Maurice Hayes (Independent)

I welcome the Minister of State to the House and recognise his commitment to the work that goes on in the charitable and voluntary sector. I have no intention in raising my voice or making political points on this. I do not impugn anyone's motives or intentions. However, I regret the direction that the proposed legislation is taking. It is retrograde.

I welcomed the action that was taken to set up the Dormant Accounts Fund Disbursements Board. I pointed out that there was a comparable body in Northern Ireland called the Northern Ireland Voluntary Trust, which was set up a number of years ago. It acted as a sort of community chest and was owned by the community sector, although it was set up and additionally funded by the government. It has done remarkable work over the years and I look forward to this board doing the same. It seems a little early to begin to pull it apart again, unless there have been serious difficulties, either in the disbursement or the handling of money. The Minister spoke of wishing to give focus to the work. Senator Ó Murchú told us that very few complaints could be lodged against the allocations. If it is a matter of administration, as Senator O'Toole said, these matters must be assessed either by someone in a Department or by someone under the aegis of the board. It should not be too difficult to arrange for that on a satisfactory basis.

The Minister spoke of public funds, and I acknowledge that people must be careful about money. However, I am not sure whether one can call dormant accounts "public funds" in the classic sense. They belong not to the State but to someone else, perhaps only theoretically, but there are putative owners out there. The State has in effect borrowed the funds for a period to use them. We should always distinguish between funds raised by taxation and those raised in other ways, treating the dormant accounts as charitable funds.

One of the difficulties in the proposals is that decisions are made in Departments. I would be the last in this House to say nasty things about civil servants, having been one for most of my life. However, not all wisdom resides in Departments. The difficulty is that Departments, and civil servants working in them, are accustomed to viewing problems through a specific set of lenses. People in the community sometimes see them through a different set. One runs the danger of systematising and codifying the grants, irrespective of who makes the final decision. One can cut out the odd or quirky idea that might make a difference, or the person who does not fit in with departmental perspectives.

There is an even greater danger that Departments will see this money as an extension of the funds available to them from elsewhere and use it either to develop their own programmes or to save them spending money on them. It is a very basic principle of charity law that charitable funds should not be used to save money raised by rates or taxes, and I apply that reasoning to this. These moneys are free and should not be used to substitute for taxation or save expenditure on programmes that should be funded out of taxation in the ordinary way. It gives people the opportunity to do something extra or different — to experiment — and it must be in the ownership of the voluntary and community sector. I cannot think of anyone who would sit on a board asked to draw the map of the world and see whether the sea has run dry, without any function regarding expenditure in the interval.

The concept of having money that could be applied in such a manner was splendid when it was developed. No one could take exception to the objectives being discussed, and it is a red herring to begin discussing them. We are simply discussing the best way to handle the disbursement of these moneys and the best way of selecting projects that should be supported. It would be helpful and much more productive if the voluntary and community sector could have some sense of ownership in this matter. It should not simply be seen as an extension of departmental programmes or another part of public expenditure but as an exciting new opportunity for people, and that is better done by revivifying and strengthening the board that we have and strengthening its procedures. One should by all means impose what accounting arrangements one thinks proper. However, one takes a retrograde step if one draws it totally into the Government sector.