Vol. 429 No. 4
6 Mr. Deasy asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry if the list of Leader programmes forwarded to the EC for grant aid coincided exactly with the list recommended by the consultants employed by his Department to examine the proposals, and, if not, the reason the consultants' recommendations were changed.
21 Mr. Timmins asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry if the application of Tipperary Enterprise for inclusion in the Leader programme was among the top 16 applications recommended by the independent consultants employed by his Department to vet the applications for grant assistance from the EC.
29 Mr. Deenihan asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry if the Leader programme will be extended to include all of County Kerry for the period 1994 to 1997.
53 Mr. G. Mitchell asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry if, following discussions with representatives of the national Leader network, he proposes to make any changes in the recently-announced audit procedures for Leader groups; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
61 Mr. Barry asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry if he will make a statement concerning the affairs of an organisation (details supplied) in County Tipperary which has generated considerable public disquiet in view of the claims and counter claims made by people involved; the amount of taxpayers' money invested in the enterprise; if, as a result, the Leader programme was irreparably damaged; his views on whether public support for the programme can be sustained; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
64 Mr. Molloy asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry if his attention has been drawn to the concern of promoters of Leader projects at the adverse effect of recent measures introduced following the difficulties experienced by Tipperary Leader project; and if he will give details of the new requirements and of his plans for the future operation of Leader.
108 Ms McManus asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry if he has satisfied himself that the processing of projects by local Leader groups is being carried out in accordance with the guidelines set out by him and that contracts drawn up between local Leader management teams and the individual projects are in accordance with these guidelines; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 6, 21, 29, 53, 61, 64 and 108 together.
Most of the points raised were dealt with in my contribution to the Adjournment debate on Leader on 11 February and in replies to questions on 25 February and 31 March. Included in those contributions was confirmation that all of the applications along with the report and recommendations of the consultants were forwarded to the EC Commission.
As to the public funding involved in the Tipperary Enterprise case, two instalments totalling £741,000 were advanced to the company, £306,000 was refunded at my request, and some £243,000 has now been claimed under the insurance bond. The balance of £192,000 is deemed to have been eligible Leader expenditure. Arising out of the Tipperary Enterprise case, the imposition of further conditions for the renewal of the insurance bonds by the Insurance Corporation of Ireland and of additional financial control procedures have now been agreed between ICI, the groups and my Department. The new arrangements principally involve an additional annual audit of the operations of each group and one unannounced annual audit.
I am satisfied that the groups are operating, for the most part, in full accord with the guidelines drawn up by my Department and that adequate control procedures are in place. My Department is in regular contact with the groups regarding interpretation of the guidelines in particular cases.
The future of the Leader programme remains to be decided at Community level in the context of the new Structural Fund arrangements. I have, of course, been pressing for its extension. Until that decision is taken it is not, of course, possible to indicate the areas to be covered in the future.
I wish to refer specifically to my Question No. 6. In reply to an earlier parliamentary question, the Minister stated that there were 16 successful applications out of a total of 36 submitted. Were the 16 successful applicants those prioritised Nos. 1 to 16 in the recommendations of the independent consultants?
In all, 34 applications were received in the Department. Following acceptance by the Department, a consultant was appointed to process and examine each application. The consultant eventually reported to the Department. The company's report, along with the Department's application for a national Leader programme, was submitted in its entirety to the European Commission for decision. Of the 34 applications made, 16 were approved.
The Minister should answer the question.
The question I asked was whether the top 16 applications listed by priority by the independent consultants were the same top 16 recommended by the Department to the Commission. That is a specific question.
In my reply today, and in an earlier reply in the Dáil, I said the consultants' report dealt with 32 applications, analysing each one in terms of eligibility. The entire report was submitted to Brussels, along with the Department's submission. The details of the consultants' report are not available because there is much confidential information in relation to individual applicants and individual projects. I realise what it is that the Deputy is trying to elicit from me. If it is any help to the Deputy, I wish to inform him that I made inquiries in relation to Tipperary Enterprise, the subject matter of some of these questions, and was assured that the application of Tipperary Enterprise was very highly recommended by the consultants and that a decision was made on that basis.
Was that application listed in the first 16?
Order. If Deputy Molloy wishes to intervene I shall call him. He has a question tabled on the subject. It seems that the Deputy does not wish to intervene.
The applicant in question was almost last. I put it to the Minister that the phrase, "Highly recommended", does not mean anything.
If it is a help to the Deputy, and to the House, the application was very highly recommended and was listed in the top 16 applications.
I call Deputy Dukes.
By the consultants or by the Department?
Let us have an orderly Question Time. I have called Deputy Dukes.
The Minister should answer the question. Was the application highly recommended by the consultants or by the Department?
That is an important point.
Order, I have called Deputy Dukes.
I would not like to interrupt the Minister.
I am in control here.
Did I understand the Minister to say that he has recently made a further change in audit requirements in that he is now requiring an additional annual audit and one unannounced audit, whereas up to a couple of days ago he required an audit for almost every project? Would the Minister agree that his Department's response to the difficulties that arose in Tipperary was over the top and excessively restrictive? Would the Minister further agree that to require an additional annual audit and one unannounced audit as well as the normal annual audit that is required and the reporting procedures to be followed with regard to each project, will stifle the whole programme?
I do not agree with Deputy Dukes that my response or that of my Department in relation to Tipperary Enterprises was over the top. In fact most Members of this House will agree, I hope, that the Tipperary débacle was dealt with in a very positive manner both by myself and my departmental officials.
By creating a débacle in every other Leader group.
That was not the case. I wish Deputy Dukes would not make statements which have the effect of undermining public confidence in the national Leader programme.
That is what the Minister is doing.
I regret that we found it necessary in the Department to introduce, if you like, a higher level of control and monitoring of Leader programmes. It was my policy and intention that Leader would operate in a very flexibile manner, with local communities taking decisions, interfered with to the least possible degree by bureaucracy and the Department. That procedure worked very well until we encountered the Tipperary problem. As a result it was inevitable that our insurers would demand that we exercise stronger, more positive controls. It was in response to our insurers' request, that we took the action, in consultation with the Leader network. We had constant, regular meetings with the overall Leader network and reached agreement with it. A meeting is taking place at present in my Department in relation to how these new controls will be operated. I might add there is general acceptance within the overall Leader network nationwide that the controls we have now introduced are the minimum we could get away with in terms of public accountability and of the massive amount of EC funding invested in the programme.
I am calling Deputy Theresa Ahearn.
Is the Minister not aware that there is a mountain of undigested paper in his Department that cannot be dealt with by three executive staff?
I have called Deputy Theresa Ahearn.
Will the Minister agree that there is great worry among this group——
The Deputy should obey the Chair. I have been calling Deputy Theresa Ahearn.
I beg your pardon, Sir. I hope you will allow me back in.
I will, certainly, Deputy.
I agree with the Minister of State that every scheme operates well until one encounters a problem such as that in Tipperary Enterprises. Will the Minister say whether there was any difference in the order of priority in regard to Tipperary Enterprises by the consultants from that given by his Department?
In response to a specific inquiry in relation to Tipperary Enterprises, that project was very high on the list recommended to the EC——
Will the Minister say whether there was a difference in priority between the consultants and the Minister's Department?
The Minister should be allowed to reply in detail without further interruption.
I want to satisfy the House because I am not in the business of concealing information. I indicated to Members that the Tipperary Enterprises proposal was very highly recommended and included in response to Deputy Deasy's question——
By whom?
——in the 16 proposals which were approved.
The Minister is not answering the question.
I am.
He is not.
Is the Minister aware that there is a mountain of undigested paper in his Department which cannot be dealt with by three executive staff attempting to deal with such matters and that there are over-elaborate reports which do not reach the required objective? Furthermore, will the Minister not agree that his Department, or his services, were at fault in giving all these groups the impression that they had to be bonded by ICI, which panicked as a result of the Tipperary event, whereas, in fact, there is no such requirement, and if the groups can obtain bonding elsewhere, as at least one of them has done, that is also acceptable? Will the Minister now agree it is time he came clean with these groups and gave them the whole picture rather than reacting in panic to ICI?
I assure Deputy Dukes that it is not a question of the Minister panicking. The groups understand exactly where they stand in relation to my involvement in Leader. For once, I agree with the Deputy that the level of staffing in my Department perhaps is not at that required for the purpose of administering this scheme. Indeed I should like to pay tribute to the staff involved in its administration.
It would go down better if the Minister gave them some help.
In reply to the Deputy's question in relation to bonding, there is no specific instruction issued by the Department in support of any insurance company. In fact there are Leader groups within the overall 16 qualifying groups who organised their individual insurance cover.
Fourteen of them believed they had to go to ICI.
I should like to think that at least I am fairly close to the Leader programme groups nationwide. I met representatives of those Leader groups on several occasions and dealt with their problems. I listened to their case in regard to a possible adjustment of the scheme. I am not aware of the level of discontent to which Deputy Dukes referred. I might remind the House that Leader is an important national programme, which we should not criticise unnecessarily——
We are not criticising the programme, we are criticising the Minister. He made a bags of it.
——because at present the Minister and I are endeavouring to negotiate a very important requirement for the future, which is Leader II. I might remind the House that Leader is a pilot programme and it was inevitable that there would be shortcomings in relation to its implementation. It is a learning experience for all Members, including myself.
It is taking the Minister some time to learn.
Deputy Dukes need not worry. I am as fast at learning as anybody else. The mistakes made by Tipperary will serve to strengthen the other groups in relation to how they perceive their involvement in a voluntary community development programme. Let us not be critical of voluntary people doing a good national job, bringing benefits to our country in addition to creating employment.
I am critical of Ministers who strangle them with red tape.
I wish the Deputy would not be so critical in relation to matters of national importance.
I have allowed a lot of latitude on this question.
A Cheann Comhairle, I have a question tabled, No. 29.
I am now bringing supplementaries on this question to finality.
A Cheann Comhairle——
Order, I did not observe the Deputy earlier. I am calling Deputy Molloy who has Question No. 64 tabled in relation to the matter.
Yes, a Cheann Comhairle——
Now, Deputy, you will be called. I did not see you earlier. Otherwise I would have called you as indeed I called Deputy Molloy.
Actually, Sir, you called me before I offered.
Yes, and I would have done the same in the case of the Deputy concerned if he had been present in the House at the beginning of this question.
Usually one offers and is then called.
The Deputy is lucky to get a second chance.
With all due respects to Deputy Dukes, it is difficult to get in with him asking so many supplementaries.
The Minister will be aware that the intent of my question is to ensure that whatever lessons are to be learned from the Tipperary experience should be learned, should not become an obstacle to the progression of the excellent projects within the other Leader programmes and, as he said, should not detract in any way from moving on to Leader II. Indeed I assure the Minister that my party fully supports the stand he has taken and compliments him on the manner in which he has handled this matter to date. I am pleased with his response. When the Leader application programmes were submitted to the previous Government of which I was a member it decided, very wisely on the advice of the Taoiseach of the day, not to draw up an order of priority between the various applications but to submit them all to Brussels who made a choice between the 32 applications.
I thank Deputy Molloy for his support of the Leader programme. Of course, he was correct in stating that the decision taken at that time was to submit the entire consultants' report, with the Government's submission, to Brussels. An eventual decision was taken based on those reports and recommendations. Naturally we would have wished that all 32 might have been approved.
In view of the fact that the Leader programme is being operated relatively successfully in south west Kerry, will the Minister consider extending it, in the next revision, to the whole of County Kerry since we have lost more than 6,000 dairy farmers since 1973 and our rural population has declined by more than 3,000, according to the last census? Will the Minister of State consider including County Kerry in the Leader programme given that all County Clare, for example, is included?
The Deputy is confirming that the Leader Programme has been a success right across the country. The Minister, Deputy Walsh, the Minister of State, Deputy O'Shea and I are considering the possibility of extending the programme. This would be known as the Leader II programme. At that stage it would be open to people throughout the country to submit new business plans which would be considered within the Department, processed and eventually forwarded to Brussels as part of our national application. If the Deputy wishes to see the Leader programme which is in operation in parts of his constituency extended to the remaining parts of the county I suggest that he consider, as a matter of urgency, preparing a new business plan.
I agree that this is an important development and we are anxious to ensure that the programme is effective in relation to rural development. When the Leader programme was introduced initially it was not made clear to those who put forward a proposal or programme the specific information being sought. In relation to the Leader II programme, and I appreciate, as the Minister of State said, that it is not possible to go into the matter in detail, what assessment will be carried out on existing schemes and what criteria will be used? Furthermore, will these be made public? The point needs to be made that while the Department has been criticised there is a need for transparency in relation to the local organisations involved in this experimental project.
That is a good question. As I indicated earlier, the Leader programme is being implemented on a pilot basis. In each of the 16 areas where the programme is operated problems have arisen and difficulties are being experienced by individual companies. These are being closely monitored by the Department and will be taken into consideration in the new submission which we hope to be in a position to make to Brussels when, perhaps, we will seek modifications in certain areas. For example, in some instances companies have difficulty in meeting the 50-50 funding requirement. I would like to see a greater degree of flexibility in relation to this requirement. Transparency is relevant and important in dealing with public funds and it will be included in the current programme, in particular in relation to Tipperary Enterprises.
May I——
I am sorry, Deputy but I want to call Deputy Finucane.
I seek information.
The Chair has to be obeyed, too, Deputy.
Will the findings which the Minister of State mentioned in relation to his assessment of the scheme be published?
I am not sure if it is planned to publish the results of the assessment but I would not have a problem in publishing our analysis of the way in which the Leader programme has been operated. However, I would not like to mislead the House by saying it will be published. I do not anticipate any difficulties.
A final question from Deputy Finucane.
I do not think anyone would dispute the fact that the Leader programme has proved to be of benefit to rural Ireland. Indeed the programme has been operating successfully in Ballyhoura, west Limerick. Will the Minister of State agree, in relation to the Tipperary Enterprises débacle that it was looked on as the flagship in regard to Leader programme projects and that the board contained many influential people? Will the Minister of State further agree that, with hindsight, a mistake was made and that the Leader programmes which have proved most successful have a rural link and operate effective management controls? Will the Minister of State give an assurance——
I had hoped for brevity.
——in relation to the Leader II programme that what has happened will not have an impact on future projects and that the European Community is happy with the controls in place? Will the Minister of State also——
Please, Deputy Finucane, let the Minister of State reply.
In relation to Tipperary Enterprises, the only business plan submitted from County Tipperary was that submitted by the group to which the Deputy referred. I indicated earlier that the people who analysed that business proposal were satisfied with it and indicated their preference for it. It is most regrettable that the Leader programme in County Tipperary did not measure up to expectations. I assure the Deputy that within the next three to four weeks a new management group should be in place in County Tipperary to administer the £2 million which has not been spent.
