Brendan Ryan (Labour)

As Senator McHugh stated, many issues are raised in the amendments and I look forward to hearing the Minister's response to them. When he addresses his own amendments, will he explain why we need the subsections of section 8 which form the new Part 6 of the original Act? Given his eloquent sincerity about the decentralisation of decision making, why does he propose to provide that the disbursement of sums of money, which could be as small as €50,000 or less, has to go before the Cabinet? I used the term "Stalinism" in the sense that it relates to a belief that centralised governance is better. Even in my worst moments, I would not accuse the Government of any of the social manifestations of Stalinism, but rather refer to a belief that the centre knows best. That sort of centralisation impacts on Dublin as much as it does on Donegal. For example, officials on Dublin City Council must wait for officials in the Custom House to make decisions about issues relating to Dublin which the first group of officials already know well are the correct decisions.

The convincing construct which the Minister has put together about what he wants to achieve, to which we all subscribe, is based on a belief that there is a better way to do this than through centralisation. I look forward to the Minister telling me why this is the case. I acknowledge there are issues in regard to accountability in respect of public funds. However, if the decision about who is to get money is ultimately a Cabinet one, then with the best will and Government in the world — which we do not have at present — politics will enter into that decision-making process, regardless of which party is in power. If the Labour Party was in Government, I would make the same point. The very act of transmitting the final decision about where money is to be spent into Government hands means that it is, in essence, a political decision.

I have nothing against political decisions and I acknowledge that there is not a political system in the world in which Ministers do not lobby for their pet projects. An example is for a Minister for Health to prioritise a hospital located in his constituency ahead of hospitals located in constituencies which do not have Deputies serving as Ministers. That such activity takes place we all acknowledge. Some of it is admirable and some is less so, but it happens. However, I am now supposed to believe that the €200 million or €300 million will be brought before the Cabinet according to wonderfully precise criteria, will be considered for a decision with the Government authorised to amend it, and the Government will state that it wants to be seen to be above all that and nod it through. If that was what the Government was going to do, we would not seek to bring it to the Government in the first place.