John Minihan (Progressive Democrats)

There were also some nice comments about my party and I heard them with interest. In the course of this debate, phrases such as status quo were used and it was suggested that the status quo should be maintained. However, the status quo has changed.

When this fund was established, people thought it would amount to approximately €30 million. While I can understand the political concerns of the Opposition, we must bear in mind that governments are elected to govern and executives are appointed to administer. The arbitrary element that dictates that is the public. That is the reality. However, it is increasingly evident in this country that a paralysis of government is being brought about by minorities. That causes me concern.

The Opposition has a right to raise issues of concern and to promote ideas. All Members will agree that the principle of applying this money to disadvantaged areas is correct. It is putting the money to good use. Previous speakers have highlighted where the money should go. Disbursement should be among the people affected by economic and social disadvantage, those affected by educational disadvantage and people with disabilities. The figure of €30 million that was initially anticipated is now projected to be between €300 million to €500 million. We cannot have a situation where an independent body comes into competition with the Government of the day with regard to the delivery of services. The Government is responsible for the delivery of services and we do not want communities to fall between two stools in the context of who should provide a service or funding for a project.

Speakers have referred to comments made by the Minister, Deputy McCreevy, when the legislation was being debated, that there was an onus to have transparency and accountability and that it would not be perceived as a slush fund for pet projects of Ministers. That is fair and reasonable. I believe that should remain the overriding principle.

We must remember that the legislation has not yet come before the Houses. Hopefully, this debate will have an impact on the legislation which comes forward. Given the change in the anticipated figures for distribution, we should consider allowing the status quo remain for the €30 million initially anticipated and placing all moneys in excess of that in the Exchequer for distribution, under the same principle and among Departments which would target the areas identified in the initial criteria. The adoption of this approach would recognise the initial principle under which the scheme was set up but would equally acknowledge that the goalposts have changed. They did not change by political will but because the amount of money now available for distribution has far exceeded what was initially anticipated.

If one removes the political rancour and point scoring, there is merit in both sides of the argument. There are moneys to be distributed and it is important those moneys reach the target groups and communities identified by the various guidelines set out initially and that they are used for the betterment of those people. There is merit in the fact the Government now needs to re-examine the matter, given the change in the amount of money available. Notwithstanding that, I emphasise that we should not arbitrarily abolish the initial idea.

We can look at both sides of the coin. We can allow the initial €30 million to be administered and distributed as initially set out. However, if we want growth from the growing amount of money, it would not be reasonable to have an independent body compete with a Department to provide a service to the community. We need a proper cohesive effort to ensure the community benefits in the way initially intended.

I support the Government amendment while anticipating the legislation coming before the Houses will be debated fully. I ask the Minister to consider the compromise I suggest of allowing the initial €30 million to be distributed as set out and of applying the legislation to the moneys in excess of that amount.