I have one minute to explain the situation clearly?

Photo of Dinny McGinleyDinny McGinley (Donegal South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The chief executive is specifically mentioned in the Bill.

Photo of Éamon Ó CuívÉamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Yes, but it refers to the chief executive of the agency. I know this is complicated but in fact——

Photo of Dinny McGinleyDinny McGinley (Donegal South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

What agency?

Photo of Éamon Ó CuívÉamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I wish to explain as simply as I can. Perhaps I can do this in one and a half minutes. At present, there are two bodies involved. The management of the fund, which, as all the Deputies noted, contains a great deal of money, is performed by the National Treasury Management Agency. It manages the fund and its chief executive must ensure that the agency attempts to get the best returns for the State on the investments in that fund. Any place where the chief executive is mentioned in the legislation, it refers to the agency and to the management of the fund. We change neither the management of the fund nor the accountability for the fund's good management to ensure it is well invested. At present, the second aspect is disbursement. Currently, the board makes disbursements. They are given money by the NTMA and they take care of the disbursements. Consequently, the chairperson must be accountable for dispersing the €30 million, €40 million, €50 million or €60 million that it disburses.

We have agreed in the Bill that those disbursements will no longer be made directly by the board but will be made through Departments. Hence, the responsibility for looking after the disbursed moneys will now devolve to Departments and the individuals who must be held responsible are the individuals who actually make the disbursals. From an accounting point of view these individuals will be the Secretaries General of the relevant Departments. Therefore, the chairperson of the board will be relieved of the requirement to come before the Committee of Public Accounts as he or she will not disburse any money. The chairperson will provide advice on a plan and will conduct reviews but will not disburse funds. Since the chairperson will not disburse funds, he or she cannot be held accountable to the Committee of Public Accounts. The person to be called in if one is unhappy or has a query with a particular disbursement will be the relevant Secretary General. This will also be the case if one wishes to discuss the disbursement or to pay someone a compliment for it. Is that all right?

Photo of Seán CroweSeán Crowe (Dublin South West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

What will the board do?

Photo of Dinny McGinleyDinny McGinley (Donegal South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Good question.

Photo of Éamon Ó CuívÉamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We have discussed this before. This is the entire basis of the Bill. The board will draw up a plan which it will present to the Minister who will bring it before the Cabinet, which he is not currently obliged to do, and it will then review the actions. It is all in section 41. This is rehashing——

Jerry Cowley (Mayo, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is now 1.30 p.m. Will the Minister move the adjournment of the debate?

Photo of Éamon Ó CuívÉamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Can we agree to take the amendment now?

Photo of Dinny McGinleyDinny McGinley (Donegal South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

No.

Photo of Éamon Ó CuívÉamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am advised I must propose the section.

Photo of Brian O'SheaBrian O'Shea (Waterford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I wish to go over this again.

Photo of Éamon Ó CuívÉamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That is fine. I am not in a hurry.

Debate adjourned.

Sitting suspended at 1.30 p.m. and resumed at 2.30 p.m.