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

I was saying before the break that the reason I cannot accept this amendment is that the role of disbursement is being changed from the board to the various Departments. Therefore, the responsibility for accountability has to follow the person, group or Department that makes the disbursements. That is what makes the Deputy's amendment impossible. We checked the position during the break. A number of boards are in the same position, including the Pensions Board, the Adoption Board and the Food Safety Authority of Ireland. These are three examples of statutory boards where the chairperson or chief executive is not accountable to the Committee of Public Accounts under enabling legislation. While some of those have chief executives the Dormant Accounts Board will not have a chief executive. This is the standard practice where there is no disbursement function. In that case accountability is not to the Committee of Public Accounts. In this case the disbursement role is transferring from the board to the Departments and, therefore, responsibility has to transfer to the Secretaries General. Anything else would give two heads and only one disbursement. I hope that reassures the Deputy. What we are doing has to be done if we are to allow the rest of the Bill to stand.

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

I am far from happy with the Bill in its entirety. The complexity the Minister has had to address is that contained in a Bill that was drafted to function in a particular way when we had the Dormant Accounts Fund Disbursements Board. As that is being amended, effectively, we have a paper tiger, a dormant accounts board, which has no real function. Given that it has no real function we should not get too worried on this side to whom it reports. On the other hand it is not good practice to have boards, the role of which has become meaningless. To move from the National Treasury Management Agency, to the Dormant Accounts Fund Disbursement Board, to the Dormant Accounts Board into Departments and so on is messy. While the new board has no function in the area of disbursement the Minister made great play on Committee Stage in terms of the annual report. The Minister made great play on Committee Stage about the annual report. I am far from happy with the Bill. I note the arguments made by the Minister. The precedents he has quoted are not comparable. I suggest the Pensions Board and the Food Safety Board have different functions. When this board does nothing except come up with plans and a report, why should it be necessary for the chairperson to report anywhere? I presume there is nothing preventing a committee of this House, in this instance the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Arts, Sport, Tourism, Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs, calling this new board to account. If this is the case I am prepared to withdraw the amendment.

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

The committee may invite the person to appear before it. I could not give the Deputy a ruling on compellability because I am not 100% sure. If the dormant accounts board was unhappy with anything and it was invited to appear before the committee, I do not think it would be necessary to send a second invitation.

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

On that basis I am prepared to withdraw the amendment. However I ask the Minister to clarify that issue and report back to the spokespersons.

This amendment is also in Deputy Crowe's name.

Séamus Pattison (Carlow-Kilkenny, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Deputy cannot speak now as he has replied in the debate. Is Deputy Crowe objecting to the withdrawal of the amendment?

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

Ba mhaith liom moladh go nglacfar leis an mBille agus buíochas a ghlacadh leis na Teachtaí a ghlac páirt sa díospóireacht. Tuigim go bhfuil malairt tuairime faoin mBille ach, agus é sin ráite, agus é ag dul tríd an dá Theach, bhí díospóireacht thar a bheith foirfe, ciallmhar agus iomlán ann. Tá lúcháir orm gur éirigh linn an Bille seo a chur tríd gan deifir agus gan aon srian ar an bplé a rinne muid. Tá súil agam gur fearr é dá bharr. Glacaim buíochas leis na Teachtaí a ghlac páirt sa díospóireacht agus a chaith go leor ama léi ag cur síos na leasuithe agus ag dul tríd go dian. Glacaim buíochas faoi leith freisin leis na hoifigigh sa Roinn atá ag obair air seo le tamall agus a thug an oiread sin comhairle agus cúnaimh dom agus an Bille seo ag dul tríd.

I thank the Deputies sincerely for their significant input to the Bill. I fully accept that Opposition Deputies do not have the same access to resources. We may not agree on the fundamentals of the Bill but time will tell whether we are right or wrong. The debate was very good and complete. I am happy the Bill was not guillotined. I will ensure the undertakings given during the debate on the operations of the dormant accounts board under the new remit will be fair and equitable and hopefully will achieve the purposes which we all desire.

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

Ba mhaith liom rá go bhfuil an tAire sásta, ar a laghad, teacht isteach agus an argóint a dhéanamh ó gach uile thaobh. Bhí sé sásta é a dhéanamh inniu agus an lá eile nuair a bhí muid á phlé seo. Tá muidinne ar an taobh seo go bunúsach in éadan an Bhille ó thús go deireadh. Cé go bhfuil gach iarracht déanta ag an Aire a dhearcadh féin a thabhairt dúinn, caithfidh muid a rá nach bhfuil sé fírinneach agus dáiríre. Mar sin féin, chímid go bhfuil féidearthachtaí, má théann an Bille seo fríd, nach mbeadh an t-airgead roinnte san am atá amach romhainn mar ba cheart dó a bheith, mura raibh sé sin ar intinn nuair a tugadh an bord isteach den chéad uair roinnt blianta ó shin. Mar sin, níl muid sásta leis an Bhille, agus beidh muid ag vótáil ina éadan go hiomlán.

I appreciate the Minister tried to explain his position to the House on both Committee and Report Stages. I have no grounds to doubt the Minister's firéantacht. My party has opposed at all Stages the basic principle of this Bill which is taking the power away from an independent board which was carrying out its work to everyone's satisfaction since its establishment a number of years ago. This board is being disbanded and the powers of disbursement will return to the Department and will be politicised. Whether the Minister wishes to couch it in those terms or not, that is how it will be perceived by the general public. If anyone wants any money from the dormant accounts fund in future, there is no point in going to the new board. It would be more advisable to go to the Minister's clinic with cap in hand to ask for a grant for a project. It has been my experience that the Minister responds positively to a case when it is well made——

Pádraic McCormack (Galway West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

To the people in his own constituency.

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

Hopefully Deputy McCormack will also be a beneficiary as he shares a constituency with the Minister.

Pádraic McCormack (Galway West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It will only be the crumbs.

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

I do not think it is the right way to go about it. In this day and age in the 21st century no one should be forced to make a case to the political head of a Department in the hope that an application will be favoured. Sin an smior, agus cé go raibh muid ag caint ar bhoird le cúpla lá, is é an prionsabal é féin. Fine Gael will oppose the Fifth Stage of the Bill.

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

I share Deputy McGinley's position. There was an expectation that the dormant accounts fund would deal with the issue of suicide and devolve moneys to groups with expertise in suicide prevention.

Séamus Pattison (Carlow-Kilkenny, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Debate on Fifth Stage is confined to what is in the Bill, not what should be in the Bill. The Deputy's remarks must deal with the contents of the Bill.

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

The Chair is trying to silence me again.

Séamus Pattison (Carlow-Kilkenny, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Chair must abide by the rules of the House.

Dan Boyle (Cork South Central, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Green Party will oppose the Bill on the grounds of the important principle at stake, that the degree of independence which existed has been compromised. The independence of many State bodies is compromised with regard to the method of appointment of such boards and this should be a subject of a wider debate.

The devolution of these powers to the Minister and the Government does not bode well for our political system. While I accept the commitment given by the Minister a few minutes ago that he will work to ensure that the system will not be warped, we will still have an ongoing difficulty, irrespective of whatever future role the Taoiseach might have in mind for the Minister or what the electorate of his constituency might have in mind for who gets elected to future Dáileanna. On those grounds we know that political manipulation of discretionary funds is not only possible, sadly it has been practised all too frequently in the history of political life here. It is not appropriate to allow new legislation to operate on the same basis as previous funds have operated to a nearly fraudulent level. Some discretionary public funds, including ones operating under a statutory basis, have been abused and misused for nakedly political purposes because of the degree of public control that existed in the past. In passing the Bill the House would do a disservice to put back——

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

The Deputy obviously never heard of the Ombudsman. If disbursements are made that do not accord with the published criteria——

Séamus Pattison (Carlow-Kilkenny, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is not in order for the Minister to speak at this time.

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

——the Ombudsman would give full redress. If the Deputy does not understand that, he knows very little about the workings of the board.

Dan Boyle (Cork South Central, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I understand the office of the Ombudsman, which is awaiting legislation promised by the Government for two years, is still under-resourced and many powers still have not been vested in that office. On those grounds the Government is speaking out of both sides of its mouth.

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

No. It is the power——

Séamus Pattison (Carlow-Kilkenny, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Minister will have the right to reply later.

Dan Boyle (Cork South Central, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is possible for the political manipulation of funds to occur on a superficially allowable level. We know how people are coached to make applications that the process will show to have been correct, which is where flaws have appeared in the system in the past. This is why I fear such a discretionary fund may be misused and abused in the future. While I have no fear of it happening in the Minister's tenure of office, I continue to stress that we are introducing legislation that will be used by members of future cabinets with members of other political parties, perhaps including those now on this side of the House. On those grounds the Bill must be fervently opposed.

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

Tá an cluiche beagnach thart anois agus tá sé soiléir go mbeidh an bua ag an Rialtas agus go bhfuil gach duine ar an taobh seo den Teach go láidir i gcoinne an Bhille. Ar dtús, bhí bord neamhspleách ag dul an t-airgead seo a bhronnadh ar na comhlachtaíéagsúla a chuirfeadh iarratas isteach leis ach níl sin ag tarlú anois. Molaim oifigigh na Ranna. Shocraigh an Rialtas an Bille seo a thógáil isteach ach caithfidh oifigigh an Stáit a bheith dílis don chinneadh a dhéanann an Rialtas agus gach cabhair a thabhairt don reachtaíocht.

Tá an tAire i ndáiríre ach beidh Páirtí an Lucht Oibre, agus na páirtithe eile sa bhFreasúra, ag vótáil i gcoinne an Bhille.

I do not doubt the personal sincerity of the Minister in regard to the integrity of the process by which the moneys will be disbursed under the new dispensation that will come in on foot of this legislation. We took in good faith the Minister's commitment to do everything possible to have this legislation covered by the Freedom of Information Act 1997 from its establishment day and we have no doubt of the Minister's good faith in that regard.

Ultimately nobody in this House is convinced that any real reason exists for the changes introduced. An independent board already existed which was able to hire outside services to assist it in the discharge of its functions. The Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs has introduced outside agencies to deal with some of the workload and it is likely that process will continue. It will be interesting to see whether the taxpayer will get a better deal with what the board has been doing or what the Department will be doing. I take the point that this is not taxpayers' money as such — it is money that belongs to the community in a very special way. It is not money that was collected by way of taxation. It is money that has been disregarded and not claimed. We all agree with the principle of using that money.

Once again we face a significant job to resurrect the image of politics here. With the intensity of media scrutiny it is no longer enough to be virtuous; processes must be seen to be virtuous in terms of integrity, services, etc. While I stand to be correct if I am wrong, I understand the Dormant Accounts Disbursement Board was not at all happy with the changes in the Bill. At no stage did the Minister share with us the reaction he or officials from his Department may have had from members of the present board who have worked diligently in the public interest. There seems to be an implied criticism of their work given the Government decision to remove its disbursement function through this legislation.

We will shortly vote on the Bill and while those on this side of the House will vote against it, the votes lie with the Government and unless something extraordinary happens the Government will succeed. As a democrat I must accept what this House decides. I would like to think that the concerns expressed on this side of the House would prove to be ill founded. As the debate continued the Minister was inclined to confuse his own virtue with the fact that we are legislating not just for him but also for ministers into the future. While I do not believe this legislation reflects the will of the people, until this Chamber decides to change it we will continue where we are.

Whereas I do not ever want to wish that democratically enacted legislation should not work out in the best interests of the public, I cannot avoid feeling that it is a fundamental mistake in terms of its genesis. Some in Government saw this as a huge fund that could be exploited for political purposes, which I believe will happen notwithstanding that we all accept the Minister's sincerity. Ultimately perhaps he is naive. To have a fund of this order available in the run up to a general election represents a mighty big temptation for the parties in power. The Minister's party has never been found wanting when it comes to exploiting what is available to maximise the votes in any election, particularly a general election.

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

Everyone in the House would recognise that the decision to use dormant accounts for the public benefit was very positive. However, there were and are concerns regarding the Bill itself. The amount in question, some €200 million, means that new structures have had to be introduced, but the major concern is how that fund will be used. Will it be used as a slush fund? Genuine concerns and fears remain about public accountability. Many of us feel that there are back doors in the Bill regarding public accountability. Many of the issues that Members tried to tease out concerned the accountability of the board and its chair. We still have not received answers regarding how we make the board more accountable. Attempts are made in the Bill, but I am not convinced that they are strong enough. There certainly are concerns about how the board is selected or elected and that the money will be used as some sort of slush fund for the next election.

The view has been expressed that this will solve all our problems regarding inequality; it will not do that. In many communities it is seen as a top-up or as something that they had desired for many years but were denied by successive Governments. Many of the reports examining the areas on which the money will be spent — the RAPID and CLÁR areas — show that they have been neglected by several Governments over the years. To the shame of all politicians and political parties in the State, people live in poverty and children go to school hungry despite our wonderful economy and new millionaires.

There are concerns about the Bill itself. Many of the amendments that I tabled were ruled out of order. The Ceann Comhairle said that they were against the principle of the Bill. Clearly, there were concerns about that. I listened to the Minister and the assurances that he has given regarding how accountable the new legislation will be. I am not sure about that, but there is concern regarding accountability, the board itself and how the money is to be spent in the run-up to the general election. No doubt the Minister will get this Bill passed, but there is still great concern, and he has not addressed it.

Paudge Connolly (Cavan-Monaghan, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I too am quite unhappy with this Bill which fails to address several issues. There are dormant accounts throughout the country and I am quite sure that a proportion of them are in County Monaghan and County Cavan. When I look at the press releases every so often and hope that Monaghan or Cavan will figure highly, I note that the former has not received a single entire grant. Recently a grant was divided between Cootehill and Ballybay, and there was another for the Belturbet area of Cavan and a small part of County Monaghan. If one considers the targets when the dormant accounts fund was established, one sees that it was intended for disadvantaged areas and those held back economically or educationally. It was meant also for persons with a disability. The grants were to have been earmarked for certain RAPID, CLÁR and drugs task force areas. I am quite sure that County Monaghan meets all those criteria, yet despite that there were 15 valid applications, eight from Monaghan and seven from Cavan, when the funding was announced, the area was left out, something that very regularly occurs. That is not right. I have the full figures and every time one looks——

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

Why tell me?

Paudge Connolly (Cavan-Monaghan, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That is why I object to this Bill. I do not feel good about it.

Dan Boyle (Cork South Central, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Minister makes the decisions.

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

I do not; that is the point. Why tell me? The Deputy may as well talk to the wall. This is an independent board.

Paudge Connolly (Cavan-Monaghan, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

People will be sitting on committees accountable to no one. Who will ask the questions?

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

Exactly. It is an independent board.

Paudge Connolly (Cavan-Monaghan, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is an independent board, so who will oversee the money that it disburses? Is the Minister telling me that Ministers have no influence?

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

None.

Paudge Connolly (Cavan-Monaghan, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I happened to examine the matter, and the grants can be matched up with areas where there are Ministers. Is it coincidental that the grants are going to those areas?

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

I can guarantee the Deputy this.

Rory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Perhaps instead of a cosy chat across the floor——

Paudge Connolly (Cavan-Monaghan, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I do not feel that cosy about it.

Rory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

——we might return to the Fifth Stage of the Bill which allows Deputies to comment on its contents.

Paudge Connolly (Cavan-Monaghan, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am commenting on what should be in it.

Rory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am afraid that the Chair has been somewhat lax in allowing several Deputies to stray beyond the Bill, and now we end up with a friendly chat across the floor between the Minister and Deputy Connolly.

Paudge Connolly (Cavan-Monaghan, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I do not want to be the second man——

Rory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Perhaps Deputy Connolly might return to the Fifth Stage of the Bill and the Minister remain silent for a few minutes, after which he will have an opportunity to conclude.

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

In 12 months, no one has articulated exactly why we are changing the legislation.

Rory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Minister will have an opportunity to contribute if he allows Deputy Connolly to conclude and remain on the subject of Fifth Stage.

Paudge Connolly (Cavan-Monaghan, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I will try to address this Stage. We look at most of these issues from our own perspective, and I point out that County Monaghan is not getting its fair share. There are dormant accounts in the country and it meets the RAPID and CLÁR criteria, being an economically and educationally disadvantaged area. We have people with disabilities there and good grants are available. A Bill such as this, which handles public money, should return it to that same public. This money should return to County Monaghan and that is not addressed in the legislation. I certainly cannot support this Bill.

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

We are doing exactly that.

Rory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Please allow Deputy Connolly to speak.

Paudge Connolly (Cavan-Monaghan, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I will await the outcome.

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

I am sorry we did not ask Deputy Connolly to speak first on this Bill since he has articulated 100% of the points that we have unsuccessfully been trying to make for a year. I congratulate him. I have no influence on how the board spends its money since, as the Deputy rightly pointed out, it is independent, as are its decisions. I do not interfere with them.

Paudge Connolly (Cavan-Monaghan, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Is it coincidence?

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

Second, the Deputy cannot call me to account on how it disbursed the money since I have no function under current law. When we change the law and enact this Bill, the Deputy will be able to call me to the House and, on Question Time and through motions on the Adjournment, query exactly how we spend the money. We are introducing exactly what the Deputy seeks, namely, accountability. Deputy Neville had a similar problem. I do not wish to enter into individual cases, but it outlines——

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

I was not allowed to speak on it.

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

I checked out the case the Deputy referred to. I can confirm two facts I have established. The rest of the information we will send directly to the Deputy. The application from the group in question was not ruled out of order. It was assessed using the independent criteria by ADM Limited, the agency that assesses all dormant accounts applications. It has a scoring system and we will make the scoring of the application in question available to the Deputy. I have no input into the matter but I can get the information passed on to the Deputy. The company scored the application and, according to its independent assessment method into whose creation and scoring I had no input, the application did not merit highly enough for the board to propose a grant. I have checked that and I did nothing that in any way affected the decision. Whoever informed the Deputy yesterday that the Minister had in some way changed something to make the application fail was incorrect.

This goes to the nub of the matter and raises questions of political philosophy that we have discussed. What is the role of the public representative? Is it a purely legislative role and must everything else in the State be the responsibility of non-elected persons who are answerable to nobody for their daily actions? Alternatively, should politicians, who are answerable to the people, have a part to play in matters other than legislation? I agree there may have been a situation in the past where people believed too much discretion was allowed to politicians. In this context, I am very much in favour of the new rules in respect of using objective criteria and being answerable to the Ombudsman. This ensures that once policies are decided, the methodology is followed through in a fair and equitable fashion.

Deputy Boyle raised the issue of coaching. I make no bones about acknowledging that I find out how the systems work and how to make the best application. I hope the Deputy does the same. I help worthy groups in completing applications, whether to Departments or county councils, for example. I am willing to assist with a housing application for a constituent who may not be au fait with all the rules regarding P21 forms and so on. My objective is to help such applicants to maximise their chances of success. Every Deputy worth his or salt assists constituents in this manner and there is nothing wrong with this.

Dan Boyle (Cork South Central, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That is not the point I made.

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

The Deputy spoke about coaching.

Dan Boyle (Cork South Central, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I spoke about subverting the process which is an entirely different issue.

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

It would be a serious issue if the Ombudsman were to conclude that a Member had subverted the process. However, I do not know how one can subvert the process when the criteria are laid out, there is a closing date for applications and one must follow the process and be accountable for one's actions. Deputy Boyle has not been in Government but I assure him it is impossible to take some of the actions it has been alleged one can take within a Department.

Deputy O'Shea talked about the need to give politics a good name. There is a temptation for all of us when in Opposition to fall into the simple game of playing to the public and media galleries and satisfying those who want to believe politicians are up to no good. Let us be honest. By throwing around innuendo like snuff at a wake, politicians have often been their own worst enemy. I accept the temptation is there when in Opposition and it is sometimes difficult to resist. However, this does not mean it is virtuous behaviour or a good idea. I do not claim to be more virtuous than any other Member.

We have written into this Bill the types of practices I used in the CLÁR programme, which Members have agreed are good. I included them because they are sensible, fair and equitable. I do not believe I am particularly virtuous for taking this approach but it is the best way to do business. I do not contend that any other Members would not take the same approach in my position. We have cemented this type of approach into the legislation. It is not a case of whether somebody in the future will take the same approach. They are obliged to do so because it is written into the legislation. If I were an Opposition Member, I would prefer to be dealing with current Opposition Members in Government than with a system that did not have the wherewithal to disburse funds and for which there is no accountability.

The vast majority of persons who have served in this House have been hard working, honest and dedicated. They have tried to do their best and to be fair. There have been exceptions to this rule but there is no reason to believe the percentage of such is any higher than the percentage of exceptions to good practice on independent boards through the years. A higher percentage than in the general public of the people who enter this House are incredibly dedicated to the good of citizens.

One issue that has arisen in regard to this Bill makes me laugh. I have a good supply of the mailshots other Members distribute. I do not produce them as it is not my way of working. I may be incorrect in this and the approach of other Members may be correct.

Pádraic McCormack (Galway West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I have seen some of the Minister's promotional literature. He should get somebody else to produce it for him.

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

I distributed one mailshot in Carna and provided information about my work at the last election. However, I do not produce this type of literature on a regular basis.

Rory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I advise the Minister that he may be straying once more from the Bill.

Pádraic McCormack (Galway West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is a long way from Carna to this Bill.

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

This points to the nub of the Bill. Members of the Sinn Féin Party are masters at producing such informational literature. Some of the material published by Fine Gael in Dublin is fantastic. The recent issue of its bulletin in Dublin 4 was particularly impressive.

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

The Ceann Comhairle would not permit me to speak about suicide but the Minister is allowed to talk about Fine Gael promotional literature.

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

This is entirely relevant. Opposition parties claim to be better than all others. This is probably the nature of politics because it is competitive. However, virtuous claims from Opposition Members that they never tried to claim anything do not stand up to any logical analysis.

At the end of this debate, Deputy Connolly came to the nub of the matter. The Deputy may be unhappy with the way the money has been disbursed and he may have a case because I confirm that most of Cavan and a significant portion of Monaghan are designated as CLÁR areas. I have no answerability for the board because it is independent. The Deputy can raise the question in the House as often as he likes but he will receive the same answer, namely, that decisions are made by an independent board and the Minister has no function in the matter.

However, when this Bill is passed the good news for Deputy Connolly is that the board will be accountable. If he ever feels the system is operating unfairly, aside from the Ombudsman and the other existing mechanisms, Deputy Connolly or any other Member may table a question in this House in regard to both methodology and decisions and he will be entitled to an answer from the Minister. I am sure the Deputy would be pleased if I were able to explain today the actions taken by the board. I cannot do so but once this legislation is enacted and the next round of decisions is made, he will be able to get an explanation if he considers the people of Cavan and Monaghan are afforded unfair treatment by those decisions. I will be delighted in such circumstances to explain to the House how and why the decisions were taken in regard to the disbursements of the board. I thank the Deputy for making my case far more eloquently than the Minister of State, Deputy Noel Ahern, and I have been able to do over the last 11 months.

Rory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

As the Bill is considered by virtue of Article 20.2.2o of the Constitution to be a Bill initiated in the Dáil, it will be sent to the Seanad.