Brendan Ryan (Labour)

It is fortunate that this group of amendments has been recommitted because it is difficult to discuss them without discussing the section. I understand the reason the Government would have a role in the construction of a scheme. However, the section, as proposed, states: "Applications received in response to applications shall be assessed by and or on behalf of public bodies." I accept the Minister has tabled amendments to make this procedure more transparent, particularly the criteria. The results of the assessments will be passed on to the Minister with a list of the assessed measures — nobody could disagree with that — and, where appropriate, the assessed projects. The results will also include a recommendation and the reasons for the recommendation. The Minister has also tabled an amendment regarding the funds. Once this detailed procedure has been completed, all the details must go before the Government, which can either approve or amend the recommendation without restriction.

This is the first time today I have become a little tetchy. I agree with everything the Minister has said about the approach needed. I know him well and I am aware he believes in good systems. The systems approach is thrown out the window, however, by the blank cheque given to Government to do what it likes with his proposals. The agencies examine the projects, evaluate and cost them etc., after which a submission goes before the Government which can do what it likes without any criteria being applied. Nowhere in the legislation is it indicated that the Government is bound by anything the Minister has outlined today. While the Minister, acting with executive authority in his Department, is bound by the various conditions laid down in the Bill, the collective Cabinet can do what it likes with his proposals.

I presume the Minister is capable of fighting his corner but the legislation leaves it open to the Minister for Finance, for example, to decide that some of the money should be allocated to projects chosen by his or her Department. The legislation, as framed, does not prevent the Government from driving a coach and four through all the work done properly and scientifically by people of integrity.

If the Minister were to agree to delete the subsection dealing with the bringing of assessments to Government and provide instead that, having obtained the relevant assessments, the money would be disbursed through the Department in accordance with the assessments, I would go some distance to meet him. While I do not agree with him, I could accommodate such an approach. The Bill provides that assessments be brought to Government which can essentially approve, refuse or amend them as it likes. Amendment in this context does not mean replacing commas with full stops but removing or adding to the recommendation as the Government pleases. Unless the Minister writes into the legislation that the Government's role is to ensure the Minister operates in accordance with the criteria laid down in the legislation, he will leave it wide open to the Government, under political pressure, to decide to ignore the recommendations and do as is it wishes as regards needs which cannot be met out of taxation. Perhaps the Minister will indicate whether I am wrong.