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

Question 87: To ask the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs his views on the findings of the Comptroller and Auditor General's annual report 2004 on the wrongful procedures followed in the introduction of the rural social scheme. [30779/05]

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

As the Deputy is aware, €10 million was paid from the dormant accounts fund into a suspense account operated by my Department to meet the expenses of the rural social scheme in line with the announcement by the Minister for Finance in his budget speech 2004. During 2004, almost €3.4 million was paid to participants in the rural social scheme from the suspense account.

The Comptroller and Auditor General drew attention in section 8.1 of his annual report to the suspense account mechanism which was used, as directed by the Department of Finance, for payments under the rural social scheme as being not, strictly speaking, the legally correct way of channelling the money to the beneficiaries of the rural social scheme.

The matter at issue relates specifically to the mechanism for channelling the funding and not to the probity of the payments. The Comptroller and Auditor General states that the Department of Finance has conceded that on reflection it would have been better to have channelled the funding through the Vote. Apart from this procedural issue, the Comptroller and Auditor General has certified that the 2004 appropriation account for Vote 27 of my Department properly presents the receipts and expenditure of the Vote.

In the circumstances, following the recent enactment of the Dormant Accounts (Amendment) Act 2005, it is intended that the full amount of funding for the rural social scheme in 2005 will be channelled through my Department's Vote.

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

The Minister has reiterated a section of the Comptroller and Auditor General's report and has posited the defence that this is a procedural matter. The matter is one of the smallest references in the report but the three paragraphs dealing with it raise other questions. Does the use of this mechanism indicate that the rural and social scheme was thought up quite quickly in advance of the budget? After the Budget Statement in December 2004 a mechanism had to be found to pay for the scheme. This much is glaringly obvious from the brief references in the report.

The sum of €10 million paid from the dormant accounts fund under the old mechanism before the Dormant Accounts (Amendment) Act was introduced in 2005 indicates an inappropriate use of that money. Such money should be used for voluntary organisations in the whole yet the Minister chose to fund a scheme announced in the budget that should have been funded from general Exchequer funding. Has the original €10 million taken from the fund been reimbursed? Will the continuing funding mechanism for the rural social scheme come from the Department's Estimate? Will he continue using the dormant accounts fund to fund the rural social scheme?

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

The Deputy raised a number of questions I will attempt to answer within the time limits. The rural social scheme was included in the programme for Government and the Fianna Fáil manifesto for the last election. The scheme was announced in the budget and when one announces a scheme mechanisms must be found. The Department of Finance directed that the money be paid through a suspense account and that issue has been dealt with and the money will be included in the Vote.

The money from the dormant accounts funds must be used for different headings, including social and economic disadvantage. No reference is made to an obligation to grant it to voluntary bodies. The sum of €10 million allocated from the dormant accounts fund was properly authorised, consistent with the provisions of the Dormant Accounts Act 2001, which, in section 41(1)(a) details programmes or projects that are designed to assist the personal, educational and social development of persons who are economically, educationally or socially disadvantaged or persons with a disability within the meaning of the Equal Status Act 2000. Section 41(1)(b) provides that the Minister, in consultation with the board, may from time to time specify programmes that are consistent with the requirements of section 41(1)(a). I consulted the Dormant Accounts Fund Disbursement Board in accordance with the relevant legislation and following that consultation the board released €10 million for the rural social scheme.

The entire sum of €10 million has been properly and solely spent in the rural and social scheme. The matter raised by the Comptroller and Auditor General, whether it should have been channelled through the Vote in a Supplementary Estimate or through a suspense account, is purely procedural. From now on this will be done through a Supplementary Estimate.

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

The Minister is aware the Comptroller and Auditor General is precluded by law from speaking on policy. The question I raise relates solely to policy. The use of the dormant accounts fund for initial funding of the rural social scheme was inappropriate. General funding from the Department's Estimate should have been used. I have asked if this money will be reimbursed and if the future funding mechanism will be channelled through the dormant accounts fund or through Department's general Estimate.

In debates on the Dormant Accounts (Amendment) Act, many of us expressed fears the Minister would be the chief allocator of funds. This is reinforced by the decision that the Minister is the chief decision maker on how money is allocated. On the whim of the Minister, or any subsequent Minister, money could be allocated to a pet project in one area.

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

It never ceases to amaze me how one can have a translation of an Act imposed as a justification of a criticism of a subsequent Act. This was done under the 2001 Act and the powers already existed. What Deputy Boyle objects to in the 2003 Act was already present in the 2001 Act, which he does not criticise. This was done under the 2001 Act. It is within the power of the Minister under the 2001 Act as long as procedure is followed.

There is no question of repaying the disbursed money as we will not approach the people in the rural social scheme asking them to reimburse money so we can give it back to the dormant accounts fund. The money was spent on social and economic disadvantage. The power to do so was included in the 2001 Act. The Comptroller and Auditor General highlighted the procedure, which we have now corrected.

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

Will this happen for future funding?

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

Future funding will be the same mix, partly from the Exchequer and partly from the dormant accounts fund. That is the way in which the scheme has been set up. If Deputy Boyle thinks the rural social scheme is not a good idea and that it does not help social disadvantage, perhaps this reflects Green Party policy. This is an effective way of dealing with social disadvantage of people in rural communities, such as low income farmers and their families. It is an appropriate use of funds from the dormant accounts. Obviously, the Green Party has a different policy.

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

The effect of the Minister's policy is to dilute the fund for other purposes. I could argue the Minister's policy opposes giving further funding to voluntary groups because that is its effect.

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

The dormant accounts fund has no specific remit for voluntary groups.

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

It is a limited fund and the more it is used the less remains. That is the effect of the Minister's policy.

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

The more one disburses the fund, the less money there is in the fund, that is true irrespective of the beneficiaries of the money. In Government, one must make choices on priorities. We consider this one of the most effective ways of dealing with social and economic deprivation in rural areas, ahead of some of the other choices. It was a priority to distribute funding to this area and we stand by our choice. Deputy Boyle does not rate this as a priority.

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

It is the Minister's job to get more money from the Minister for Finance.

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

It is a pity we cannot continue this debate.