Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)

My voice is not the best today, but it will hold up. I will first lay down some basic principles with regard to spending any money, particularly extra money. We must first ensure additional delivery on the ground. The second point relates to poly-funding. I met yesterday with a group which received funding from the Department of €84,000 and whose State income from all sources amounted to approximately €700,000 with seven or eight State agencies being involved. Poly-funding causes two problems in that the left hand of the State does not know what the right hand is doing and there is no co-ordination. Such funding caused problems for that particular group which believed it had been left short of funding. It is hard for the Department to prove whether it should have lived within its budget or had been left short. However, that is not the issue. I would much prefer a co-ordinated approach so that each group knows how much State funding it will receive, even if it is from different sources, and can plan accordingly.

The third point relates to objectiveness which should be divided into two parts. After-school services are important to people in disadvantaged areas and it is important those in politics are in a position to make a value judgment on that issue. It is also important that when such decisions are made the money provided is disbursed in a fair and objective manner so that all applicants are, in so far as is humanly possible, treated equally. The fourth point relates to focus. The current arrangement lacks focus. An advertisement was placed in the newspaper suggesting anybody could apply for any dream they had. That is not fair to applicants and it is not a good way to spend State money. Somebody has to focus priorities and to make an incremental difference to them. The fifth point relates to sustainability. I am concerned, in terms of disbursements to date, about what will happen when that fund runs out. In an ideal world, groups should be able to come to us and ask if we are willing to keep projects going when funding runs out. I can be sure if I provide funding of €50,000 or €100,000 for two years to a drug project in Wicklow that that project will not have gone away after that time. Somebody will have to decide, when this money runs out, if such projects are to continue.

I have stated time and again that there are too many pilot projects in this country, many of which run for two or three years. That only gets us through the gate in the short term. I have not yet seen an evaluation of these schemes which suggests they should not receive further funding. Some 90% of such projects are needed. When the time for such pilot projects has expired one has to decide because one started them to keep with them. I worked for many years in the voluntary sector and I disliked short-term current expenditure because when it ran out I had to start again from square one. This situation is worse. If money for such projects is paid for by way of the budget through Departments it is at least likely the same budget will be available the following year and one can try to recoup money spent. If, however, that money comes from a budget headline which only has a limited amount of finance into the future, what then happens?

The sixth point relates to the tracking mechanism on which I would like to make two points. Tracking is important but we have now reached the point where keeping records has become more important than providing a service. That is a very tricky equation. I do not want to receive into my office every morning the menu from a project which provides breakfast for 50 children. One hears quickly enough from local sources if something is wrong in such areas. Likewise I do not want to hear about the number of children who turn up for such breakfasts every morning. Such information clogs up offices with paper. We should allow projects which receive funding and are doing their job well to get on with the job and should not tie up their timekeeping records. People often say the private sector is so much more efficient than the public sector. It is because it only keeps records where needed. It does not get involved in inane inordinate recording keeping. There is a tricky balance to be struck. We need good accountability but we do not want everyone in the voluntary sector to be swamped in mounds of paper, keeping mindless records on irrelevant matters. One knows one will get quick feedback on such issues if one keeps one's ear to the ground.

The Dormant Accounts Fund Disbursement Board is a decision-making board. ADM acts only on an agency basis. It is a private company which receives all its funding from the State and in that regard is under State direction in terms of its budget and so on. The Government has not interfered in ADM's operation of the board. I have great time for that company which does a great deal of work for my Department and others. However, ADM is too limited an organisation to handle such disbursements. The Senator's point that we should make regional decisions is a fair one. Under what is now being proposed, that is the route we will go.

The Senator will be aware that community development is important in CLÁR areas. I wanted to assist community development effort whether through enterprise centres or other projects in CLÁR areas and set aside €1 million per annum in that regard. The mechanism used in that regard is quite interesting. If the local Leader company decides to grant €50,000 to a project, CLÁR will, without second-guessing the fundamental decision, back that sum with another €50,000 subject to EU rules. The Department does not exercise any control over such decisions which have been devolved to local Leader companies. We make it attractive for Leader companies in CLÁR areas to grant money to community projects. I do not make any decisions on such matters. I favour that type of approach.

The rural social scheme has been devolved to the local Leader companies. We could provide lump sums to such bodies and lay down certain criteria on additionality, objectiveness and so on. The type of bodies I envisage being used are VECs, MABs, local social welfare offices which have a good regional network, Leader companies, partnerships and CDPs. Such bodies would make local decisions. If one is to grant funding of €20 million per year one must focus one's priorities. One could, for example, decide to provide €5 million or €6 million for social and economic deprivation and then discover from the Dormant Accounts Fund Disbursement Board that certain things are falling through the cracks and that additionality is important. Suppose it was decided — I intend to do this with RAPID and am merely using it as an example — that providing kitchens in schools for the provision of hot school meals is important in areas of deprivation. We could then go to the relevant authorities with proposals on the amount of funding required for the year. I favour that type of approach to life. We are not doing away with the dormant accounts board as it is key to the new construction.

Senator McHugh fears what we might do with the fund. However, the dormant accounts board will be tracking our decisions, checking for additions and it will make a detailed assessment report on them. If anyone acted capriciously with the fund, he or she would be worse off than if it had been left to the board. The board would write a strongly critical report that would be highlighted by the Opposition, who, in turn, would highlight it to the media. The media would be delighted to point the finger at politicians, claiming the funds were abused, and neither is it the type of issue that would fade away.

The Government and I are committed to probity and good practice with the fund. If not, we will only create an exocet missile that would destroy us. The board and ADM have, within the resources available to them, done as good a job as possible. However, it is not the proper way to disperse the moneys.

I have an aversion to the open advertising method used. Applications amounting to €3 million were received in the first two months of open advertising. If it had been left open until the summer, the figure would now be €3 billion. With the volume of applications received, it is impossible, unless through a lengthy delay, to assess every application individually. I cannot make a value judgment on the decisions already made. I raised the legitimate question about sustainability because so much of the fund has gone into cover money. I would prefer a more focused approach that addresses issues not normally tackled by mainstream funding.

I receive many delegations from the voluntary sector. Those doing good work in the sector are honest people. However, for one reason or another, some voluntary groups have not kept within budget. One can take the schoolmaster approach by advising them that budgets were allocated and they must be kept. Yesterday, along with Deputies from three different parties, I received a delegation involved in youth work. The group is short a small amount of money, some 10% of its budget, and requested assistance from me. I explained that if I were to do something, I would have to be equal to everybody. However, the human side of me acknowledged the group's hard work and that, due mainly to accounting inexperience, it had made some mistakes leading to the shortfall. No Member would advocate the closure of groups in such circumstances. I try to see if some action can be taken within the set criteria and, after a rap across the knuckles, the group is told to stay within budget for the following year. No state can be run on the basis that groups such as this are forced to close because they fail to adhere to established criteria.

We need departmental officials to be human, yet make accountable and reasonable decisions. As well as the normal criteria, there is now more accountability in the public service such as internal and external audits. I have one final and simple test for any decision I make on funding. Will the Opposition criticise me for making an incorrect decision? If I believe the Opposition could sustain such criticisms, I would not make the decision. Our positions have an important part to play in ensuring everything is done properly. I, as a Minister, do not want the Opposition accusing me in the House that I gave out moneys unfairly. I always want to sustain my argument by showing the rationale behind what I did, while being as objective as humanly possible and following good procedures.

I oppose this amendment. We are not doing away with the board. If we were to do what Senator McHugh fears we might, the board would have much to say about it, giving the Opposition the most valuable ammunition on this side of an election. That is not our intention. We intend to spend these moneys, subject to the board's plans, in a focused way, using all the mechanisms of State and, where appropriate, devolving the mechanisms, selection, etc., to the lowest level possible.