Brendan Ryan (Labour)

I can suggest a number of variations. The Minister has made plausible points, however, another plausible point is that different Ministers will have different expertise. The Minister could confine the Government's approval to it being satisfied that the criteria already set out were followed in the decision-making process. If the reason behind the process is to ensure rules are not being broken and because a Minister may not have the necessary expertise, then the Government's role should be to ensure that the recommendations are in accordance with its criteria. That is a reasonable decision for the Government. In this regard, the Minister is correct in his argument of a scenario where the Government acts more at variance than in accordance with the criteria.

This is a large fund. This month there is a crisis with hospital accident and emergency departments. Some of the dormant accounts fund is unallocated. The Minister for Health and Children could argue that if she had €10 million of it, she could provide a service to deal with the crisis. However, it would create a storm from all the community groups arguing it is their money.

Boards do not resign. Last week, the advisory committee on overseas development co-operation was criticised when a solemn promise to reach a target was broken. However, the board did not resign. In my experience, boards do not resign in Ireland. Sometimes they are sacked but they never resign. The board of Combat Poverty went through ups and downs but never resigned.

The Minister has not convinced me of his argument. I am pleased that he is listening and may reconsider the matter. However, I suggest a threshold of scale of expenditure below which Government approval would not be required. The idea of the Government continually examining proposals to give €5,000 to an organisation is a bad example of public administration. The Bill could state that the Government shall be satisfied that the procedures, plans and criteria laid out were followed. However, it is unacceptable to make a bald statement to the effect that while the Government could pay a political price for doing so, there is no legal restraint on it choosing to ignore everything.