As many issues have been raised, I will try to cover the points thematically rather than in sequence.
Regarding programmes, in general, even under the last programme, there was a ban on co-funding with other public money. That was always so. However, local authority money was deemed to be private money because in other countries it is provided through rates. In addition, money from the national lottery is exempt from the co-funding rule because money paid for lotto tickets is not State money. I asked the Commissioner about development levies and so on and she was fairly negative in this regard. We are going to a much higher grant percentage; we will have a 75% grant for community projects. In the last Leader programme it was often the case that 50% of the money came from the Leader programme and 25% from the local authority, but this time projects will get 75% from one source and the local authority will still have the money in its pocket. I do not think we should be too negative in this regard. The total possible grant is also higher. The last time the maximum grant was €100,000. Even the ordinary grants now go to €200,000, and with community grants we can go above that. Much of the reason for co-funding in the past was to do with the severe limits placed on the State aid regime, which have now been dealt with. We are investigating the possibility of allowing some local authority funding within EU rules. This is one area in which I would like a breakthrough and I will continue banging away on it.
I have some general comments on the wider issue of co-funding. Since long before I entered politics I have been unable to see the logic of the State having one source of funding, namely, the taxpayer, from which money comes through the Exchequer and into the Estimates, while people go to six State agencies to put a few hundred thousand euro together and it saves the taxpayer nothing. It is similar to the Nile delta, which starts with one river that breaks up into many minor rivers and then comes together again into a single river. Similarly, the money is split and then comes back to one project. I do not see the logic of this. From most people's point of view, the fewer bodies involved in funding and the bigger the percentage and total grant that can be given, the better. In the Gaeltacht, early on, I asked the enterprise boards to get out because Údarás could do the same job and there was no reason to drive people mad going from agency to agency. I noted what members said about local authority funding and we will work on that issue to see whether we can get a breakthrough.
Questions were asked about how much power local groups will have. My Department will be funding these groups to about €200 million every year between partnerships and Leader partnerships. From the point of view of good spending, the most important factor is accountancy control, rather than the decision on which project to choose. When we are spending that kind of money we must have accountability. My Secretary General must answer to the Committee of Public Accounts on the spending of this money. When it comes to practice in terms of spending money, we must make sure a good process is followed. That goes without saying. I read the operating rules in detail and went back with detailed suggestions for amendments to deal with little things I was not happy about. However, I do not think there is much in the operating rules that does not deal with essential aspects such as tax compliance. There is nothing in the rules that makes the system unusually bureaucratic.
The local group will have the same power as ever to decide on projects. All we have said is that for 5% of projects we will carry out a pre-check to make sure they are eligible. It will be a very quick pre-check. There is a certain advantage to this. If we let things go we may suddenly find ourselves in an argument with those on the European side because they say a project is not eligible. We will carry out a pre-check on 5% of projects, which will be completed quickly. It will not be a matter of six months. My officials can confirm that my Department is not too bad in terms of getting things off desks. However, only 5% of projects will be subject to this check. Money for administration will be pre-paid and, in addition, once projects are approved the money will be made available. The greatest problem for me, as Minister, is all the money I sanctioned for projects up and down the country, between local authorities and others, projects that nonetheless are not happening. I have put aside the money for these projects and it cannot be allocated to others. However, because I cannot get those who have signed up to use it, it lies dead.
I speak here in a wide context. I am on a mission in terms of "Use it or lose it". Members will have heard of sunset clauses in projects where there is a year or other fixed time to spend money. The Department is now looking at the concept of "sunrise" clauses. If a group declares it wants to do something it must start to do it within three or four months or the money will be taken away. Our finding was - I believe Leader companies had the same problem - that money was given to someone and written off in the books so that it could not then be given to anybody else. A year later, however, nothing had been done. As that was unfair to others who might have done something, we are pushing this concept of "Use it or lose it" across my Department. However, if a group has a good reason for requiring extended time that can always be arranged.
Voluntary labour is allowed. Why is there a rule of ten staff? The reason is that ten is what the county enterprise boards allow. If we were to say that more than ten staff were permitted, the enterprise boards and the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Enterprise, Trade and Employment would be in here taking my head off for queering their pitch.
Concerning basic infrastructure, I am more than willing to come back and discuss, for example, the CLÁR programme and the rural social scheme, RSS, as two departmental programmes that are totally national. However, I do not agree with the argument that infrastructure must be in place before development. In parts of the country there are examples of infrastructure, some better than others, some worse. It would be lovely to have infrastructure in place before starting a development. As somebody who started on a mountain boreen and then waited 20 years to get the infrastructure I have no regrets. If I had waited for the infrastructure to arrive first there would never have been anything where we built. I will tell a funny story about that. The first thing we did was to build the lamb fattening station that turned into a timber mill. One night we blessed it and it turned into a timber mill. I was very young and innocent and probably did not do enough organising. We got our planning permission and signed a certain company to put up the steel structure. The workers arrived with the steel on a big lorry but the lorry could not turn up the boreen which was too narrow. We had to unload the steel and pull it up by tractor. Perhaps they have painted it in the past five years but for years there was mud on that steel in the ceiling where we had dragged it along the road. We got the place built, overcame our problems and the roads were eventually built too. The mill is there today. To any community that wants to sit on its hands and wait for the infrastructure to be 100% perfect before starting, good luck to them. There are other communities in the most unlikely places up boreens who will just get on with the job and spend the money.
I am not interested in people who see a problem in every opportunity. I am much more disposed towards those who see opportunities in every issue that arises. I admire the lady in Kerry who offered herself as a fully licensed sit-by driver to those who did not have a full licence, making herself a few bob from that rule. There are two mindsets - one always arrives at a problem, the other comes with the solution to the problem.
The Leader programme ethos is like the old GAA syndrome. It is about giving money to each group but if one group does not want to spend it we will give it to the one which wants to spend it. That is fine by me. There are many examples, for instance, west Cork has its fantastic Fuchsia brand. The Leader programme in Arrigna had the bank spending. Every time another group could not spend its money, this group had its hand out for it. Nobody could say that the area of north Roscommon and Leitrim is the most favoured geographical part of the country.
The notion I want to spread is that we are offering groups freedom and money. They can spend it, but if they cannot spend it they must return it to us so that we can give it to someone who can use the money. No mercy will be shown. I am interested in the psychology of motivation. GAA clubs do not get help from their neighbours, but beat the "you know what" out of them. The driving force for the GAA is that each club is independent and must paddle its own canoe. If it does not, all it gets is a hiding from the next club in the next town or parish. That has driven mega development of sports facilities, coaching and training in Ireland. Rural areas have not lost out because of that competitive element. The more competition there is, the better. Whenever I go into an area and people say they have all sorts of problems I say that is okay, that I will give the funding to the next area. They always call me back and say they will get on with matters. It is important to get that kind of motivation.
Somebody asked whether the money was ring-fenced or could it be moved between headings. It is allocated under various headings but it can be moved around in time. If money is not being spent under a particular heading, an application can be made to move it to another heading. The money relates to the period from 2007 to 2013. Every project must be approved by the end of 2013, but Leader companies have until 2014 and the beginning of 2015 to make the claim and spend the money. Europe will have all of the money rebated to us by the end of 2015. The companies will have to have the job done by the end of 2014. The final approval will be in 2013 but the companies will have to be given time to complete. We are probably eight months to a year later starting than we had hoped for but we have the same amount of money and it is not a huge amount to spend when it is divided between 38 groups. I do not believe there will be any problems spending the money we have, so let us get on with it. The faster we spend it the better.
There was a very practical question concerning a large project with several elements to it. The Leader programme may fund one element of a project and ICP may fund another element of the project. An element of a project can be funded as long as it is a discrete element in its own right, and it is possible to use voluntary labour or CE and RS schemes. I hope that answers the questions. If there are questions I have not answered I am happy to be reminded of them. There is a fisheries fund but I do not have details of it. I will ask the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to submit the information to the committee.
A question in regard to cohesion boards, chief executives and what we are doing was put very eloquently. I do not develop my policies on Mespil Road, although I come from Ballsbridge originally. Deputy Sheehan mentioned Ballsbridge. I am probably the only one here who comes from Ballsbridge. It is a fine place that also needs a bit of infrastructure. I develop my policies as a result of meeting constituents at my clinics and in the communities. All of us who operate out of rural areas day by day encounter the problem, mentioned by Senator Bradford, of people looking for money for a small enterprise only to be sent from one agency to the next and ending up going around in circles. That is codology. I cannot eliminate it totally. However, I will do anything within my power to try to create one body that can say "yes" or "no". Some people like the idea of having 15 State agencies competing with one another. I think it is a cod that there should be one State agency to do one thing and it should be the only one doing it. I decided, therefore, that there should be one Leader partnership company delivering the various schemes in my Department and other Departments where relevant in any given area, so there would be a local authority and a local Leader partnership company. It will deliver the rural social scheme, the Leader programmes and all the recreation development we are now doing. In other words, everything we want delivered locally we have added, including parts of the CLÁR programme and the local development social inclusion programme, the LDSIP, known as the partnership process. That makes sense in my view. I was involved in development for years in elimination of rural poverty and so on. That is the second point on which I take issue with Deputy Sheehan. Connemara is not poor. West Cork might be.
