Bertie Ahern
Question:9 Mr. B. Ahern asked the Taoiseach the projects being supported by the Local Development Fund in 1996. [20334/96]
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Local Development Fund Projects.
A total of 37 projects, in five cities, have been offered grants under the 1996 scheme of grants for local development projects.
I propose to circulate in the Official Report a schedule setting out the projects to be assisted, the amount offered and the purpose for which it is intended.
Grants for Special Local Development Projects — 1996
|
City and Project |
Grant |
Purpose |
|
£ |
||
|
Cork |
||
|
(1) CBS Sullivan's Quay Inner City Youth Project, Cork |
5,000 |
to refurbish the youth centre |
|
(2) Grange/Frankfield Community Association, c/o 5 Bellevue Drive, Frankfield, Douglas, Cork |
8,000 |
to extend the present hall |
|
(3) Togher Pre-School and Family Centre, 6 Maglin Grove, Deanrock Estate, Togher, Cork |
12,000 |
to enhance existing premises |
|
(4) Turners Cross Community Association, 2 Curragh Road, Cork |
5,000 |
to renovate two adjacent buildings |
|
Dublin |
||
|
(5) Carmichael Centre for Voluntary Groups, North Brunswick Street, Dublin 7 |
10,000 |
to restore Coleraine House |
|
(6) Catholic Youth Council, Arran Quay, Dublin 7, pp Ronanstown Youth Service |
19,000 |
to construct a new Youth Centre for Ronanstown Youth Service |
|
(7) CANWIC Network Centre, 42 Manor Street |
10,000 |
for advice and services from Community Technical Aid |
|
(8) Corduff Community Resource Centre, Blanchardstown Road North, Dublin 15 |
10,000 |
for new building works at the Centre |
|
(9) Crumlin Historical and Preservation Society, c/o 39 St Agnes' Road, Crumlin, Dublin 12 |
1,000 |
to survey and cost the restoration of St. Mary's Church and Graveyard |
|
(10) Crumlin Unwaged Support Group, c/o 44 York Road, Rathgar, Dublin 6 |
1,000 |
towards the overheads of the Management Committee |
|
(11) Dolphin House Adult Education, Rialto, Dublin 8 |
8,000 |
towards the adult education centre at Dolphin House |
|
(12) Donnycarney Unemployment Action Group, c/o 62 Collins Avenue East, Donnycarney, Dublin 5 |
2,500 |
towards the shop at front of parish hall |
|
(13) Inner City Renewal Group, 42 Summerhill Parade |
10,000 |
for advice and services from Community Technical Aid |
|
(14) Mount Jerome Heritage Group |
5,000 |
to implement the restoration plan |
|
(15) Mountview Development Group, Clonsilla, Dublin 15 |
5,000 |
towards the resource centre |
|
(16) North Inner City After Schools Activity Programme, 35 Buckingham Street Lower, Dublin 1 |
8,000 |
to provide after-school activity programme |
|
(17) Parents Alone Resource Group, Coolock, Dublin 17 |
5,000 |
to purchase equipment for day-care centre |
|
(18) Pavee Point (formerly DTEDG), 46 North Great Charles Street, Dublin 1 |
8,000 |
to address water infiltration and dry rot attack |
|
(19) Pinewood Tenant Management Group, Swords, Co. Dublin |
1,500 |
to purchase equipment for pre-school facility in the estate |
|
(20) Rathfarnham Parish Centre, Rathfarnham Road, Tenenure, Dublin 6W |
5,000 |
to upgrade the Parish Centre (to include créche) as a resource for the community |
|
(21) Salesian Youth Enterprises, 72 Seán McDermott St., Dublin 1 |
7,500 |
towards the enterprise development programme |
|
(22) South Inner City Community Development Association, 90 Meath Street, Dublin 8 |
7,500 |
towards a training centre for long-term unemployed |
|
(23) South West Inner City Network. c/o St. Nicholas of Myra Parish Centre, Carmans Hall, Dublin 6 |
11,500 |
to develop the Network |
|
(24) The Larkin Unemployed Centre, 57-58 North Strand Road, Dublin 3 |
7,500 |
to complete the childcare facility |
|
Galway |
||
|
(25) Galway Centre for the Unemployed, Nun's Island, Galway |
8,000 |
to set up the computer training facility |
|
(26) North East Galway Development Co. Ltd, Dunmore, Galway |
12,000 |
towards the services provided to local people |
|
Limerick |
||
|
(27) Caherdavin Enterprise Group Inc., Caherdavin Residents Ass Community Centre, Whitethorn Drive, Caherdavin, Limerick |
5,000 |
to improve training facilities |
|
(28) Limerick Travellers Development Group, Ozanam House, Hartstonge St. Limerick |
5,000 |
to facilitate travellers' participation in local development initiatives |
|
(29) Moyross Community Enterprise Centre, Moyross, Limerick |
8,000 |
towards the security training programme |
|
(30) O'Malley Park Estate Management Group, Roxboro Rd., Limerick |
5,000 |
towards the Estate Management Office |
|
(31) Southill Community Services Board, Roxboro Rd., Limerick |
5,000 |
towards the children's nursery |
|
(32) St. Munchin's Action Centre, Enterprise Centre, Kileely Road, Limerick |
2,000 |
towards the Drugs Resource Centre |
|
(33) Tournafulla Development Association, Limerick |
10,000 |
to construct a community centre with sports facilities |
|
(34) Welfare Rights Programme Development Workshop, Dominic Street, Limerick |
3,000 |
to purchase computer equipment |
|
Waterford |
||
|
(35) Ballybeg Community Development Project Company Ltd., Ballybeg, Waterford |
8,000 |
towards programmes tackling unemployment in Waterford — particularly among the disadvantaged groups |
|
(36) Resource Centre for the Unemployed, 22 The Mall, Waterford |
3,000 |
to offer career information service |
|
(37) St. Brigid's Family and Community Centre Inc. Traveller Youth Project, 37 Lower Yellow Road, Waterford City |
3,000 |
towards further training for the Traveller Youth Project Leader |
|
Total for 37 projects |
250,000 |
The OECD study launched in May stressed the need to ensure that successes achieved are generalised and lessons learnt are applied as widely as possible in regard to these various schemes targeted at the socially excluded living in disadvantaged areas and marginalised communities. How does the OECD's view tally with that of the Comptroller and Auditor General that the vast bulk of money allocated to local development in 1995 was directed at the constituency of the Minister of State, Deputy Mitchell?
The criteria used in the local development grant scheme include (1) the level of disadvantage in an area, (2) the impact of the grant on the community, (3) how the project complements other local development activities, (4) a maximum of 75 per cent of reckonable costs, (5) sponsors' capacity to carry out the project successfully and (6) the ability to satisfy accounting and accountability requirements of the Department. Regarding the groups in the Dublin South Central constituency which received funding in 1996, four groups in that constituency received grants totalling £15,000 or 6 per cent of the total 1996 allocation. It is estimated that eight groups in Dublin Central, Deputy Ahern's constituency, received grants totalling £80,000 or 32 per cent of the 1996 allocation.
I asked the Minister of State about the 1995 figures. I am glad the allocation of funding in 1996 appears to have been more equally spread. Will the Minister of State explain what happened in 1995? I would prefer if the Minister of State, Deputy Mitchell, was present to answer these questions as he is familiar with this matter. The Comptroller and Auditor General highlighted, in very trenchant form, that on examination of the audit of the local development initiative he found there was no documentary evidence on the files for 1995 of any critical analysis of projects for which grant-aid was sought or that the specified criteria had been adhered to. He stated that tax clearance certificates were not adhered to, that tax details were not obtained prior to payments being made in November 1996 and that only 12 of the 37 projects which he looked at had provided the relevant tax clearance certificates. He also pointed out that grants were paid to a number of projects for work which did not commence — and was not planned to commence — until 1996, which was in contravention of the approach agreed with the Department of Finance in the establishment of the criteria to which the Minister of State referred.
Will the Minister of State condemn the Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach, Deputy Gay Mitchell, for this outrageous behaviour and the fact that the grants benefited his constituency? Will he confirm or deny that the Minister of State made representations for such grants? Will he also confirm that the Comptroller and Auditor General's scathing report on the handling of local development initiatives within the office of the Minister of State has now been adequately addressed?
Given the criticisms in the annual report on local development grants, due regard was taken of the comments by the staff of the Comptroller and Auditor General in its audit in assessing 1996 applications. This has resulted in an analysis report on each successful project file where offers of assistance have been made. The Department's position is that respondents must complete and return a current status report and all necessary documentation, including tax certificates, before payments are made. In addition, all tax and accounting requirements must be fully complied with before any money is paid out.
Whatever about people complaining about Ministers pouring money into their own constituency, is the Minister of State aware there is grave worry over the fact that money is being wasted everywhere with regard to area partnership proposals? Last night I attended a residents' association meeting in my constituency where I discovered that £500,000 is to be invested in Rathmines Fire Station to turn it into a community and information centre for the people of Rathmines and Terenure. What reality is there to accountability if we fling European money into daft projects of this kind? The people of Rathmines do not need a fire station to be turned into a community information centre to be paid for by the people of Europe.
The Deputy is critical of an application made to a community area partnership board.
It is a successful application.
Deputy McDowell is insular in his views.
I refer to my own constituency.
The Deputy is removed from his constituency community if he does not realise that applications of the kind to which he referred are fully processed. Area partnership board proposals in my part of the country are scrutinised. Criteria must be complied with, regardless of whether it is a county enterprise board or an ADM partnership board application.
There is unemployment in Dublin south-east; an examination of the figures will doubtless illustrate that there is substantial unemployment in Rathmines. I do not often frequent the area but there was much unemployment there during my student days. Doubtless there still is and it is for Deputy Michael McDowell to discover the extent of the problem.
My constituency of Dublin South-East was very well endowed in the past by community information centres which were all populated by the members of one specific party. Deputy Bertie Ahern is aware of this. I am very sceptical of any proposal to turn Rathmines Fire Station into a community information centre because that will do nothing for long-term employment. It is tantamount to flinging money around simply because it is available; it achieves nothing. We do not need a community information centre in Rathmines and we do not need £500,000 invested in a derelict fire station so that people can appear in local newsletters when opening them to give the impression they are doing something useful for the local community when they are not.
We must move away from the issue of Rathmines Fire Station.
Deputy Michael McDowell made no attempt to ask a question. It is regrettable that he should take this view when attempts are being made to relieve unemployment in the Rathmines area by the efforts of volunteers participating in the area partnership boards. He demeans them by criticising their proposed projects. There has been work on renewal in the city centre. Why should similar work not take place in Rathmines?
The city centre needs it more.
The Comptroller and Auditor General, not his staff, was critical of the Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach, Deputy Gay Mitchell. The Minister of State refers to correct form filling and submission of correct documentation. What are the criteria with regard to value for money and decisions to proceed with projects? Who in Government considers how the money will be spent or if it is to be spent? Is the work necessary, or what is being achieved?
The report form is very detailed, as is the project analysis given to a successful application. The 1996 applications which I have examined demonstrate that there is value for money on the work being undertaken.
The grants involved for last year amounted to £872,000. Both the Comptroller and Auditor General and I found that all the procedures had been broken and that the Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach, Deputy Gay Mitchell, had used up most of the money in the Dublin South-Central constituency. Following this, and in response to the complaints by the Comptroller and Auditor General, the Taoiseach suggested that to try to comply with the criteria agreed with the Department of Finance and the Accounting Officer and the procedures and criteria that would be acceptable to the Comptroller and Auditor General, consideration would be given to spreading the grants to a wider area in 1996. Has this worked, or did the Minister of State, Deputy Gay Mitchell, also raid all the money for 1996?
Deputy Bertie Ahern's constituency did best in Dublin. It received £80,000, while groups in the constituency of the Minister of Sate, Deputy Gay Mitchell, have been allocated £15,000.
For what year?
In 1996.
I am referring to 1995.
I do not have the information for 1995. If I had it to hand I would gladly give it to the Deputy. He conveniently forgets that the Department of Finance gave sanction for individual grant payments in the middle of December 1995 and the Comptroller and Auditor General was aware of this. I have outlined the new system put in place for 1996 and it is working.
One brief final question. We cannot debate this matter now.
I will pursue it with the Minister of State, Deputy Mitchell, if I can get him to come to the House but last year £872,000 was disbursed. I understand well over £1 million has been allocated this year and I still do not know where it went. The Comptroller and Auditor General said there was no documentary evidence on file or tax clearance and that money was not paid out in the relevant year——
The Deputy seems to be imparting information, rather than seeking it. This is Question Time.
The Minister of State will not turn up to answer questions.
I am sorry but it is not my fault.
I do not have full information but only two tax certificates which relate to 1995 remain outstanding. The principal reason is that the two groups concerned have applied for charitable status. If granted, they will not require C2 certificates. The situation is not as poor as the Deputy suggests.
The Comptroller and Auditor General outlined the position.
The Deputy has tried to paint a bleak picture.