Vol. 673 No. 1
1 Deputy Michael Ring asked the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs the level of funding received to date by the 36 local action groups approved for funding under the Rural Development Programme Ireland 2007-13; the number of local action group projects which have commenced; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [2809/09]
The Deputy will be aware that, on 4 November, I announced the local action groups selected to deliver the programme, along with their individual funding allocations. The signing of contracts is under way — indeed, I handled many of them today — and the programme will be open to applications for grant assistance in the near future.
With the signing of contracts, funding to local action groups will commence under the programme shortly. The selection and development of projects and the arrangements for payments to individual project promoters is primarily a matter for the groups. However, I anticipate that project activity will be occurring on the ground in the near future.
I will ask two or three questions. The Leader programme was to run from 2007 to 2014, but it was announced last year that many office amalgamations did not occur. People were sitting around in rented offices. From where did that funding coming? Did it come from the 2007-13 programme?
Turning to the most important issue, the Minister amalgamated a number of companies, some of which were to bring all of their offices, equipment and resources with them. What has occurred in this regard? Have all of the amalgamated Leader programmes brought their assets with them? It has been brought to my attention that some companies were not prepared to do so despite the fact that many of their assets were provided using taxpayers' money. What is the up-to-date position?
Last year, funding was provided by the Exchequer. Eventually, I told companies that, unless the cohesion process was completed, I would withdraw that funding. None of the 2007-13 programme's money was used last year. A new programme is being rolled out, the advantage of which is that, despite starting in 2009, it will still finish in 2013. There could not be a better time for launching a large, positive programme, as it is needed more urgently than ever. I hope it encourages people to consider unexplored possibilities.
On Deputy Ring's second question, we are aware of some companies that will not continue. There was vested ownership-management of the assets that they acquired. It is fair to say that, in most cases, those assets were acquired with some element of State funding. Often, the maintenance of the assets also involved Exchequer funding. We are taking appropriate steps to ensure the State's interests in the assets are protected.
A number of companies do not intend to wind up, but to continue outside the Leader programme. We must ensure the Exchequer's interests in their assets are protected. A process is under way and will be followed to the nth degree to ensure that, as the Deputy will agree, anything paid for by the State is accounted for fully. If staff move, the appropriate assets should transfer with them.
I will revert to the matter of assets in a later question. Given the Leader programme's value of €425 million, has the Minister conducted a value for money audit of the previous Leader programme to determine whether we learned from any mistakes and whether funds were spent wisely? I hope that such an audit was conducted and that the Minister learned from it. He was correct when he stated that we need the money now more than ever. We must encourage people, particularly those in rural areas, to set up companies that offer employment and to aid them with grants. No public money should be wasted, given its new value in these times.
An external pre-report on the new Leader programme report also examined what occurred under previous programmes. Sometimes, I wonder about the worth of so many evaluations. I have yet to see an evaluation that states something is rubbish. The evaluation groups always ask for additional processes.
While I may have the wrong attitude, I am impressed when the ordinary people of an area and not the people promoting the programme tell me that it is delivering on the ground and has made a difference. I am impressed by visible effects. Today, many of those involved in the rural social schemes and RAPID communities visited Dublin. The external evaluators that I rely on in my heart and soul are the ordinary people for whom this is all meant. If they say that a programme makes a difference, I believe them. If they say it is not affecting their lives, I will listen carefully irrespective of how favourable any report that I receive might be. As well as conducting professional reports, it is important we ask a simple question of those living in the areas. If they say a programme does not make a difference, hard, extra analysis is warranted. I do not know whether the Deputy agrees with my homespun approach, but I often find it gives me more truth than many of the thick, professionally produced documents I receive.
2 Deputy Brian O’Shea asked the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs if he has plans to increase the number of local drugs task forces; if there were calls for a county-based task force during the recent public meetings; his views on such a strategy; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [2820/09]
A total of 14 local drugs task forces, LDTFs, are in operation, 12 of which are located in Dublin while the others are in Bray and Cork. The rest of the country is covered by ten regional drugs task forces, RDTFs. I have no plans to increase the number of LDTFs.
From time to time during the extensive public consultation process undertaken in connection with the preparation of the new national drugs strategy, reference was made to the extent of the areas covered by various RDTFs. However, the issue of county-based drug task forces was not raised to any significant degree at the public consultation meetings I attended. I am informed this was also the case at other such meetings. As the House might remember, I was not a Minister of State during all of the consultation process. The regional structures, which are still relatively new, are starting to make a real impact on the ground and should be given the opportunity to fulfil their potential in the coming years.
The development of a new strategy presents an important opportunity to examine the structures through which it is delivered and to consider whether there are different and more effective ways of achieving our goals. Should the steering group, which is developing proposals in this regard, recommend any changes to the geographic areas covered by the drugs task forces as part of its deliberations, I will consider them at that stage.
I thank the Minister of State for his reply, from which I am to understand that no extension of the drugs task forces is intended in the new national drugs strategy. Initially, the task forces were set up in areas where there was a prevalence of heroin misuse. Unfortunately, hard drugs have spread across the country. A viewpoint exists in certain counties at least that this requires a much more intensive approach and that the regional structures are too large. Something is needed that reaches out more effectively to towns and villages outside the large urban areas.
I take the Minister of State's point that this was not raised to any great extent at the consultative meetings. However, the trends are very worrying. Does he agree that the structure that currently exists for dealing with reductions in supply and, more importantly, demand is just not adequate and we are losing the battle?
To reiterate, I inherited the situation and the public consultation was half over before I took up my position. I checked and it did not arise as a significant issue.
The Deputy will be aware that while we have regional task forces, in some cases there are sub-committees on a county by county basis. If there were to be more task forces, we might lose sight of what we are trying to deliver. In other words, our administrative capacity could grow and the channelling of funds and resources to front line services would be diminished. When one looks at the various components and partners within a task force, it could mean meeting after meeting without achieving real objectives.
That issue did not arise, but I have an open mind on it although it has not been brought to the steering group as a significant issue. The structures that were in place were thought to be relatively new. They were only bedding in and it was generally believed that they should be afforded the opportunity to achieve their full potential. Given the current economic environment, where we are seeking to streamline organisations while ensuring that resources are delivered to front line services as much as possible, the creation of other agencies and boards is, I believe, unlikely at this point.
Regarding attendances at these consultative meetings, how representative were they? Would many of the people involved have a stake in the current set up and, perhaps, not be disposed towards considering that proposal? The fact that it was not raised widely might not signify that it does not have wider support.
I take the Minister of State's point about not setting up more structures or talking shops, etc. However, we are talking about a hands-on approach that effectively delivers services. In my view, this needs to spread beyond the existing structures.
The Deputy is right. At the public consultation meetings, the average number present was about 100, although I do not have the precise figures. Many of those attending obviously had an interest. They were either involved in providing the services, had family links or there was an area of particular interest for them. However, the process went further than just public consultation. We met with all the other providers, statutory and otherwise, and that did not arise as an issue. If it was to be on a county by county basis, as has been suggested, there would be many meetings in some and perhaps very little delivery of service. At this time, it is felt that the regional structures, which are relatively new, are bedding in and they allow for local sub-committees to operate on a county by county basis under the remit of a regional structure. In the case of Limerick, for example, there is a specific sub-committee for that particular area. I do not believe we should restrict the activities of the regional task forces. They can organise internally as they see fit, at county by county sub-committee level, but no proposal to establish independent local drugs task forces, as suggested, has arisen during the consultation and is not being considered at this stage.
3 Deputy Michael Ring asked the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs if he is satisfied himself that rural businesses and community groups have ease of access to information and advice at a local level with regard to the setting up of new enterprises or community projects; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [2810/09]
In line with the commitment given in the Agreed Programme for Government, and on foot of the cohesion process recently completed by my Department, there is now one integrated local development company in any given area of the country and fewer local development companies overall. These new, more coherent delivery arrangements provide full county coverage and enable rural businesses and community groups to readily access services, including information and advice, and to make maximum use of the funding available for rural development.
The Deputy will be aware that the Leader element of the new rural development programme includes particular measures in support of business creation and development. There is specific funding provided to foster awareness of and animate the programme and this supports rural community groups and enterprises in taking advantage of the opportunities under the programme. This major funding programme, which is now being rolled out across the country, will also be implemented by the new integrated companies.
Information is available to prospective businesses wishing to start up in Gaeltacht regions from Údarás na Gaeltachta, a body that comes under the ambit of my Department. In addition, Údarás provides information and advice to assist community groups and co-operatives to set up local enterprise projects and put together community development plans.
Under my Department's enterprise fund for non-Gaeltacht islands, assistance is made available to entrepreneurs wishing to establish new or expand existing enterprises on the islands outside the Gaeltacht. The scheme is administered locally by the relevant county enterprise boards, from whom information and advice is readily available to the communities concerned. An integrated company, which is dedicated exclusively to the islands, has also been set up, in fulfilment of a further programme for Government commitment.
As the Minister is aware, these concerns have been raised by elected members of his party. There is great concern at present about the number of State agencies and, in the Agreed Programme for Government, Fianna Fáil gave a commitment to the effect that there would be one-stop shops in the county. The Minister said that he has set up mechanisms, but there is a great worry about the clutter of State agencies, such as the Leader programme, Enterprise Ireland, the county and city enterprise boards, Údarás na Gaeltachta, the Western Development Commission, Shannon Development and FÁS. People are concerned that one agency may be subsidising another to keep people in jobs.
The people who really need money and want help in setting up businesses still do not know where they have to go to get the grant aid they need. There is total confusion. Those in Fianna Fáil as well as Fine Gael and people in the community are concerned about this and believe there is too much duplication. I want to know what the Minister can do to stop this wastage of taxpayers' money so that we may have a one-stop shop. If someone is coming into the Gaeltacht or a town in any county, there should be a one-stop shop where he or she can submit proposals and ask for help. Instead, people are being told they have to go hither and thither, and it is taxpayers' money that has to pay for all these agencies.
I do not know whether the Deputy had a question, but well said anyway. I could agree with him more.
On becoming Minister of State with responsibility for the Gaeltacht, one of the first things I did was to say I would cut down on the number of people giving out grants in the Gaeltacht. At that time people could go to Leader, the partnership companies, the enterprise board and Údarás. I said there was no need for enterprise boards operating in the Gaeltacht as we already had Údarás, Leader and the partnerships. Then I amalgamated Leader and the partnership companies, so I started with four agencies and reduced the number to two.
I am sure the Deputy's colleague, Deputy McGinley, has listened with interest to the great debate on Raidió na Gaeltachta, where I said that my vision was that by 2013 we should have one community-based agency in the Gaeltacht. I do not see why we have to have two and I agree fully with Deputy Ring in this regard.
Obviously, we are committed to the current rural development programme in the Gaeltacht. I do not see why we need two organisations in the Gaeltacht to operate the rural social scheme and the social economy and so on. In relation to areas outside the Gaeltacht, as the Deputy is aware, we have now brought the Leader and partnership companies together, which I believe is reasonable. That was a fairly tortuous effort and I thank Deputy Ring and all the other members of his party for their support in that process, both in principle and at an individual level. It was most helpful. My colleague, the Minister of State, Deputy John Curran, is looking at the whole relationship between partnerships and community development projects. They need to be aligned and cannot operate as if they are all independent empires. I am fully with the Deputy on this point.
He mentioned the Western Development Commission. It is not one of the more expensive commissions, with 16 employees and costs of around €1 million in administration annually. That said, we need to have a mature debate about the structures and the overlaps. Unfortunately, sometimes when decisions are made there is a natural knee-jerk reaction on the ground and everyone takes their cue from this, rather than analysing the initiative taken in the first place. I would be more than willing to engage, at committee level, in teasing out these issues. As I stated in a television interview today when I was asked about the Meitheal Forbartha na Gaeltachta and Údarás issue, the only thing that counts is delivery to the people on the ground.
This is an interesting discussion but I want to allow a supplementary question.
I am glad the Minister offered to come to committee and it is the place to discuss this. However, the Minister should do a cost analysis on these groups. The main concern is that one State agency is paying the other to keep the offices open. This is not why the Minister established them. His intent was to help create employment in the regions and this is not happening. We need an investigation to examine what agencies exist, what are their functions and with whom have they dealt. The reaction I get from people in my community and throughout the country is that they want this rationalised and done so quickly.
I agree with Deputy Ring. It is true that if I ask an average partnership how much it is getting from my Department, and for example the answer is €1 million and I then ask how much the turnover is I will probably be told it is €3 million or €4 million and that it is great to have leveraged out this extra €3 million. The disappointing aspect is that it was leveraged out from other State agencies. The obvious question is whether it would be better to issue one cheque for €4 million and be done with it. Some of this can be rationalised and some cannot; I do not have a problem if it involves a community employment scheme.
I have been trying to simplify it step by step and eliminate duplication. In practice I have found that often it is easy to figure out where one would like to be and where one would have it if one were to start again. The problem is to find a path from where we are to where we want to go taking into account human issues. We have been proactive in examining this issue. Perhaps we can do more and I am open to suggestions.
The problem with an outside report is that sometimes when one receives it one finds that one does not agree with it. To a certain extent, we in this House should use our collective wisdom more. There was a big debate about what was stated about the first Dáil. I would like to see more interaction among ourselves with all of us bringing our wisdom from the ground. We should be the consultants because every Deputy knows what is going on in his or her constituency.
It would be a lot cheaper.
It would be a lot cheaper and it might give us better answers and allow us to build up a consensus on where we go.
4 Deputy Catherine Byrne asked the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs the way the new national drugs strategy will incorporate and fulfil the objectives which are outlined in the new EU Drugs Action Plan for 2009 to 2012; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [2600/09]
My Department co-ordinated the Irish input into the development of the EU Drugs Action Plan 2009-2012 which was finalised late last year. Problem drug use is a global phenomenon and, in this context, it is important that we take an international perspective. Engagement at EU level is important and various Departments and agencies, as well as representatives of civil society in more recent times, are involved in this. Overall, I feel that we have a lot to offer, as well as a lot to gain, through the various fora involved.
A steering group, chaired by my Department is developing proposals on the new national drugs strategy covering the period 2009-16. As part of its terms of reference, the group will be examining developments in drugs policies and in dealing with problem drug use generally, at EU and international levels. I expect to receive its proposals and recommendations by the end of March and I will then consider them before seeking Government approval for the new strategy.
I envisage that the new strategy will incorporate a four year action plan for 2009-12, to coincide with the EU policy period, bringing us into line with the EU timeframe. I further envisage that it will fulfil the objectives of the EU action plan across its five main priorities areas, namely, co-ordination, demand reduction, supply reduction, international co-operation and information, research and evaluation.
I agree with what the Minister stated about streamlining in answer to the previous question. Perhaps today is the first time I have sat in this Chamber and heard people who want to sing from the same hymn sheet. The Minister made an important point, namely that we need to listen to the people on the ground because they can tell one whether a project is working.
With regard to the Minister of State's reply to this question, action plans are full of objectives and actions. However, they do not amount to a great deal. I do not believe the most recent national drugs strategy was a great success. I would state the opposite in that it has failed. The 5% cutbacks announced mean that while matters were improving slightly there is a danger that they are going backwards.
Recently, I read a report from the local gardaí showing that last year the amount of drugs seized increased from the previous amount of €167 million. The gardaí are doing their best and I agree with what the Commissioner stated yesterday about the necessity for more community policing. We must ensure that what is on paper is not only on paper and that the actions are put into place. This was a failure of the previous national drugs strategy and I hope it changes.
Due to the difficult economic times my fears turn to those who are homeless. Last week I read a report which stated that 80% of people who are homeless are prone to drug use. This is a major increase over the past five years.
Last week, we visited the Liberties Recycling centre where the Minister of State presented awards and saw the impact which the project is having on people's lives. What is the commitment, even with the cuts, to supporting projects such as this? It is the way we should consider helping communities.
To refer to the particular project we visited, it shows the inter-agency approach and the effectiveness of a number of agencies where 40 out of 50 people recovering from addiction and in rehabilitation are learning a skill with the real prospect of going to employment.
Deputy Byrne mentioned the cuts and I will be as direct as I can. For the five year period from 2003 to 2008, the allocation in my Department doubled. Deputy Byrne is correct that in this year's budget the subhead for the drugs strategy was cut by 5%. However, internally we added a couple of million to this. Effectively, the allocation of funding to task forces in 2009 is the same as it was in 2008. I know Deputy Byrne will make the argument that programmes were developing which needed more money. However, in real terms the allocation in 2009 is what it was in 2008.
When we discuss a drugs strategy, and Liberties Recycling was mentioned, it is not only about funding allocated through the Department, our partners such as the HSE, FÁS and the Department of Education and Science are also involved. In this regard approximately €230 million was spent in 2008 on a national strategy. Our partners in various Departments are finalising their spending for the current year in line with output. We are committed to preserving front line services. We will make cuts wherever we can elsewhere but my aim is to ensure front line services are preserved at all times.
Last week, I met a group of parents of children availing of methadone services. They asked me what will be in the national drugs strategy to help their children to be weaned off the drug rather than being left on it for another five or six years. At present, they are caught in a vicious circle.
Depending on who one speaks to there are 8,000 or 9,000 people on methadone treatments of one type or another. In recent weeks I met with the HSE to examine this issue. I am no different from the Deputy in that I meet families of people on methadone and I am concerned that people are on methadone for too long. For some people there might be no alternative but I am not satisfied that we have an aggressive enough methadone reduction programme.
5 D’fhiafraigh Deputy Dinny McGinley den Aire Gnóthaí Pobail, Tuaithe agus Gaeltachta cad iad na hathruithe atá i gceist aige maidir le riaradh an chláir forbartha áitiúil do chuimsitheacht shóisialta; an bhfuil na hathruithe pléite agus aontaithe leis na heagraíochtaí atá páirteach ann; an gcaillfear poist i Meitheal Forbartha na Gaeltachta, mar shampla, de bharr na n-athruithe; an bhfuil aon impleachtaí eile ann don fhostaíocht sa Ghaeltacht; agus an ndéanfaidh sé ráiteas ina thaobh. [2856/09]
Tá suim €49.6 billiún sonraithe sa Phlean Forbartha Náisiúnta 2007-2013 ar mhaithe le cuimsitheacht shóisialta, ar a n-áirítear thart ar €417 milliún don chlár forbartha áitiúil do chuimsitheacht shóisialta. Soláthar €57.44 milliún a bhí ar fáil don chlár sin i Vóta mo Roinne i 2008.
Tá socruithe idirthréimhseach i bhfeidhm do 2009 chun a chumasú do na struchtúir nua chomhtháite agus na páirtnéireachtaí uirbeacha a gceantar feidhme a leathnú agus a gcuid gníomhaíochtaí a neadú síos. Tá athbhreithniú luach-ar-airgead déanta ar an gclár agus tá i gceist agam feidhm a bhaint as torthaí an athbhreithnithe sin, mar aon le hionchur polasaí eile, chun cruth an chláir don todhchaí a rianú. Beifear i dteagmháil i dtráth cuí leis na struchtúir nua chomhtháite agus na páirtnéireachtaí uirbeacha i gcomhthéacs chláir athbhreithnithe.
Tá laghdú déanta ar an airgead riaracháin don chlár do 2009, de bharr béime níos mó a bheith á chur ar sheirbhísí túslíne i gcomparáid le tacaíochtaí idirghabhálacha nó coimhdeacha.
Ar ndóigh, is eagraíochtaí príobháideacha iad na comhlachtaí aonaracha atá ag seachadadh an chláir agus tá sé cuí go ndíreodh siad ar a gcuid costas foirne agus riaracháin féin, laistigh de na hacmhainní atá ar fáil. Bheifí ag súil leis, mar sin, go bhféachfadh comhlachtaí aonaracha, laistigh de na hacmhainní atá ar fáil dóibh, ar a gcuid foirne a choimeád d'fhonn a chinntiú go leanfar le tosaíocht a thabhairt do sheirbhísí túslíne agus, dá réir sin, go scrúdófar na bealaí ar fad chun na coigiltí atá riachtanach sna buiséid riaracháin a bhaint amach.
Sa chomhthéacs seo, tá iarrtha agam ar oifigigh mo Roinne breathnú, i gcomhar le hÚdarás na Gaeltachta agus Meitheal Forbartha na Gaeltachta, ar bhealaí chun leanúint leis an leibhéal céanna seirbhísí a sholáthar do phobal na Gaeltachta tríd an úsáid is éifeachtaí a bhaint as na hacmhainní, idir foirne agus airgead, atá ar fáil don dá eagraíocht. Tuigtear dom go bhfuil an próiseas athbhreithnithe seo curtha ar bun ag mo Roinn cheana féin.
Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as an méid a bhí le rá aige. Deir sé go bhfuil an próiseas athbhreithnithe ar siúl i láthair na huaire. An fhad agus atá sé ar siúl, an aontódh sé liom — táim cinnte go n-aontóidh sé — go bhfuil imní agus éiginnteacht mhór i measc na n-eagraíochtaí a bhí páirteach insan obair thábhachtach fhorbartha seo sna ceantair Ghaeltachta le roinnt blianta anuas, eagraíochtaí mar Meitheal Forbartha na Gaeltachta?
An bhféadfadh an tAire insint dom cén uair a bheidh an clár athbhreithnithe nó an scrúdú seo curtha i gcrích? An bhféadfadh sé tuairim a thabhairt dúinn cén uair a bheidh an comhtháthú á chur i gcrích? An bhféadfadh sé insint dom cé mhéad daoine atá ag obair ar fud na Gaeltachta sna heagraíochtaí seo, mar Meitheal Forbartha na Gaeltachta? Nuair a dhéanfar an comhtháthú agus má chuirtear i bhfeidhm é de réir mar atá beartaithe ag an Aire, cad iad na himpleachtaí a bhéas aige sin do na daoine atá fostaithe san obair thábhachtach seo, go leor acu ag déanamh ionadaíochta d'eagraíochtaí deonacha agus eagraíochtaí pobail? Cé mhéad acu sin a bheidh dífhostaithe? An ndéanfar aon soláthar le breis fostaíochta nó oibre a chur ar fáil dóibh siúd?
Téann na ceisteanna sin ar ais go dtí an phlé a bhí ar bun againn ar ball i dtaobh cé dó atá na heagraíochtaí seo — do na fostaithe nó don phobal. Faoi láthair, tá beagáinín le cois 100 duine fostaithe ag Údarás na Gaeltachta agus 60, nó níos mó, fostaithe ag Meitheal Forbartha na Gaeltachta, gan daoine ar scéimeanna a bheith san áireamh. Nílim ag caint ar dhaoine ar na scéimeanna sóisialta tuaithe agus mar sin de, ach ar fhostaithe atá ag obair go buan agus daoine atá ag déanamh obair riaracháin agus mar sin de. Tá 163 daoine sa mhéid sin.
Caithfear cuimhne a bheith againn freisin gur ionann ar a laghad chuile scór fostaithe i riarachán agus €1 milliún, sin má thógaimid go gcosnaíonn sé, ar an meán, €50,000 duine a fhostú, faoin am a íocaimid as oifig, teas, solas, PAYE, PRSI agus na rudaí sin ar fad. I gcuid de na heagraíochtaí bheadh sé i bhfad níos daoire. An cheist a chaithfear a fhreagairt ansin ná cé acu is fearr, go gcaitear an €1 milliún sin ag coinneáil daoine fostaithe i riaradh scéimeanna agus an dúshlán seo ar bun — mar shampla, tá dhá dhream sa Ghaeltacht ag reachtáil nó ag riaradh an scéim shóisialta tuaithe — nó arbh fhearr an €1 milliún sin a fháil agus a chaitheamh ar an talamh i measc an phobail. Sin í an cheist.
Dúirt an Teachta go bhfuil éiginnteacht ann. Níl duine ar bith, gur féidir leis a rá sna laethanta seo nach bhfuil éiginnteacht ag baint lena shaol. Tá éiginnteacht ag baint le gach aon lá i láthair na huaire agus tuigimid uilig é sin. An rud a bhí mise ag iarraidh a dhéanamh ná teacht roimh an éiginnteacht, le go mbeimis, trí staidéar cruinn a dhéanamh, féachaint conas na coigiltí a dhéanamh ar bhealach go mbeadh páirtíocht ag Meitheal Forbartha na Gaeltachta agus Údarás na Gaeltachta sa phróiseas. An mhalairt a bheadh ar sin ná, má tá ciorruithe ann — tá an-chaint ar sin — go gcaithfinn cinnithe scioptha a thógáil agus nach mbeadh aon ionchur acu sna cinnithe sin.
An bhfuil aon pháirtíocht ag an bord snip leis an mholadh a dhéanfar sa deireadh? Tá ardmheas agam ar Údarás na Gaeltachta agus an obair atá á déanamh aige. Tá gearradh siar mór ar airgead an údaráis don bhliain atá amach romhainn agus níor mhaith liomsa go mbeadh sé mar straitéis ag an Aire an t-údaras a choinneáil beo ach ciorraithe, agus chun sin a dhéanamh go bhfuil sé ar intinn aige Meitheal Forbartha na Gaeltachta a mharú.
An rud atá ar bun agam, tá sé ar bun agam féin. Ní raibh an chúirt athbhreithnithe seo, an rud a dtugtar an bord snip air go minic, in aice liom fós. Ní shin leithscéal domsa gan an leas is fearr a bhaint as an tairgead atá ar fáil. Rud eile, an bhfuil éinne, go fadtéarmach, in ann mhíniú dom, ó tharla gur eagraíocht é Meitheal Forbartha na Gaeltachta a bhfuil ballraíocht tofa sa mhórmhór ar an mbord, cén fáth go dteastaíonn dhá eagraíocht phobal sa Ghaeltacht? Más é go bhfuil comhdhéanamh difriúl ar an mbord, táim in ann an dlí a athrú agus comhpháirtíocht a dhéanamh leis an údarás. Níl éinne ag míniú dom cén fáth go bhfuil gá le dhá eagraíocht, díreach an pointe a rinne an Teachta Ring ar ball. Cén fáth go bhfuil an dá eagraíocht ann, le daoine a chur ó phost go piléar? Mar sin, creidim gur cheart dúinn an plé a bheith againn agus gan an iomarca éisteachta a thabhairt do dhreamanna a bhfuil, mar a deirtear, vested interests acu sna poist, mar go bhfuil siad ag obair sna heagraíochtaí seo. An leas an phobail é sin? Níl mise cinnte.
Tá suim €49.6 billiún sonraithe sa Phlean Forbartha Náisiúnta 2007-2013 ar mhaithe le cuimsitheacht shóisialta, ar a n-áirítear thart ar €417 milliún don Chlár Forbartha Áitiúil do Chuimsitheacht Shóisialta. Soláthar €57.44 milliún a bhí ar fáil don Chlár sin i Vóta mo Roinne i 2008.
Tá socruithe idirthréimhseach i bhfeidhm do 2009 chun a chumasú do na struchtúir nua chomhtháite agus na páirtnéireachtaí uirbeacha a gceantar feidhme a leathnú agus a gcuid gníomhaíochtaí a neadú síos. Tá athbhreithniú luach ar airgead déanta ar an gClár agus tá i gceist agam feidhm a bhaint as torthaí an athbhreithnithe sin, mar aon le hionchur polasaí eile, chun cruth an Chláir don todhchaí a rianú. Beifear i dteagmháil i dtráth cuí leis na struchtúir nua chomhtháite agus na páirtnéireachtaí uirbeacha i gcomhthéacs Chláir athbhreithnithe.
Tá laghdú déanta ar an airgead riaracháin don Chlár do 2009, de bharr béime níos mó a bheith á chur ar sheirbhísí túslíne i gcomparáid le tacaíochtaí idirghabhálacha nó coimhdeacha.
Ar ndóigh, is eagraíochtaí príobháideacha iad na comhlachtaí aonaracha atá ag seachadadh an Chláir agus tá sé cuí go ndíreodh siad ar a gcuid costas foirne agus riaracháin féin, laistigh de na hacmhainní atá ar fáil. Bheifí ag súil leis, mar sin, go bhféachfadh comhlachtaí aonaracha, laistigh de na hacmhainní atá ar fáil dóibh, ar a gcuid foirne a choimeád d'fhonn a chinntiú go leanfar le tosaíocht a thabhairt do sheirbhísí túslíne agus, dá réir sin, go scrúdófar na bealaí ar fad chun na coigiltí atá riachtanach sna buiséid riaracháin a bhaint amach.
Sa chomhthéacs seo, tá iarrtha agam ar oifigigh mo Roinne-se breathnú, i gcomhar le hÚdarás na Gaeltachta agus Meitheal Forbartha na Gaeltachta, ar bhealaí chun leanúint leis an leibhéal céanna seirbhísí a sholáthar do phobal na Gaeltachta tríd an úsáid is éifeachtaí a bhaint as na hacmhainní, idir foirne agus airgead, atá ar fáil don dá eagraíocht. Tuigtear dom go bhfuil an próiseas athbhreithnithe seo curtha ar bun ag mo Roinnse cheana féin.
