Joe O'Toole (Independent)

The issue is how it is done. It is not an issue of setting up a superstructure with a great amount of administration. I will outline a solution to the Minister that is so simple it does not need to be written down. The amount of administration required to spend €250 million will be the same whether it is done by an independent body or the Civil Service. Therefore, those good people in the Civil Service should do the administration but the decision making should be controlled by an independent body and not by the Minister. There will be no difficulty, no problem, no extra people employed, no extra work to be done. Ordinary people should be given the chance to make it work and then we can do it.

The establishment of a body to do this is shameful. We are 16 or 17 years into partnership in this country, yet there is no reflection of civic society, the social partners, the voluntary and community pillar, of the people in the Wheel and various other groups and charities in Ireland who give and give. These are the people who should be making the decisions on this. We, and the Minister could trust them because they have no agenda and are beyond political decision making, but are not beyond political reach. We could all make our representations if we chose to do so. I could make a case about a disadvantaged school, while Senator Ó Murchú could make a case about a disadvantaged group of Travellers in his constituency. Let us put the case and let the people decide. We would then have to live with the outcome. There is nothing wrong with that and it would be a mark of character for the Government were it to do that. The idea of a representation to a body that decides is different to a representation to a Minister.

There are parts of this legislation that would not be passed in Iraq. For example, in the case of the membership of the board, there has been almost one board appointee per month in the last two or three years. Members of boards represent something, be it gender balance or various groups such as the social partners and so on. In this situation, however, the board shall consist of ten ordinary members, all of whom are to be appointed by the Minister. That cannot be right. Where is the sharing of responsibility? Where is the openness to partnership? Where is the invitation to civic society? It is not there but it should be.

The worst feature of the Bill is the provision that having consulted with the appropriate Minister, the Minister shall, not less than once in each year, make submissions to the Government for its approval with or without amendment. The term "with or without amendment" is repeated time and again. In this instance it refers to the role of the Minister.

The Bill also provides that the Minister is to have regard to the approved plan. What does "have regard to" mean? It certainly means that he does not have to do what is in the plan. He has to read it and have regard to it, so if the plan decides that a certain percentage of money should be spent in disadvantaged areas in the inner city, he should have regard to that, but he might also have regard to a disadvantaged areas somewhere else for a different reason.

This will be tainted by politics and it is no help to Ministers to put them in this situation. If anyone takes the opportunity to look at the Order of Business for any day in this House, there are usually six pages of business laid before the House which means there is little or no likelihood that there will be an opportunity to debate submissions made to the House by the board. For example, the Health Insurance Authority annual report is listed No. 18 on today's Order Paper. The report from the body to be established by this Bill will probably be listed No. 19 on the Order Paper for this day next year. It will be submitted to the Minister, we will read it but we will have no input whatever.

There is nothing wrong with us having no input if the board was run independently. However, that is not the case. In consequence, what is proposed here is wrong. The Minister of State spoke about independent planning and critical appraisal. The Bill might provide for that but it will be to no avail. Ultimate decisions will not lie with the board. This is the kind of thing that gives rise to bushfires of discontent throughout the country when it occurs. It has happened before and it will happen again in this instance.

I could write a history of my involvement in disadvantaged schemes in education and how Minister after Minister has interfered with them due to pressure from constituencies or representations. This is a classic example because while the objectives are laudable, the board has been established without criteria or a frame of reference. The Bill provides that the board will assist persons who are socially, economically or educationally disadvantaged and persons with a disability. If I complain about this I will be represented as having no soul. To be against such a provision is like being against virtue, or being in favour of sin. However, the legislation is full of traps. That is bad for the body politic and for what we are trying to achieve. It will once again lead politics into disrepute. The idea that €250 million will be available for a Minister to disburse on the basis of representations made is enough to make the political cute hoors salivate at the prospect. It is indicative of the kind of pressure that will be imposed on Ministers.

I appeal to the Minister to have another look at this legislation because in its present form it drags down the Minister, the Government and politics. It adds to disenchantment and takes away from trust and confidence in the body politic. It is proposed that decisions on giving money to people who are underprivileged, disadvantaged and so on should be given to a Minister. We believe that it should be given to independent people. This could be done without spending any money. Any of us could nominate people who would take the decision away from us. We could then make our position known to them. As Senator Ó Murchú stated, the civil servants could do their job effectively, but ultimately, decisions would be made by the board.

I appeal to the Minister not to proceed with this legislation and to introduce a new board which should represent civic society, in particular those who work for community and voluntary organisations. Every special school in this country has friends and relatives who from groups of supporters. There will be a fundraiser tomorrow morning in this House for two children's charities. These are people who work all their lives to raise money to fight disability and disadvantage. Could they not be included in the decision making process? I do not refer to the planning but the decision making process. Could we not trust them to spend this money, which has been correctly taken from the banks and the financial institutions? It is money that belonged to the people and should be given back to the people, by the people, under our supervision. What is wrong with that? Why can we not do it? Why can we not do something right that will make a difference? I appeal to the Minister of State to give the decision back to the people.