I want to raise again the recommendation of the DIRT inquiry that the dormant funds lying in financial institutions would be taken over by the State and put at the disposal of people working with social, economic or education disadvantage in the community. The estimate was that there would be in excess of IR£100 million, but when the Government decided to implement the DIRT inquiry recommendation, a sum of €180 million was transferred with anticipated annual top ups of €10 million. When the dead insurance policies are added it is estimated it will rise to €400 million. This money was to be distributed by an independent disbursements board to aid disadvantage. The Government brought forward legislation in 2001 to give effect to the DIRT recommendation. During that time, the then Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy, stated:

To get away from the problem of having the Government blamed of having a slush fund, it has been decided to establish a board of trustees. The board will distribute the money, subject to guidelines and without direction from the Government. This will get away from the problems of having Ministers accused of favouring pet projects, having the fund as part of general Estimates processes of Departments or having it as part of policy initiatives of Departments. I think this is the best approach. I thought that if this money, which belongs not to the State but to individuals, should be escheated to the State — subject to safeguards that people who look for it can be given it back — that the best approach was to give the power to distribute it to a disbursals board and not the Minister. I am not in a position to change the Bill at this stage. It was a decision I took and I think it is the safest one in the circumstances.

If the Government decided on 20 June 2001 not to set up a slush fund and not to put it under the control of a Minister, why did it slip out a statement in the dead days before Christmas, giving the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs, Deputy Ó Cúiv, the power to decide where this money will be distributed and what groups will benefit. It is a blatant reversal of the solemn commitment given by the Minister for Finance and it is shameful that the partner in Government should stand over it. It is an old style Fianna Fáil stroke, which is disgraceful.

A leopard does not change its spots.

The dormant accounts disbursements board's plan that was published last year will operate and the board, which will still be in existence, will evaluate projects and advise on the priority areas to be considered annually for funding. They will still be involved in the preparation of the disbursement plan and reviewing and evaluating projects. The available resources are quite substantial. The Government does not intend to use this as a slush fund, but it wants the Department set up to deal with community organisations to deal with the drugs task force, RAPID and CLÁR and all other agencies. The departmental officials have a knowledge about the priorities and should be properly involved. The allocation of the funds will be transparent and will be accounted for. The decisions will be made public and the money will be used to help those who are at an economic, education or social disadvantage and those with disabilities.

With the greatest respect to those on the independent board, the Government takes the view that the board would need the involvement of the Department that worked with the agencies concerned. That seems to me a good way to do it. The board will not be disbanded but it seems to me that a group of people who are not dealing on a day to day basis with the various organisations, who have no real knowledge of the strategic plans and are not involved in the activities are not the experts in the matter, with the greatest respect to them.

Who are independent.

If the Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy, thought on 20 June 2001 that this was a slush fund and he would not go down that road, and he would not put it under the direction of a Minister, why is that not true today and why has there been a change of mind? Did the Taoiseach hear the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs, Deputy Ó Cúiv, say on "Morning Ireland" last week that it was only when the Taoiseach discovered there was so much in the fund that he decided there should be transparency. In order to be transparent, the Minister, Deputy Ó Cúiv, should distribute it. Having listened to his convoluted spins last night on the Irish language motion, nobody will accuse Deputy Ó Cúiv of being transparent. He has already collapsed the RAPID programme, which the Taoiseach played for all it was worth in these communities before the election, stating it would release €2 billion to disadvantaged communities. The Government wants to take over this money, re-label it and allow the Minister, Deputy Ó Cúiv, to ladle it out. I do not know if he will give Mr. Séan Ó Neachtáin any of it, but other than that, most of his colleagues will be in for a dip into the fund.

The Tánaiste, when she was on this side of the House, came in with a Bill to avoid the lottery being used as a slush fund. The rhetoric that she rose to about the abuse by the then Fianna Fáil Ministers of the lottery seems to have entirely eluded her when this Bill came before Cabinet to amend legislation introduced by a Fianna Fáil Government.

It would be an enormous mistake to use this money for a slush fund. That is not what the Government will do

Why the change?

I will explain the process in one minute.The Dormant Accounts Disbursement Board is in place and a Department has been charged with responsibility for liaising with community development groups of all kinds which deal with drugs, CLÁR, RAPID and so on. The Department has the expertise at official level and through its agencies to identify the priority plans needed to address social disadvantage. The process will evaluate all of the schemes to ensure maximum transparency and accountability. It will guarantee that the money funds the best projects which have been properly assessed by the Department and the board to best advantage in areas of disadvantage. That is the best approach. I am not in any way critical of the board, but individuals who were not involved in the day-to-day activities of the strategic plans of these organisations are not the best people to make those decisions.

That is not what it is. It is not part of the strategic plan.

The Government has acted accordingly to ensure that we will make the right decisions.

It is the strategic election plan.