Skip to main content
Normal View

JOINT COMMITTEE ON ARTS, SPORT, TOURISM, COMMUNITY, RURAL AND GAELTACHT AFFAIRS debate -
Wednesday, 10 Dec 2003

Vol. 1 No. 17

Partnerships: Presentation.

Cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire Gnóthaí Pobail, Tuaithe agus Gaeltachta agus roimh a oifigigh. I welcome the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs to the joint committee to discuss partnerships. I invite him to make a presentation and members may then ask questions.

A Chathaoirligh, ba mhaith liom buíochas a ghlacadh leis an gcoiste as ucht cuireadh a bheith agam labhairt ar na pairtnéireachtaí.

I thank the committee for the opportunity to talk about the partnership companies which were set up in the 1980s and 1990s to tackle the problem caused by disadvantage, particularly long-term unemployment, in certain areas. Approximately 12 areas were chosen initially and the concept was based on the neighbourhood effect in relation to poverty. The community support framework operational programme for local and urban development led to the creation of 38 local partnerships and 33 community groups in the mid-1990s. There are 20 partnerships operating in urban areas and 18 in rural areas. There are also approximately 175 community development support projects within this ambit. The programme is administered on behalf of my Department by Area Development Management Limited and delivered through the 38 partnerships and 33 community groups which I mentioned. Membership of the boards of the partnerships comprises social partners, such as business, trade unions, farming organisations and so on, State agencies at a local level, local community representatives and elected representatives. Local community organisations have seats on the boards of all the partnerships.

The setting up of partnerships was a break with the traditional method of solving problems, particularly the problem of long-term unemployment. The critical elements of this approach were an area based approach, local involvement in decision making and policy making and the freedom to be innovative in the development of local solutions. This approach has now been adopted in other countries and it is fair to say that we have been the pioneer in the area. The whole idea is that the community itself gets involved in solving its own problems, with substantial assistance from the State. The country has changed dramatically since this process began to grow in the 1990s. However, there are still areas of agglomerated disadvantage which need to be addressed.

A number of issues concern me. One is that individual disadvantage is often confused with the purpose of the partnerships, which is to work in areas of agglomerated disadvantage where the neighbourhood effect operates. The neighbourhood effect means that being poor in a poor area leads to much greater social exclusion than being equally deprived, in terms of money income, in a less poor area. We see a huge neighbourhood effect on children's school results and on drug abuse and crime.

In the last year we have been engaged in looking at partnerships and seeing where we go forward. The Ministers for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and Justice, Equality and Law Reform and I initiated a review in February last. We wanted to improve services on the ground, make sure that the money was getting to where it was needed, streamline the structures and bring greater transparency and co-ordination to local community development measures. We also wanted to examine the question of democratic accountability and financial accountability for the considerable sums of money being handled by the partnerships.

A comprehensive consultation process was advanced at a seminar last June. During the early summer, we published a discussion document which gave an indication of the issues thrown up during the consultation process. We are trying to simplify the interface between the State and the communities we are trying to serve. We are also looking for improved transparency in funding decisions, in the impact of expenditure and in the overall impact of total expenditure at local level.

There has been considerable concern about overlaps and gaps which had developed over the years. We will be seeking to bring maximum coherence between the different programmes. I intend bringing proposals to Government before the end of the year with regard to this matter and I recently circulated a draft memorandum. I cannot give the committee details of what is in the memorandum prior to going to Government but I can give an indication of some of the essential ingredients we intend retaining. One is the area based approach. I am very committed to the notion that there are areas of severe disadvantage, over and above what is found in other areas of the country, which need an area based approach. There must be local involvement in decision making and policy making and freedom to be innovative in the development of local solutions.

We are trying to make sure the money gets to where it is needed, that efforts are concentrated and that those who need most get most. I am concerned when I look at a county such as Galway. Considerable parts of County Galway are not disadvantaged, considering children's lifetime chances for example, but the whole county is a partnership area. On the other hand, parts of the west midlands are not included in partnership areas. Can one compare the problems of a rural area of County Galway, such as the area I live in myself, with the difficulties faced in Fatima Mansions, Ballymun, Ronanstown, Neilstown, Myross and many other areas which, we all accept, face problems on a scale the other areas I mentioned do not? For this reason, we must stand back from the partnership process, look at its purpose and make sure that the focus is retained on those who need it most.

A Chathaoirligh

I thank you for the opportunity to say a few words. I will be willing, later on, to facilitate you in answering questions.

Part of the reason for asking you to appear before the committee, Minister, was the concern felt at the start of the process that both the baby and the bath water would be thrown out. It is widely accepted that much good work is being done by partnerships. Despite the number of organisations all doing good things in their own way, problems can still fall between stools and not everyone's needs are accommodated. Money must go to where it is needed most and the people who need most must get most.

I am concerned about the tension between local involvement in decision making and the freedom to be innovative. We have all come across projects where, if there had been a little more flexibility, a great need could have been addressed. What element of accountability do you see, Minister, as compatible with freedom? Is it sufficient to have a public representative on a partnership board? How can one give freedom while retaining accountability? This question is very often asked.

There is very little in what the Minister said that we did not already know. I would have preferred to hear his proposals. When will they have gone to Cabinet and be available? This is a big issue in the communities. The partnerships are constructively worried. People want to see progress and they expect some rationalisation of county structures. When will the proposals be available to the public?

The local development social inclusion programmes, as approved by the regional assemblies, expect that the fourth measures will be administered by the partnerships. Has a final view on that issue been reached? Will the rural social employment scheme that was announced in the budget be managed in conjunction with FÁS or will any other agencies be involved in supporting this initiative?

This review is timely. A report of the experience gained and changed circumstances in any good scheme is always important, not just in the context of value for money but to empower local communities with a degree of flexibility. We have often seen good schemes where bureaucracy has stifled initiative and if we can open this up in the context of the partnership, it is important to do so. People on the ground know the situation best and it is difficult to explain a deviation from the norm in another area in a report so to give such ownership to the community will give better value for money in the long-term.

There is also a need for interaction with other Departments. In each county, several agencies operate. I do not want to praise one agency above another but many counties have three or four agencies with overlapping activities and remits. People develop ownership of territory and are not always prepared to allow another agency to come into that territory. Often there is duplication of funding and it is vital that we get the balance right.

There is good news for small farmers who are not in a position to make a full-time living from the land. This does not relate to partnership but it is related to the connections between different schemes. The last thing we want is for people to give up farming simply because they cannot make a living from it. The new social scheme within the Minister's portfolio is very important and there must be interaction with what is already happening. He cannot give us the details of the memoranda passing between Departments but could he expand on the development of relationships? In a small community such relationships are important.

The Minister mentioned that there are areas of disadvantage that need to be addressed. Are those within existing partnership areas or will there be new areas? I would put Tipperary forward.

I welcome the Minister. There is concern in community groups and partnerships about this. What is the timescale for the implementation of the proposals the Minister will take to Government? I received telephone calls today from groups who have heard differing stories on the grapevine and we must alleviate their concerns. The Minister said he cannot give us a detailed brief but a general synopsis could alleviate some of the concerns that exist.

How many submissions were received from partnership groups during the consultative phase? Was there a rural emphasis? Were the submissions of benefit to the Minister and his colleagues when drawing up the programme that will be taken to Government? As a result of the proposed changes in the rural enterprise budget, will we see a more urban focus? It appears that the rural area will be dealt with in a manner different from that outlined in the budget.

It is prudent to review and streamline the process and we welcome that. It is also important that local people are empowered because the resultant benefits to communities are obvious to us all. That feature should not be undermined.

I was interested that Minister mentioned areas of disadvantage surrounded by areas of affluence. I represent one of the most affluent areas in the country, Dún Laoghaire, but within that area there is a RAPID area and the disadvantage in such communities is often forgotten. There is also another, smaller area with severe social problems, particularly with drugs, but its access to funding is limited because it is not within the RAPID programme area. An element of flexibility to deal with that is essential. This area does not have RAPID status but it has the same problems. I did not want to accuse the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs, with the stress on the community aspect, of forgetting urban areas. All communities must have their problems addressed. Difficulties in urban areas are no greater or lesser than those in rural areas and they must also be resolved. I wish the Minister well and look forward to taking part in the review. It is a wise move.

It is amazing that no matter how often I stress that the greatest challenges for my Department are the urban areas of greatest disadvantage, everyone sees me in a totally rural light. I have been very pro-rural development and in favour of allowing people to stay in the countryside because the average person in a rural area has a much higher standard of living than people in the most deprived urban areas. I am pro-rural because we need space to tackle the urban areas we have created.

Those who argue with me about rural and urban areas talk as if all of Dublin was like Ballsbridge or Donnybrook. That is fine, I come from that area and it is a lovely place. That is not, however, the way things are. Those who are so hung up about a few areas dotted around the countryside are happy to ignore those parts of the city into which they never venture and about which they do not want to know because they are happily tucked away. I often travel in rural areas and have stated publicly that if people there think they are disadvantaged, I can bring them to places where they will see real disadvantage, the likes of which they have not experienced. Often after meetings people come to me to say I am right and that they have worked in such and such a place. We have a problem of outward migration but our children have a grand lifestyle compared to those in these severely disadvantaged areas.

I once again stress that the biggest challenge facing us in the Department in terms of disadvantage is urban disadvantage. One knockout statistic I always quote is that just 1% of children in the most deprived areas of Dublin have a chance of receiving a third level education. Some 70% of children in the most rural parts of the country have a chance of receiving a third level education. That measure alone surely gives us a marvellous indication of what real disadvantage is about. We are always saying that education is the key. One could turn to crime statistics, drug problems and so on and one would still get the same answers for the same places.

Second, some committee members have referred to the review. I can understand the natural reaction of various bodies to perform what I call the hedgehog trick. When the hedgehog is afraid it curls itself up, puts out it spikes to defend itself and does not really want to look at the world. Although a lot of people wrote in with some very good ideas, there was an element of that in the debate in that some of it was very defensive, with certain bodies pointing out that they had done great work in the past, are still doing great work and should not be touched.

If I or any Members of the Oireachtas operated on the basis that we were perfect we would not be long in receiving a backlash from the electorate. If nothing could be improved then nothing would change. Nobody is trying to criticise what has happened in the past. I am only interested in the past in so far as I can learn from it, but no structure, no matter how good, cannot be improved. We know there are overlaps and a lot of them are caused by the State. I am not blaming individual groups because most of it is caused by us politicians collectively. Various Governments have created structures here and there which have overlapped. We have a big job to persuade people that calling for improvement does not imply a personal criticism of anybody.

Deputy Glennon could probably lecture much more eloquently on this than I, but a football trainer would not be much good if he told his players that they won last year's All-Ireland, Triple Crown or whatever and that they are great. What he must tell them is that they were a bit lucky last year to get through and that they have to work harder this year and keep improving the system. Otherwise things get slack and begin to tail off.

The Chairman raised the issue of innovation and mainstreaming. Where does innovation end and mainstreaming begin? Another tricky question we must try to face up to over time is that of the interface between what the State is doing in an area and what a partnership can do. To give a simple example, I had a case where a partnership put an extra teacher in a school for six months even though the State system did not allow that as there were not the required numbers. The problem was that after six months the partnership wanted to pull out and it did not fall within the remit of the State's mainstream system.

Do we lead people up this alley and then take the service away - and I am very slow to give something to people that I will then have to pull away - or do we try to get the State to instruct the partnership to provide the service over a period of time on the understanding that it will then take it over? There must be good interlinking because the last thing one can do to a community, as we all know, is to start providing a service at the coal face and then withdraw it. I am always very careful to ensure that if we start a service and it is good then we must stick with it.

The accountability issue refers not only to democratic accountability. It is very important that we have a reasonable proportion of elected representatives on the boards of the partnerships, but another issue is financial accountability. I am at times surprised as a Minister by the high levels of accountability we are exposed to, and rightly so, in terms of how we spend even relatively small sums of money, even though we are all elected by the people. On the other hand, vast sums of money are passing through some of these organisations and we must ensure that their accountability systems in terms of financial management are of the top level, the kind of level we expect of ourselves in spending the State's money. In the long-term we must ensure that we have good systems and that not only is there probity but there is seen to be probity. This is absolutely vital to ensure confidence in any system.

A question was raised about the fourth measure. I had initially bounced the idea of the fourth measure for RAPID because I did not necessarily expect to get a new subhead in the budget. This seemed a way of doing this within the existing framework. However, I now have a specific subhead for RAPID and it is not my intention to do this through the LDSIPs. It is my intention to do it in a manner similar to CLÁR. It is cost efficient, effective and gets the necessary jobs done. An examination of the RAPID programmes would indicate to us that the recurring themes are State management, security, safety of housing estates in terms of ramps and so on, community facilities, health facilities, sports facilities and so on. I want to use this money in the simplest way possible with the least bureaucracy, but with a good input from the AITS, and get this money on the ground doing what it is meant to without complicated processes. However, in the meantime we have also ring-fenced a considerable amount of the dormant accounts money for RAPID areas, so there is a second fund now available.

I come to the question of rural versus urban areas. From now to 2006 I will have Leader companies in rural areas and partnerships in some rural areas. In some areas the partnership company and Leader company are the same, and there is a certain benefit in that. While I am not dogmatic on this point, the answer to Tipperary's problem of having no partnership is to give the functions of a partnership to existing structures in Tipperary. I will not set up new structures. All of rural Ireland is covered by Leader companies, and if there is a Tipperary Leader company and a Deputy or Senator thinks there is something I should be doing and I get the money to do it, the simplest solution is to transfer that function rather than creating a whole new body to do something an existing body can do. I have most rural and urban areas covered by structures and I do not intend to create new structures as we already have enough. All we would get is competition with existing structures not for service delivery but for money.

I strongly hold the view, and I would be very interested to hear the views of committee members, that urban areas tend to be more segregated than rural areas. I accept the point about pockets in rural areas but in general urban areas are more segregated. Rural areas are much more of a mix and the rich and poor and big and small all live beside one another. I have never been utterly convinced that the three targets within the LDSIP is the way to deal with the rural issue. I have often pointed out this in a very trite way, but it is very true that if one has a very bad road down the country - always a big rural issue - and there is an old person living alone and a rich person with two Mercedes outside the front door living on the same road, one cannot repair the road for the old person living alone without doing the same for the rich person. It is much harder to separate development in rural areas between social classes than in urban areas where one can focus in on real problem areas. Therefore we need rural schemes for rural areas and urban models for urban areas.

The rural and social scheme will not be implemented through FÁS. I have not spoken to managers of the Leader programme yet so I will not pre-empt any decision they might make, but we will be looking at a delivery agency like Leader as the intermediary. As with existing CE schemes, the community or parish organisations, or conglomeration of such organisations, will actually run the scheme on a day-to-day basis. Leader covers all rural areas, and we even have a Leader programme in County Dublin. This rural scheme is not confined to one part of the country, north County Dublin is as much a part of it as County Donegal or County Kerry. Leader, therefore, might be the model and the agency to use.

I agree about the number of agencies. There are 175 CDSPs, 33 community groups, many Gaeltacht co-operatives, Gaeltacht island co-operatives and CDSPs on the non-Gaeltacht islands. What is the difference between one of these small community groups being under the partnership or under the community development support programme? People will come up with differences but the communities will not see them too clearly. The Department of Tourism and Sport, as it was at the time, set up one and the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs set up the other and, beyond that, there was no philosophical difference between the two. We should examine if we need all these different lines or if one group should be under the same system as another. I have an open mind on that.

The review will establish a framework and it will not be dictatorial in the detail. Once a framework is established, it is then necessary to deal with problems highlighted by Deputy Fiona O'Malley, of anomalous areas that do not fit into the neat package. I want to leave that freedom in the review. When I look, however, at partnerships and RAPID, and the areas covered by each, RAPID is much more targeted at real disadvantage than partnership. It is human nature but we will always try to extend the boundary and then when we arrive at one place, we will say there is another disadvantaged person in the next parish until all of the State is covered. That dilutes the effect in the areas of most concentrated disadvantage. With CLÁR and RAPID I have been tough about saying the boundaries will not move in the foreseeable future. That throws up anomalies, as most things in life do, but if the choice is to widen the boundaries so far that the effect is diluted in the areas of greatest disadvantage, I will stick with the boundaries. To do anything else is to sell those with the greatest need short.

We should always bear in mind that those who have a choice of where to live often choose rural areas and the middle class parts of our cities and towns. There are areas in which those with money and choice do not choose to live and that is one hell of a definition of the areas of greatest disadvantage. That is why I adhere to the theory that the areas of greatest disadvantage, social exclusion and alienation from the rest of society are in urban areas and they must be tackled.

I welcome the answer to my question that FÁS will not be running the rural scheme. Community groups will welcome that decision. In clarification of the fourth measure, the Minister said the partnerships will not be administering it. The managing authorities of the regional assemblies for this fund have met and appointed the partnerships as the intermediate bodies while the Department is the implementing body. As a result there is a conflict between the Minister and the regional assemblies. The assemblies want the partnerships to implement it.

The Minister is placing greater emphasis on the RAPID organisations than on the partnerships for delivery of services, particularly in urban areas. Until this year, RAPID has not had any funds while partnerships have a network of funding. Partnerships are operated in a more democratic fashion because RAPID does what the local co-ordinator feels should be done. He might consult but there is a conflict between RAPID and partnerships.

There is wide representation on the AIT. I have met many AITs and I know they involve public representatives and partnerships.

Public representatives are involved at county implementation level, not at local level. When RAPID draws up schemes it consults, but the elected representatives are not consulted about the implementation agenda at local level, they work at county level. There is a democratic deficit in the operation of RAPID. When it operates in a local authority area, the local authority members will be the last to know what schemes will be taking place in their estates. When partnership is operating, everyone knows what is happening. That is the experience in Drogheda.

I accept that but I want to make clear that this will be along the lines of CLÁR. We must get rid of the idea that someone will give more money to AITs, partnerships or anyone else. I hope to get matching funds from my colleagues so, like CLÁR, I hope the €4.5 million will grow.

In local authority estate management work, a rough area on the estate where the kids are drinking cider instead of playing football comes up in nearly every plan. There is no way an AIT could decide to address that on its own and there is no way I would give it money to do that. It would not be right, however, for me to give the money to a local authority and say that it has a RAPID area and it can spend the money there as it pleases, totally ignoring the AIT's plan.

Under the village enhancement scheme involving Leader, CLÁR, the local authority and the community had to reach a three way lock on it, and had to agree what would happen. If the three did not agree, there was no agreement. This will work in a similar way. We would insist in a case like that I outlined that the local authority would have a veto, as would the AIT, and until both agreed there would be no agreement. I cannot have a situation where an AIT usurps the function of the local authority nor can I let a local authority look after its own agenda while ignoring the people in the AIT area.

I thank the Minister for that clarification. That must be done because local representatives feel excluded from RAPID. If this happens, and the local authorities are involved at the initiation of projects before they go to county level, we will achieve true democracy and community involvement.

I would be interested in the Deputy's input. There is no point in asking people for plans without giving an idea of the finances available. Under CLÁR I would tell the local authority it had €100,000 for a certain measure and I wanted to see its proposal so I could sanction it. If I asked someone the type of estate management he wanted, however, I would get a plan costing €2 million when I only have a budget of €4.5 million. That is a waste of time and we should avoid it.

My process, and I will be guided by other people's views, will be that I have €4.5 million and I will negotiate with my Government colleagues for the best deal I can get, as happened with CLÁR. If we decide to spend €1 million on estate management and I get another €1 million from the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, I will have twice as much. I will then tell each RAPID area, based on size or population, how much money it has and ask it for proposals that must be agreed by both the local authority and the AIT. The advantage then is that I have a very simple system involving very little bureaucracy. We get the proposal back and as long it falls within the parameters - for example, that the estate is in the RAPID area and the work does not involve building a house or whatever - we will just say fine and approve the proposal. The local authority then delivers this for us and presents us with the bill when finished. The job is done, with the AIT and local authority hopefully happy.

On a whole lot of measures that is the kind of approach I had been thinking about. I wish to be absolutely clear about what happened in regard to the whole LDSIP process. I said time and time again that I was not happy with the way RAPID was shaping up, and I kept saying that I hoped to have a solution by the end of 2003. I set myself down a road and looked at the option of the fourth measure as a possible way out without getting a new budget subhead. I was advised at the time that it would take me to the end of 2003 to go through all the hoops, including the regional assemblies, to get approval for that type of approach. The process was that long and unwieldy.

It so happened that by the time the partnerships agreed that they would be willing to take the money - and that was all we were asking them - a much simpler way of dealing with the matter became available. Now I faced a dilemma. Having got something that I could have hoped for but could not have banked on at the beginning of the year, would I, because I had to go through all these hoops in case I did not get it, take my preferred solution or take my second solution because it had been lined up as a contingency? It is wrong for a politician ever to take the expeditious route when a better choice is fortuitously available.

If I was to now take the €4.5 million and give it to ADM to give to partnerships and get into a big row with AITS because of certain tensions and so on, how much money would I have left compared to the way we have done things with the CLÁR programme? If I have €10 million to spend on this programme, and I normally get more than €10 million on it, I get 100% effectiveness on the ground. Some people will feel that it was a bit unsatisfactory that I went through all these hoops and then at the end, like Mother Hubbard, said that the cupboard was bare because I was doing things another way. However, I did not really have much option because the process is so unwieldy.

There is not too much bare about the cupboards or about the initiative with which the Minister is driving his Department. It is a pleasure to have the Minister before the committee. With the new rural scheme, the increases in the budget and the opportunities within the dormant accounts fund, we hope to have the Minister back in 2004 to tell us where everything is at and to give us the detail of this particular scheme.

I wish to put a few final questions and refer back to something the Minister said. I would be happy to leave this to another meeting, but I detect a significant difference of opinion between what the partnerships want and what, say, RAPID wants, not in terms of objectives but in terms of organisation and so on. I am not necessarily disagreeing with what the Minister is saying but a big debate is going on out there and I am not absolutely happy that the Minister's answer is the right one, although I am not saying it is the wrong one. We do not necessarily need to bring them in here but the partnerships are expressing a view to me that differs from that of the Minister, and I am concerned about that difference.

I assume that because there was a process of review everybody will posture to some level. Our hands are tied as the review has been carried out and the memorandum is being brought to Government. We have no choice but to wait until that comes through the system and have the Minister back at that point——

I wish to address one point that Deputy O'Dowd raised. In regard to the €4.5 million, now that I have the freedom to choose literally any system I like as it has a discreet subheading of its own, I am opting to go down the tried and trusted route of CLÁR because most people keep telling me that CLÁR delivered on the ground. With CLÁR I used Leader companies quite a bit to deliver some programmes, and I of course will use partnerships and other existing agencies in the future to deliver programmes. I am not creating new structures.

The partnerships may feel that they did not get the RAPID money but the best way to spend that money is the way I intend. However, maybe dormant accounts money can be administered through partnerships, or maybe I will come up with other schemes in 2004 to be administered through partnerships. The one guiding star for me in making any decision on how to channel finance to the ground is which of the various conduits will give me best delivery on the ground for the ordinary people in housing estates. I will not be pushed off that course.

I am not here to protect organisations or keep them going; I am here to get delivery for ordinary people. Sometimes this will be done through partnerships, sometimes through Leader companies, sometimes through AITs and sometimes the money will go straight to local authorities and health boards. The one that will be picked is the one that will give me delivery. If people do not like that they are entitled to make their point but I make it absolutely clear that I am not against anybody or for anybody. The only thing I am for is efficient delivery to people on the ground.

The Minister's vision and vigour are to be applauded. I had hoped to propose that we offer the Minister our support. I do not know if this is now agreed but the Minister has certainly demonstrated that his absolute commitment is to getting the best value on the ground for the people. I propose that the committee offers the Minister support in his quest as he makes these changes.

There is general support for the thrust of this. As usual, the devil is in the detail because everybody, as I said at the outset, agrees with the Minister in wanting to see as much money getting to the people who need it most without the unnecessary red tape. We are all coming from the same perspective there.

I conclude by thanking the Minister and his staff and extend best wishes to the members of the committee for a peaceful and happy Christmas and a prosperous new year. Given that none of us will take part in the 2004 local elections we can keep 2004 as quiet as possible. I also thank our surrogate members for their support and co-operation during the year.

The joint committee adjourned at 5.10 p.m.sine die.
Top
Share