Vol. 343 No. 1
asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he will state, in view of the Taoiseach's statement in the Dáil on Tuesday, 14 December 1982, that where good things are being done which need to be done in deprived areas of our cities, they will not be halted because of the change of Government, the reason he decided to terminate the funding of the north centre city community action project; and if he will make a statement clarifying the matter.
17.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he intends to restore the grant from his Department towards the cost of administering the Dublin north centre city community action project; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 16 and 17 together.
It would, I think, be appropriate as a first step to outline the history of my Department's involvement with this project.
The North Centre City Community Action Project was initially given grants of £30,000 yearly for 1978, 1979 and 1980 by the former National Committee of Pilot Schemes to Combat Poverty mainly for the purpose of discharging the salaries of the project staff. When the Combat Poverty Committee were abolished in December 1980, my Department provided funding to the project which amounted to £15,600 in 1981 and £25,500 in 1982. It was the only project in the country that continued to receive funds from my Department after the Combat Poverty organisation ceased to exist.
The funding of the project by my Department was always on a temporary basis and it was never intended that it should continue indefinitely. Indeed, on 28 October 1982 the secretary of the project was informed by letter from my Department that no provision had been made in the Department's estimates for continuation of the funding in 1983 and, accordingly, that funding would cease when the National Community Development Agency was set up but would not, in any event, continue after 31 December 1982. Notwithstanding this, however, I arranged for the payment of £2,800 to be sent to the project on 26 January 1983. This sum represented a payment of £350 a week for eight weeks up to 25 February 1983. At the same time, a month's notice was formally given of the termination of the temporary funding arrangement.
Apart from the funds which my Department made available, I understand the project has been and is receiving funds in a variety of ways. The secretary is an employee of the Eastern Health Board. In addition, I understand the project received substantial sums from a number of sources in connection with its activities from organisations such as the Inner City Group, AnCO, Dublin Corporation and the Youth Employment Scheme of the Department of Labour. My Department have received no information from the officers of the project as to the extent of the funding which was received in connection with these activities. Inquiries made by the Department, however, would seem to indicate that more than £100,000 was so received in 1982.
One would expect that any body seeking direct subvention from a Government Department would submit comprehensive information about its financial standing. This was not done in this case nor was any information given as to the extent, if any, that the organisation itself engages directly in fund-raising activities. In relation to organisational structure, my Department have never received details of any elections of officers or received reports of ordinary meetings or annual general meetings of the organisation. I can assure the Deputies that the Government are absolutely committed to the development of the inner city. No one organisation, however, has an exclusive right to exceptional treatment in this matter. When funds become available, all organisations concerned with urban renewal and social development will be given an equal opportunity of securing a fair share of those funds where their activities warrant it.
In this connection it will be essential in future to lay down clear-cut criteria for the grant of funding so that scarce resources are seen to be utilised for the purpose for which they are intended. I intend to ask the Combat Poverty Organisation, when established, to determine these criteria.
That is quite a detailed reply and I have a number of questions to ask the Minister. In view of what seem to be the implications of his reply, have his Department sought any information from the community action project that has been denied to his Department, or is it — as I believe to be the case — that any information or any details whatever about any of the activities of this project sought by his Department have been made available to his Department and any information to which he referred in his reply if it were sought by his Department would be made available readily and immediately by the project?
The Deputy will appreciate that the matter of my Department seeking information became my responsibility only around the middle of last January, but at that stage I instituted some inquiries as to what moneys the project had been receiving. My understanding is that, apart from whatever moneys the Department of Social Welfare were giving in 1981 a sum of £800 was received from the inner city group, £7,800 in 1982 and £1,000 so far in 1983. AnCO paid the project £14,500 in 1981, £37,500 in 1982 and £22,121 in 1983 so far. I understand that the Youth Employment Scheme in 1982 paid £47,650 and £20,520 in 1983. In simple terms, therefore, the project has received in 1981 in addition to the moneys I have mentioned £10,115 from Dublin Corporation.
To sum up, the project received in 1981 an amount of £25,000 excluding any money they got from the Department of Social Welfare; in 1982 they received £107,807 and the amount in 1983 so far is £43,614. Regarding the involvement of my Department, it is important to bear in mind, contrary to an impression that has been created, that my Department's funding has been relatively small. The project itself has received a great deal of money from other sources. I stress that I did not receive audited financial accounts from the project in relation to the moneys expended.
Are the details that the Minister has given us here simply not evidence of the recognition by many State bodies of the worthwhile nature of many of the sub-projects, activities or training courses or whatever this community action project are carrying out and were the moneys that he has itemised specifically for the implementation and carrying out of training courses or whatever various community projects and work this project were organising? Those funds went totally to specific work activities and the question which I have put down relates, as the Minister said earlier in his reply, to the salaries of the community workers——
That sounds like a speech and a very long one.
It may sound like a speech but it is not. The Minister's reply was very detailed.
Certainly no one would recognise it as a question.
I will try to put it as a question.
Standing Orders say that questions should be brief and to the point.
I thought my question was to the point. The question which I have tabled is that, as the Minister is well aware and there is no doubt in my mind about it however he may wish to confuse us with lists of facts and figures, the funding that his Department made available to the project — I am asking a question — was the funding which his Department made available to this community action project for the salaries of the workers involved. Further, if his Department take away the salaries of the workers involved and the project inevitably ceases to exist and cannot then——
That is not a question, that is an argument. Question Time is being reduced to a farce by these very long speeches.
I am simply asking a question, a Cheann Comhairle. I do not think you are allowing me to make the point—which is very clear, I would have thought——
Questions should be brief and concise.
I will try to recap on the question. I feel that if you had let me finish the question the Minister might be replying now. I am asking the Minister if funds he has withdrawn were funds to provide salaries——
That is a question.
——for community workers involved in this project and if those salaries are withdrawn then the various details that he has itemised in his reply——
This is where the speech comes in.
——will no longer hold because there will be nobody to acquire funds to run training courses and to do the many good works which this project is doing in the inner city. Maybe the Minister will reply. I have asked a question.
The north centre city community action project, known as such, of which the Deputy is chairman allegedly—I do not know if he is still chairman——
Is he not entitled to be chairman?
——of which I assume the Deputy is chairman—received in the past two-and-a-half years £175,000 and my Department provided, in addition to the £175,000 from the inner city group, AnCO, the Youth Employment Scheme and Dublin Corporation, £15,600 in 1981 and £25,500 in 1982 which brings it up to around £200,000. The project in that context should have no difficulty either in terms of their past income or their current income or any funding they have currently, in providing moneys for the ordinary administration of their offices. I stress that, despite the fact that there was no money in this year's Estimates, for that purpose, still I gave nearly £3,000 and formal notice of termination. When the combat poverty organisation are established the Deputy then can apply to that body for any moneys they feel they are entitled to.
I am glad that the Minister has stated that his Government are committed fully to the inner city. That was in reply to one of the questions put down. In his long reply he said that he was concerned about the type of accounts and structures at their back and he did not seem to have sufficient details. Obviously he has carried out an examination of the other bodies to find out what moneys were spent. Will he give a brief outline of what functions they held so that we will know that it was used for work for a deprived area of the city and was not just money spent on administration costs?
I have received various submissions from the body in question. I do not have any outside independent assessment of the merits or otherwise of the works carried out. I accept in good faith the views of the Deputy that the various projects outlined, whether in association with the Department of Labour or not, were drama, theatre, youth employment courses, photography, publishing, communication courses, football coaching training courses, domestic science and hotels, Dublin Youth Theatre project, the Kilnacrott Abbey project, the Mullingar Centre project, the inner city summer project. I have received details of them but I do not have any method of confirming them. All I am aware of is that close on £200,000 in 1981, 1982 and 1983 was paid to the project of which the Deputy is chairman. I did not receive any annual reports, nor did I receive any audited statements on that expenditure.
The remaining questions will appear on tomorrow's Order Paper.
