COMMITTEE OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS debate - Thursday, 30 Mar 2023

Chapter 6: Central Government Funding of Local Authorities

Ms Mary Hurley (Secretary General, Department of Rural and Community Development) and Ms Anna Shakespeare (Chief Executive Officer, Pobal) called and examined.

An Cathaoirleach

I welcome everyone to this morning's meeting. No apologies have been received. Deputy Cormac Devlin may be late.

Members and witnesses attending from within the committee room are asked to exercise personal responsibility to protect themselves and others from the risk of contracting Covid-19. Members of the committee attending remotely must continue to do so from within the precincts of Leinster House due to the constitutional requirement that, in order to participate in public meetings, members must be physically present within the confines of the place where Parliament has chosen to sit.

The Comptroller and Auditor General, Mr. Seamus McCarthy, is a permanent witness to the committee. He is accompanied by Mr. Pat Mullen, audit manager at the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General.

This morning, we will engage with officials from the Department of Rural and Community Development to examine the following matters: Appropriation Accounts 2021, Vote 42 - Rural and Community Development; and the Report on the Accounts of the Public Services 2021, Chapter 6 - Central government funding of local authorities.

We are joined by the following officials from the Department of Rural and Community Development: Ms Mary Hurley, Secretary General; Mr. Fintan O’Brien, assistant secretary, rural development; Mr. J.P. Mulherin, assistant secretary, corporate support; Mr. Kenneth Jordan, finance officer; and Mr. Paul Geraghty, principal officer, community development and the islands. We are also joined by the following representatives from Pobal: Ms Anna Shakespeare, CEO; and Mr. Martin Quigley, director of data and analytics. We are also joined by the following representatives from the Department of Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform: Mr. Dermot Nolan, principal officer; and Ms Criona Brassil, assistant principal, who will join us later in the meeting. They are all very welcome. I remind all those in attendance to ensure their mobile phones are on silent mode or switched off.

Before we start, I wish to explain some limitations to parliamentary privilege, and the practice of the Houses as regards references the witnesses may make to other persons in their evidence.

The evidence of witnesses physically present, or who give evidence from within the parliamentary precincts, is protected pursuant to both the Constitution and statute by absolute privilege. As witnesses are within the precincts of Leinster House, they are protected by absolute privilege in respect of the presentations they make to the committee. This means they have an absolute defence against any defamation actions for anything they say at the meeting. However, they are expected not to abuse this privilege, and it is my duty as Cathaoirleach to make sure it is not abused. Therefore, if their statements are potentially defamatory in relation to an identifiable person or entity, they will be directed to discontinue their remarks. It is imperative that witnesses comply with this direction.

Members are reminded of the provision of Standing Order 218 that the committee shall refrain from inquiring into the merits of a policy or policies of the Government, or a Minister of the Government, or the merits of the objectives of such policies. Members are also reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official, either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

I call the Comptroller and Auditor General, Mr. Seamus McCarthy, to make his opening statement.

Mr. Seamus McCarthy

The 2021 appropriation account for Vote 42, Rural and Community Development, records gross expenditure of €344.4 million. The bulk of the expenditure was distributed across two programme headings, with a broadly similar amount spent under each. A total of €169.2 million was spent on the rural development and regional affairs programme, through which the Department funds investments and projects aimed at renewing towns and villages with populations of fewer than 10,000. Within the programme, there was an underspend of €41 million on rural regeneration and development fund capital projects attributed to delays arising from Covid-related restrictions in the first half of the year. This underspend was applied, in part, to fund additional spending on rural supports and Leader groups. A total of €171 million was spent on the community development programme in 2021, to facilitate community development in both urban and rural areas. Across this programme, expenditure was generally in line with the estimate provision.

Programme C is used to provide funding to the Charities Regulatory Authority, which received grant funding of just over €4 million in 2021. Appropriations-in-aid of the Vote amounted to €81.6 million in 2021. Some €68 million of this was received from the EU, which was significantly up on the level of funding anticipated in the Estimate. In addition, €12 million was received from the Dormant Accounts Fund. The surplus at year end was €58.3 million. The Department received sanction to carry over €16.9 million in unspent capital allocations to 2022. The balance of €41.5 million was surrendered to the Exchequer.

I issued a clear audit opinion in relation to the appropriation account. However, I drew attention to two matters disclosed by the Accounting Officer in the statement on internal financial control. First, the Accounting Officer discloses that there was a non-compliant procurement in the form of an extension of the contract for the provision of air services to the Aran Islands, at a cost in 2021 of €910,000, excluding VAT. The contract was replaced in mid-2022 following a competitive procurement process. Second, as part of routine checking of grant payments to local authorities in 2020, the Department’s internal audit unit identified irregularities in relation to a number of projects the Department had funded under the outdoor recreation infrastructure scheme. The audit identified that no work, or only part of the agreed work, had been done when Mayo County Council claimed the grants. It was a clear condition for drawdown of the funding that the agreed capital works be completed in full. The auditors also identified expenses incurred for other projects that had been incorrectly charged to some of the outdoor recreation projects. In November 2021, the Department terminated the grant funding agreements for four projects and reduced its funding commitment for another project. The Department asked Mayo County Council to return €1.09 million previously claimed and imposed a recoupment sanction of €161,000 in respect of other projects. It also referred the internal audit findings to the Local Government Audit Service and the National Oversight and Audit Commission. The statement on internal financial control also outlines the changes the Department has made to strengthen the controls it operates in relation to grant schemes.

A significant part of the expenditure under the Vote for rural and community development is channelled by the Department to, or through, local authorities. In 2021, such transfers amounted to almost €193 million. This comprised €56.3 million for the LEADER programme regeneration and community enhancement schemes; €40.2 million for the social inclusion and community activation programme; €38.3 million for rural regeneration projects; €26.2 million for other services such as library services; €22.4 million for the improvement of regional and local roads; and €9.5 million for temporary Covid-19 supports in 2021. The Department is therefore reliant to a significant degree on the systems of oversight of local authority spending for assurance on how Vote 42 funds have been applied.

An Cathaoirleach

I invite Ms Hurley to make her opening statement.

Ms Mary Hurley

As Accounting Officer, I am pleased to be here to assist the committee in its examination of the 2021 appropriation account for Vote 42 and the relevant aspects of Chapter 6 - Central government funding of local authorities. I am joined by colleagues, Mr. Fintan O’Brien, assistant secretary for rural development; Mr. J.P. Mulherin, assistant secretary for corporate affairs; Mr. Paul Geraghty, principal officer in the social inclusion and communities unit; and Mr. Ken Jordan, finance officer. We look forward to discussing the expenditure and activity of the Department in 2021 with the committee.

I have provided some detailed briefing in advance, focusing mainly on the Department’s activities in 2021 but also providing some background information on the Department since its establishment. This is the first time an appropriation account for the Department has been examined by the committee. It is, therefore, important to recall that the Department was established in July 2017. At that time, the community functions were transferred from the then Department of Housing, Planning, Community and Local Government and the rural development functions transferred from the then Department of Arts, Heritage, Regional, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs. Subsequently, in January 2018, the community services programme was transferred to the Department and in September 2020, our functions were further widened to include responsibility for the Islands.

The Department has made significant progress since its establishment, including providing key inputs to the national development plan, NDP, developing and implementing five-year policy frameworks for both community development and rural development, and establishing a range of new schemes such as the rural regeneration and development fund and the community centres investment fund.

Before briefly focusing on 2021, I acknowledge and welcome the work of the Comptroller and Auditor General and the engagement of his team with the Department in recent years. This has helped the Department to continuously develop and improve its systems. In that context, since establishment, the Department has placed a very strong focus on its corporate functions, with an audit committee, an internal audit function, an inspection and compliance unit, an evaluation function and a risk management framework. These are all well established within the Department. Despite the many challenges of delivering such a diverse range of schemes, the well-developed control and risk framework ensures that the Department is well placed to minimise risk insofar as this is possible.

The Department’s gross expenditure in 2021 totalled €344.4 million, which included full use of a deferred capital surrender of €13.18 million carried forward from 2020. This expenditure resulted in a gross saving of €19.8 million, with €16.8 million of this carried forward for use in 2022. Therefore, approximately €3 million in gross allocation was surrendered to the Exchequer, with €2 million of this related to the pay and non-pay administration funding for the Department and the Charities Regulator. This strong expenditure outcome was in the context of a very challenging year, given the ongoing impacts of the Covid-19 pandemic.

A number of key deliverables are included for 2021. More than 4,000 locally led rural development projects were supported by the LEADER programme by the end of 2021, with €56 million spent in the year. The rural regeneration and development fund, RRDF, approved funding of €85 million for 25 projects throughout the country, with a spend of €24 million on previously approved projects.

The town and village renewal scheme supported town centre regeneration, remote working and streetscape improvements, with more than €24 million in funding for that purpose. The local improvement schemes delivered improvements to more than 600 roads, with almost €21 million in funding used for this purpose. The social inclusion and community activation programme and the community services programme deliver combined support of €94 million, helping to address disadvantage and secure vital community services. Supports for the community and voluntary sector total €17.5 million, which includes the scheme to support national organisations and support for public participation networks.

We all know the significant challenges faced in 2021 due to the pandemic, and the delivery of the larger projects within the RRDF was particularly impacted by construction site closures. The Department identified these challenges early in the year. The reallocation of resources at an early stage, and the use of capital carryover, ensured our resources were put to best use. The account also details the fact that in 2021, our audit and inspection functions identified claims made by Mayo County Council, under the outdoor recreation infrastructure scheme, for projects that were not completed. We have engaged extensively and intensively with Mayo County Council to identify and fully rectify the issues that gave rise to these claims being made when they should not have been. As chapter 6 shows, local authorities are vital for us to deliver on our mandate, with €193 million of our 2021 spend flowing through the local authority system. I note that, based on more than 450 project inspections over 2021 and 2022, the issues identified in Mayo County Council are very much an exception to the usual delivery by local authorities and our other delivery partners.

In closing, 2021 was a challenging year. However, the Department very effectively utilised its resources, working in partnership with many others, to ensure positive impacts for communities throughout the country.

I acknowledge that the committee’s invitation noted a particular interest in discussing Benefacts. As the committee is aware, the Benefacts funding relationship was not with this Department. However, I am more than happy to discuss this area, and the issue of the possible development of a national funding platform for grant applications and management in the context of central government funding for the community and voluntary sector. We look forward to engaging with the committee and answering any questions members may have.

Deputy James O'Connor

I welcome all the officials. I believe Ms Hurley has recently been appointed Secretary General. We wish her well. Generally, I have quite positive things to say about the Department. Notwithstanding that, we need to look at a couple of matters.

The first area is around the Benefacts database, which was discussed by the committee previously, particularly as it relates to the Department of Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform, although the Department of Social Protection is tied into this as well. It is a little peculiar because we know approximately €7 million in funding was used for what is now pretty much a defunct database system for this company that has ceased to exist in its previous form. The Department's involvement in this is quite interesting. The Department asked Pobal to undertake some work. How much has the Department spent to date on the scoping exercise, which the Department commissioned Pobal to undertake, relating to a potential database similar to that offered by Benefacts?

Ms Mary Hurley

As the Deputy rightly said, Benefacts was a project funded by what was then the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform gathering detail and data relating to the not-for-profit sector, including financial and audit details. Totally separate from that, my Department has been looking at how it can improve its own data systems and data collection systems. That is the Pobal scoping exercise we have been focused on. It is totally separate from the Benefacts project. The scoping exercise we requested Pobal to undertake related to a live grant processing system that would streamline processes for the community and voluntary sector and give us a full picture of live data for grants to the community and voluntary sector. It is separate. They are two different things. One gathers very useful information relating to audited accounts, financial data and providing data sets on the sector. The other, for me, is very much around the Accounting Officer piece.

Deputy James O'Connor

What departmental resources have been spent on this to date? I originally asked what had been spent.

Ms Mary Hurley

The scoping exercise cost €30,000. We received a report from Pobal setting out the options for how we might go about such a database. We are considering those at the moment. At present, it is €30,000.

Deputy James O'Connor

I imagine that will be farmed out to a private firm. A contract would be offered, similar to what happened previously. We know Benefacts cost circa €7 million, which is a very significant amount of taxpayers' money.

Ms Mary Hurley

We reported the matter to the Local Government Audit Service and to the National Oversight and Audit Commission, NOAC. We also met them to discuss issues so, for future planning, they are aware of it in terms of their annual planning. Ms Niamh Larkin, the head of the audit service, has worked really proactively and positively with us.

No, there were not, because part of the process was a review of the CLÁR projects and town and village projects in Mayo, and they did not turn up any issues. We also did a further check across the country. No other issues came to light.

If it is all right with the Deputy, I will mention the controls in place for the past year. Following on from these issues, we put controls in place whereby we were doing a 100% prepayment check, post-payment checks, the officials in my Department were meeting with Mayo on a monthly basis, and we were overseeing a very detailed programme of reform and of corrective action within Mayo County Council. It has been a long year and Mayo County Council officials have worked hard to improve and there are new arrangements in terms of certification and director of service sign-off. My own officials have been fantastic in terms of just getting stuck into the work and making sure value for money is achieved. In all of this, and the Deputy has said it, we owe it to the community and people of Mayo to get it right and make sure projects are delivered because the types of projects that are delivered under ORIS make such a difference. There are bridges and playgrounds, and they are fantastic projects, so it is important to get it right.

Deputy Imelda Munster

I want to follow on from what Deputy O'Connor was asking, and I know Ms Hurley said there are stringent criteria and checks and balances in place now. How confident would Ms Hurley be that those additional controls are sufficient? I know the Department recouped the money and I was interested to hear Ms Hurley say that, but local authority management or directors of services etc. would have known full well they were misusing public money or certainly not using it for the purposes for which it was allocated to them. My fear would be that where there is a lack of accountability or reprimand, it leaves the door open for that type of misuse to happen again. On the decision that was taken that to recoup the funding was sufficient, was there a discussion about whether the particular person or section in the local authority would face dismissal, disciplinary hearings, or basically be held to account other than just the money being taken back?

Ms Mary Hurley

Yes, we had very detailed conversations with Mayo regarding their employees. Obviously it was a hugely serious issue. As I said, the Department took the decision to get the money back, we recovered the public moneys in full plus a sanction, and from our perspective in terms of fraud, looking at our own fraud policy document, there had not been personal gain. Deputy Munster is absolutely right about concern that money not being spent on what it was voted for.

There is no cut in the funding. The funding is on a programme basis, as opposed to an annual basis. Since the previous LEADER programme, we have other funding streams for rural development. For instance, the RRDF is a €1 billion fund. LEADER is €250 million this time around, as it was last time around, but it has improved significantly the amount of funding over the year.

In terms of the local action group areas that deal with islands, we have made it a requirement that they have a strategy within their local development strategy for the islands. We have made it a requirement that there is a representative of the islands community on the decision-making group. Within their budgets, we have made sure those local action groups will identify projects and funding for islands. It ties into the island strategy we are working on in the Department. We have made provision for islands.

I acknowledge what the Deputy says. Island communities are isolated and need particular resources and support. Rather than an islands group, within the overall structure that we have put in place, we have made requirements for islands to be catered for.

Deputy Verona Murphy

I thank the witnesses for coming in. I think Ms Hurley is probably the first female Secretary General to appear before the committee, so well done on that. I can see a significant difference - albeit I may be biased, being a female - in the presentation. I am delighted with that.

I go back to what we started with in relation to Mayo County Council. It is positive, from my perspective as a member of this committee, that the Department has an effective scrutiny function, particularly at county council level.

I suppose strictly speaking we would be better cutting out the middleman, which is the local authorities. They already administer large funds. From my perspective, particularly with regard to Wexford, I can see where we have a very efficient local development group and there should not be a penny wasted. It is perfectly capable of administrating it. I would like it to be a consideration going forward that a local authority should not benefit from what ultimately is part of its job, as far as I see it.

An Cathaoirleach

Could Ms Hurley supply data for all counties? It would be useful for the members.

Ms Mary Hurley

No problem.

Deputy Colm Burke

I thank the witnesses for their presentation. I apologise for joining the meeting late. I have gone through the written submission. I thank the Department for the work it is doing right across the country.

Deputy Colm Burke

Can I move on to the funding for community centres? The sports capital grant has been great for sports clubs right across the country. Community centres under the Department were covered the last time. About €4.6 million was allocated through the Cork regional loan. Going forward, how does Ms Hurley see this developing?

The other issue I would like to raise on this is that although there are community groups that are very proactive, know the system very well and have been very good at getting and raising their own funding, others do not have the same expertise. I know of a community group that really needs funding now. It applied but got turned down because its application did not contain the appropriate information. Is there a need to provide supports for communities that do not have the experience and that have more challenges with income levels, etc.?

Ms Mary Hurley

In the context of some of those community groups that were unsuccessful under our last call and where there was a capacity issue regarding the form filling and application process, we did run a number of information sessions in May and June of last year to support groups applying for funding under the community centres fund. Our colleagues in Pobal were very helpful in giving feedback to groups that were not successful. It is certainly something we will do again for future calls. We can have information sessions and support groups as they apply for funding.

On the Deputy's constituency, I will be very happy to speak to him regarding the feedback from his local groups. As the Secretary General mentioned, we apply the scheme rules and guidelines in terms of the grant application process and then undertake the subsequent assessment and appraisal of each grant. Regarding appeals, we work our way through an appeals process should any group be dissatisfied. As the Deputy mentioned, some of the application processes are very competitive.

The Deputy mentioned the community centre investment fund. There was an enormous response to that initiative in 2022. More than 826 grants were made during 2022, ranging in size from €25,000 to €300,000 to support the regeneration of community centres. To reassure the Deputy, we ran several Helping Hands seminars last year. This goes to the point made by the Deputy about supporting local community groups in making their applications. Each area has a development co-ordinator assigned to it. We also have a client services team whereby local community groups can ring a dedicated helpline providing support. I assure the Deputy that we have the systems in place. I very much take the feedback that we could perhaps communicate this better and I am very happy to take-----

Deputy Colm Burke

I might come back to Ms Shakespeare directly on the issues I have.

Ms Anna Shakespeare

I thank the Deputy.

Deputy Colm Burke

I thank Ms Shakespeare.

An Cathaoirleach

I thank Deputy Colm Burke and call Deputy Dillon.

Deputy Alan Dillon

I also raise issues around the rural regeneration and development fund, RRDF. We have the urban regeneration and development fund, URDF, which is the flagship scheme in the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage. The RRDF is administered within the Department of Rural and Community Development. On the approval of RRDF funding and the completion of projects, how are key performance indicators, KPIs, measured for local authorities in respect of delivery? It is necessary to go through different decision gates, and I understand this, but what is the average timeline for local authorities to deliver on their commitments? This is a multimillion euro annual commitment by the witnesses' Department, but we feel frustrated because of the time it takes to deliver on the ground.

Ms Mary Hurley

Yes, sure. On the RRDF, as I said earlier, there was an underspend in this regard and delivery has not been as quick as we would have wanted.

Yes, no problem.

Deputy Paul McAuliffe

I thank everybody for being with us today. I will take a slightly different tack. Ms Hurley will probably know from some of the parliamentary questions I have been asking that one of my focuses is to see whether we are getting the balance right in terms of funding for rural Ireland and for urban Dublin, particularly those parts of urban Dublin where there are significant levels of disadvantage. I cannot say there is not a strong commitment to those areas because only this week €47,000 was granted to support family carers to the Finglas Counselling Service, funding has been given to the national Rediscovery Centre, which is based in Ballymun, and the social inclusion and community activation programme, SICAP, is a significant commitment to tackling disadvantage. I was chair of the local community development committee, LCDC, from 2014 to 2016. I was part of all of the SICAP tendering process etc.

It is a broader question. Ms Liz Canavan, assistant secretary in the Department of the Taoiseach, is reviewing how we can tackle the issue of disadvantage and how we can expand the North East Inner City Programme sustainably. The Taoiseach has a desire to try to tackle child poverty in particular. While I understand why they would be operationally separate, I think they are linked. The Ballymun - A Brighter Future report by Mr. Andrew Montague makes for very interesting reading. Many people have considered it already. It talks about the role of Tusla and the HSE in many of those communities.

We have the community safety partnerships, which will augment the joint policing committees, JPCs. They are not dissimilar to the area-based partnerships which were set up in the 1990s, and we need to question why the HSE, Tusla and the education and training boards, ETBs, to some degree are not as active in those bodies as they were in the past. Part of that is we have turned those partnerships into service delivery vehicles, and in some cases that is because of the relationship Pobal has with them. They have specific targets, they have contracts, they have memorandums of understanding, and their ability to respond to need in the area and to convene agencies has been diluted. That was done, most obviously, when we removed councillors from the boards of area partnerships.

I say to Ms Hurley that I will keep knocking on her door about trying to address this issue. There are many other people dealing with it. In fairness, everybody is. I joke at the Minister, Deputy Humphreys, saying she is the Minister with responsibility for community and rural affairs as though they were separate, but there is a real issue of disadvantage in urban areas. If we are looking at the rise of the far right, it is those communities that are being targeted, not only in Ireland but in every part of Europe. We need to tackle disadvantage in a very serious way. While cities can be very large, pockets of disadvantage are villages and they are no different from any other village around Ireland. That is one area. I would be interested to hear Ms Hurley's thoughts on that and the work she might be doing with the Department of the Taoiseach.

The second question I have is in regard to the administration of some of the grants. In 2014, grants such as the community facilities programme, which is a really good programme, were allocated to the LCDCs. There were huge difficulties that the same batch of funding was being given to every LCDC, regardless of size. That has been corrected slightly. We still have a long way to go. Dublin has a huge population compared with some LCDCs, and the fact they were getting similar allocations originally was wrong. There has been some correction now for that.

However, the administration in those larger areas is a difficulty. If we are to administer a fund of €200,000, we will get 200 or 300 applications because of the scale and size of the city, and the process of managing those is difficult. Then there are different funds over the course of the year and you might get funding at the end of the year that other counties cannot spend because we know there is a need in Dublin and they will get it. We need to look at how we can co-ordinate those together, that we can give a chunk of funding at the beginning of the year - I understand the Department does not want to get into core funding - and that, with that local authority, particularly Dublin City Council but it could happen with others, there would be an agreed process where an open call for funding is put out and then the local authority could assess the applications under the different criteria under the different grants.

Those are a few suggestions. I will give Ms Hurley the other half of the slot to answer them.

Ms Mary Hurley

I thank the Deputy. This is a huge area the Deputy is passionate about. I see the parliamentary questions and I know where the Deputy is coming from.

To give the Deputy some high-level facts on the community budget, it has increased from €146 million in 2018 to €222 million. That is largely made up of those really important programmes we deliver in communities: SICAP, a community centres fund, the community services programme, CSP, and all of that. They make a huge difference to communities. The Deputy is right. For communities experiencing disadvantage, that money makes such a difference.

Going back to what the Deputy spoke to regarding the work we are doing with the Department of the Taoiseach to empower communities where there is disadvantage, he referred to our empowering communities programme, which involves 14 areas, and indeed the Whitehall-Ballymun-Finglas area in the Deputy's constituency is involved in that.

One of the things we have seen is targeting and we have seen it really well in the north-east inner city. When funds are targeted and some of the social issues that are impacting communities are addressed, it makes such a difference and it can turn things around. We have been funding the north-east inner city to the tune of €7.5 million for the last number of years and that covers things like policing. It covers community centres. We have seen great work done in the Rutland Centre, the community hub there. It is about learning the lessons from that. That is what we are teasing through with Liz Canavan in the Department of the Taoiseach at the moment around those 14 areas, how can we taper the services to the needs of those local communities. It really has to be the local communities themselves identifying what the issues are. We have seen that. Obviously, there is the partnership in the Deputy's area. We have seen the work that can be done on the ground and I know that work is progressing really well. It is about working with communities to see that they identify the issues in their area and it is about targeting the funding.

The other thing, as the Deputy well knows and pointed to himself, is that one size does not fit all in urban communities. There are different issues in urban communities - in Galway, the inner city, north Dublin or south Dublin. One of the things we are trying to do, and we are doing it around that empowering communities programme, is to identify those issues to work with communities and to have people on the ground who understand the issues and complexities for those people and work the funding there.

Deputy Paul McAuliffe

I think Ms Hurley has hit the nail on the head. The issue is access to senior officials. With the funding in the inner cities, they have access to senior officials because of the initial involvement of the Department of the Taoiseach. It is not sustainable for the Department of the Taoiseach to operate this programme. It is not every area; only a small number of areas have the level of disadvantage we are talking about. The difficulty is that Dublin City Council has set up a number; for example, Cherry Orchard and Darndale are set up. Darndale does not have access to senior officials while Cherry Orchard seems to have access to the Department of Justice.

The Department of Rural and Community Development has a role to convene the other Departments. The Department of Education has a massive role. We have the DEIS programme and we should have a DEIS+ programme. If we gave money to schools in disadvantaged areas, we would solve many problems around issues like Youthreach, the youth encounter projects and the HSE. The Department of Rural and Community Development has that convening role. The local authorities are important and that sits with the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage. The Department of Rural and Community Development has responsibility for community and therefore provides the funding. The Department of Rural and Community Development and the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage through local government are the two Departments which ultimately should inherit this from the Department of the Taoiseach because that is how it will be done sustainably.

Just as we have a top-class response to rural Ireland - I think Our Rural Future is a top-class response to rural Ireland - we need to have that same top-class response to disadvantaged areas. It is not just all about money. It is about having senior officials in a room and telling them that in our area X number of children are out of school and asking them to establish a specific pilot programme in the area to keep those kids in school, or asking if they know that our area has the highest level of opioid use, for example. Tallaght might have a different problem and might want the HSE to come in and respond to that. It is local. It is an idea from the 1990s. We just need to resurrect, resource and empower it.

Ms Mary Hurley

The Deputy is absolutely right. It is about coherence. It is about people working together. It is about understanding what the issues are. It is not all about money. In fact, sometimes when there is too much money going in, the scattergun approach can be quite dangerous. It is that piece of bringing it all together. We work very closely with the Department of the Taoiseach and I can promise the Deputy that we will continue that.

Deputy Paul McAuliffe

The HSE and Tusla are the two agencies that have the most impact. They do not have a way of engaging with the other agencies at the moment in a structured format. The other problem is they do not want to do that, or officials on the ground are not able to do it or do not have the time. Those are the two agencies Ms Hurley needs to bring to the table. I encourage her to keep working with the Department of the Taoiseach. Ballymun and Finglas are the next two places where I want to see a task force.

An Cathaoirleach

We will break for ten minutes and resume at 11.15 a.m. sharp.

Sitting suspended at 11.05 a.m. and resumed at 11.15 a.m.

An Cathaoirleach

I call Deputy Carthy.

It states: "For rural proofing to work effectively, all Government Departments will need to make the impact on rural communities of proposed policy initiatives a routine policy consideration." A response to a parliamentary question tabled by my colleague, Deputy Kerrane, indicated that the Department had engaged with others "on a pilot basis with key Departments to identify the best approach in the Irish context". What other Departments has the Department of Rural and Community Development been engaging with in that respect?

Ms Mary Hurley

I will ask my colleague, Mr. O'Brien, to come in as he has been working on the rural proofing piece. By way of background, we have been working hard on this issue both within the country and also internationally. We had an OECD conference in County Cavan earlier this year and rural proofing was a key issue. In order for rural delivery to work, proofing has to be right. We did a lot of work on that.

The other piece is that the Minister, Deputy Humphreys, was in the UK for St. Patrick's Day where she met her opposite number in respect of rural development. The UK has done some significant work on rural proofing so we had some discussion around that. We are very conscious of the need to bring this matter to a conclusion. This pilot work that Mr. O'Brien and the team have been doing has been critical around that. I will let him reply to the Deputy briefly regarding the work he has been doing.

Ms Mary Hurley: I will ask my colleague, Mr. O'Brien

Mr. Fintan O'Brien

I thank the Deputy. This is one of the key recommendations within Our Rural Future: Rural Development Policy 2021-2025. We have been doing quite a bit of work on it recently. One of the challenges is that when we look at this internationally, it is very hard to find a system that has worked really well in terms of rural proofing. We are conscious that we do not want to repeat mistakes that have happened elsewhere and that it becomes very much a box-ticking exercise. We want rural proofing to add value to policymaking where rural issues are integrated into that process as seamlessly as possible.

The international evidence very much says we do it on a phased basis and undertake a pilot. That is why we are taking that approach. We have been talking to the Department of Tourism, Culture, Arts, Gaeltacht, Sport and Media regarding its sustainable tourism policy. We have been talking to the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage with regard to the national planning framework. We are plugging into the interdepartmental group, which our Department, the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment and Enterprise Ireland are on, regarding the hub strategy. We have also been talking with the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine.

The idea is to feed into that process of, for example, a sustainable tourism policy at the development stage and ask whether we are taking in rural opportunities and challenges and making sure that is part of the policy to make it stronger. Over the course of the year, as we go through it with the other Departments, it is about identifying what the outcome of that will be. Do we need information packs? Do we need training with Departments? Do we need tender forms to fill out? It is to try to make sure there is actual value added rather than, as I said, face value box-ticking. That is the process we are in at the moment.

Deputy Matt Carthy

I still do not have a sense, nor does anyone listening to the meeting, as to what rural proofing will mean. For me, if it is to be effective, it means that decisions must be made. Let us face it: most decisions that are made are made in this city within a very small geographical area. The people who make and advise on them are largely based within that same geographical area. We need to come to a point that before policies are implemented and budgets are allocated, there is an overview as to whether there are unforeseen implications or economic or social impacts on other communities that might not be appreciated within this geographical area.

Even over the past few weeks, we have been looking at some transport policies. We talked about electric vehicle grants, for example, and other issues. We found that they actually discriminate against rural communities. People in rural communities do not have the wherewithal to buy new cars and do not have access to public transport. They are essentially paying more every year to fund grants that are largely going to people who have public transport options. Likewise, when we talk about active travel, it is a principle and objective we all support. What we actually see is funding being taken from rural communities that might be used to enhance road safety and improve connectivity. Large amounts are then going towards urban centres under the guise of active travel.

This can be seen across virtually every Department. We have seen where healthcare decisions impact specifically on rural communities. We see it in terms of housing, in particular, where the overarching focus on developing larger cities has had a detrimental impact and the type of development needed was not seen. What people want to know is whether there will be a mechanism at the end of this process. They will actually red-flag those issues well in advance of policies being implemented. Government can proceed with those policy decisions, but it will be doing so in the knowledge of what the implications will be.

Ms Mary Hurley

The Deputy's understanding is absolutely correct. That is where we are trying to get to. To get to that place, we must make sure the proofing model is robust, credible and that people buy into it. As he said, it is about red-flagging the issues and then decisions have to be taken or not. That is where we are trying to get to. It is these three pilots working with other Departments. There is a kind of hearts and minds thing as well. That is where we are trying to get to.

The our rural future strategy in itself, which is across government with various different objectives, is a piece about moving the agenda forward and changing the mindset. When we are looking at transport, we also have health and education and we must have regard to the rural piece as well. It is all tied up.

The Deputy is absolutely right, however. We want to get to that piece where it is red-flagged. What is the impact on rural Ireland? What is in it for rural Ireland? How can we make rural Ireland a better place? That is where we are working to get to.

An Cathaoirleach

From what the Deputy is saying, a lot of work has to be done on that. We can point to rural transport and electric vehicle grants as a case in point. It is not that we are opposed to grants for electric vehicles, but we can see how it is militating against rural Ireland.

The dog wardens have a very difficult job. It is important that there be a straight line of accountability in respect of the substantial funding spent by some local authorities on dog wardens or bodies that are providing the dog wardens. I call Deputy Catherine Murphy.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

I wish the witnesses a good morning. I watched the meeting on the monitor earlier when the first contributor spoke about the €30,000 scoping exercise for a database. In terms of the options, the Department would have to go to tender to build the database. Ms Hurley might briefly tell us what the options are.

Ms Mary Hurley

We have committed to making the options paper available to the committee so-----

Deputy Catherine Murphy

I have limited time. Ms Hurley might just outline the high-level aspects.

Ms Mary Hurley

The scoping exercise looked at what was possible in terms of a database. It looked at what would be useful for the community and voluntary sector and what would be useful for the public in terms of open data. The scoping exercise found that it was feasible to put a database of this kind in place. It pointed to the benefits regarding the types of data it would collect - the grant system

Deputy Catherine Murphy

Has Ms Hurley an indication of what it would cost to build the grant system alone?

When the Secretary General of the Department of Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform was before the committee, I asked him if he had read the Indecon report. He told me he was briefed on it but he did not say he read it. I had an engagement with him on that.

I wish to refer to specific elements of the report. The conclusions section states: "Indecon’s analysis suggests that the overall benefits of the Benefacts service are likely to be in excess of the costs." The report goes on to suggest that "ceasing funding of Benefacts or an alternative service would reduce information which is needed for effective governance". It further adds that in a previous review by the Comptroller and Auditor General "the importance of adequate oversight arrangements where public funding is provided to a range of organisations was highlighted". In the executive summary, the authors argue:

In order to ensure that the [competitive tender] process would be likely to deliver value for money and that the existing assets are protected, Indecon would recommend that a mechanism is found to enable Benefacts to be a bidder in the process, or for the existing assets, experience and knowledge to be maintained. In this context depending on the timescales involved, there may be a need for the Government to consider transitional arrangements to ensure that the service is maintained until a bidding process is completed.

The way Indecon sees it, there was a system in place that may not have been doing exactly what the Department wanted it to do but it was providing an overview of a sector that is worth €14 billion, with €7 billion in grant funding provided to non-profit organisations by State entities. Approximately 160 State entities have to do the due diligence if they are grant-aiding but they cannot see what other matching funding is going to be available. The system was wound down but there is no timeline for introducing an alternative. The alternative does not appear to be a duplicate of Benefacts but appears to be something related to grant-aiding. It will pay for itself, essentially, is what we are being told. We have seen the kinds of information that could be drawn down when the database is built. In fact, some Departments availed of the data and engaged Benefacts to do that.

The committee is examining something that cost €8 million or €9 million, with approximately one third of that coming from a non-governmental source, and which was heavily used. It was used by several Departments. It has been wound down and is not available now. We are going to see something developed that will duplicate it, that will cost an unknown amount to build and that will probably involve an expensive consultancy. That does not strike me as value for money.

What kind of engagement was there with the Department? Was there a conversation to the effect that there was a procurement issue with Benefacts and that the Department of Rural and Community Development should not touch it with a barge pole or did the Department of Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform simply provide the information and ask the Department if it wanted to be the parent Department for Benefacts? Which was it?

Ms Mary Hurley

As the Deputy knows, the contract was with the Department of Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform. That Department put the contract in place and Benefacts did some fantastic work around the transparency and the audit piece, particularly prior to the period when the Charities Regulator started gathering this sort of data.

Deputy Catherine Murphy

Can I just stop Ms Hurley there please? The role of Benefacts was not to provide greater transparency. In fact, the Charities Bill was enacted in 2009 and the Charities Regulator began its operations in 2014 but Benefacts actually only commenced around that time so it was not going to duplicate that.

As long as I have been around, the word "community" has been used to paper over all sorts of stuff.

I know from our own engagement on Cork that this is an area Deputy Burke is really interested in. The connected hub space is such an important issue for rural Ireland. I will give him a quick update. In recent years, we have approved in the order of €150 million for hubs and community facilities to support remote working. That comes from the town and village renewal fund, the rural regeneration fund and various other funds.

Ms Mary Hurley

It might be useful for the committee, and also for local authority members, to have a synopsis of all the different strands of funding and what they can be used for. More and more of these get announced. To be honest, if someone asked me, I would have to refer to something to find out which ones cover what. Could the Department supply the committee with the different funding streams for local development and through the local authorities in particular and what the criteria is?

I do not disagree that money is going in, but community wealth-building is essentially trying to capture that money so there is a spend within the local economy and that it creates its own dynamics. Certain ethics around environmental and social matters and labour rights come into play. Cognisance is taken of those.

Is anyone in the Department aware of that? I do not mean to be smart about it but that may be worth looking at. In the Six Counties, the economy is not that different. Belfast is the largest city, Derry is a smaller city, then there are a number of other large towns such as Omagh and other different places with populations of between 30,000 and 50,000 or 60,000. I ask that it be looked at. Could we approach this on an all-island basis? Hopefully, if the Executive is back up and running and the North-South Ministerial Council is meeting, there will be more interaction between officials from here and the North. The witnesses will be aware of the work that has been done over the past 20 years on the Border corridor. There were significant links between Fermanagh, Sligo, Cavan, Donegal, Derry and so on, right along the Border. That might be looked at. That is the issue I wanted to ask about.

I also thank the Comptroller and Auditor General, Mr. Seamus McCarthy, and Mr. Mullen for attending and for the work they and their staff in the Public Gallery have done and for the materials supplied to the committee.

Is it agreed that the clerk will seek any follow-up information and carry out any actions agreed at the meeting? Agreed. Is it also agreed that we note and publish the opening statements and briefing provided for today's meeting? Agreed.

The witnesses withdrew.

Sitting suspended at 12.34 p.m. and resumed at 1.32 p.m.