As members will be aware, Deputy John Curran, former Minister of State at the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs, appeared before this committee on 27 January 2010 on this matter. I, together with officials from the Department, Ms Kathleen Stack, assistant secretary, and Ms Clodagh McDonnell, principal officer, welcome the opportunity to provide members with an update on developments since then.
As members are aware, the local development social inclusion programme, LDSIP, and the community development programme, CDP, were my Department's two main social inclusion and community development programmes. These came to an end on 31 December last and have been superseded by a new integrated programme, the local and community development programme, LCDP.
The cohesion process initiated by my Department some years ago resulted in a significant reduction of local delivery structures for a range of rural and local development programmes. Until last year, there were 94 partnerships and Leader companies operating and the cohesion process has resulted in that number being reduced to a total of 52 urban partnerships and integrated companies. They provide full coverage throughout the country.
In advance of proceeding to establish a single integrated programme, my Department undertook an evaluation of individual community development projects. Many of these projects span across two decades and activities are quite diverse. The objective of the review was to identify those projects that produced tangible, appropriate benefits for the communities they serve. The majority of projects fell into this category and were offered funding under the new programme in 2010. Where projects were not recommended for continued funding, an appropriate appeals mechanism was provided and a CDP appeals board was established.
The reason some groups did not receive an offer of continued funding was that their work was not regarded as front-line, rather, they provided representational support for communities and groups and supports in the form of capacity -building or training. The decision to withdraw funding was not a reflection on the value of that work or, in many cases, on the performance of individual delivery bodies but, given the current difficult economic climate and the demands on public resources, my Department is obliged to prioritise funding on tangible supports and services to address more pressing and urgent needs.
The appeals board completed its work on 29 January 2010 and its report has been published on my Department's website, www.pobail.ie. Following the initial review by my Department, 29 projects were deemed non-viable. Of these, 24 projects submitted an appeal to the CDP appeals board. Ten were successful. The non-viable projects were informed by the appeals board of its decision to uphold the original decision of my Department to cease CDP funding for them. One can appreciate that it is now a matter for the voluntary boards of management in each case to decide the future strategy for their companies in light of the decisions of the appeals board. My officials have been in contact with each of the projects concerned and have indicated that if the company decides to cease operations and to wind up, my Department will, without prejudice, seek to assist the directors in discharging their statutory responsibilities. CDP staff redundancy and company wind-up costs are being processed by my Department for 17 projects not deemed viable. Some €376,000 in wind-up costs has been provided to these projects to date, including €194,000 in redundancy costs.
On 23 February last, ten of the above CDPs took a case to conciliation at the Labour Relations Commission seeking a reversal of my Department's decision to withdraw funding and seeking an enhanced redundancy package in the event of the decision not being reversed. My Department did not participate in, nor was it represented at, the LRC proceedings as it is not a party to any such dispute, having no role in the internal operations of CDPs and, in particular, no role in setting the salary or the other terms and conditions of employment for individual project staff.
The matter was then referred to the Labour Court for recommendation. The Labour Court hearing was held on 1 April 2010. In advance of the hearing, my Department wrote to the chair of the Labour Court, on foot of its legal advice, to point out that the Labour Court has no competence to adjudicate in the matter of the decision not to provide further funding to the community development projects in question, that the decision was lawfully and properly made and that neither the Minister nor the Department is accountable to the Labour Court in such matters. The Labour Court accepted my Department's position as outlined and indicated that it would deal only with the redundancy issue.
The aim of the new local and community development programme is to tackle poverty and social exclusion through partnership and constructive engagement between Government and its agencies and the people in disadvantaged communities. The new programme preserves elements of good practice from the CDP-LDSIP programmes and will enable groups to demonstrate objectively the positive impacts they are securing for local communities through the prioritisation of key front-line services and supports and the minimisation of overhead and ancillary costs. My clear focus and that of my Department is and always has been to protect the most vulnerable groups and individuals in society.
The programme continues to support and encourage volunteers as the key to the programme's success in neighbourhoods, but without the burden of compliance with company law requirements, audit and other administrative and management responsibilities. My Department has set out a model for integrated service delivery and structures at a local level, which would involve, among other things, the reconstitution of the voluntary CDP boards from the end of 2010. Each board would then form an advisory committee to the local development company and act as the voluntary management committee for the local project. This approach will preserve the community development ethos in areas and will not detract from the key essential services and supports being provided through the CDP.
All community development projects and local development companies that are currently in receipt of funding through the LCDP have signed up, first, to implement the new programme in the context of my Department's integration strategy and, second, to meet specified deadline dates, namely, submission of a work plan by 26 March 2010 and an integration plan by 30 June 2010. A national model involving full integration of CDPs with LDCs has been set out by my Department. However, it has been made clear that other options can be considered and that it is not a question of one size fits all. Alternative models will, however, be required to meet a range of criteria, including a reduction in the number of structures, promoting the potential for integrated delivery of services to the public, supporting efficiencies and reducing the burden of company law compliance for CDPs. The only option not acceptable is one that seeks to preserve the status quo. Some models proposed by CDPs and other parties in the period since the launch of the LCDP have had to be rejected on that basis.
Recently, I have been able to respond positively to possible alternative models put forward by the Paul Partnership and Limerick city CDPs, and by the HSE south and a number of CDPs in the Cork-Kerry area. While agreement has not yet been fully finalised in these cases, I am confident that the real possibility of agreement exists. It is anticipated that any alternative models of the nature proposed, if agreed, could be for use in a small number of specific areas only. I assure the committee that my Department will continue to respond positively to all constructive proposals it receives, based on the specific criteria, and that my officials will continue to be available to meet the boards of projects. In this context, I have allowed a little injury time, so to speak, from the 30 June deadline, but this, I stress, must be measured in days rather than weeks.
It is important to note that, despite what is stated by some commentators, full integration does not mean closure of a CDP or the cessation of CDP activities in any given area. As has been stated previously, any worthwhile community development activity or service delivered under a CDP can continue to be delivered under the proposed new LCDP structure and by the same staff who currently do this work. Of course, CDPs may opt out of the LCDP integration process and decide to go it alone. In such cases, my Department will be supportive in regard to the retention of any assets acquired with programme funding and may also be in a position to provide for some limited funding for a transition period, subject to certain conditions.
A number of CDPs have raised concerns about the treatment of assets, especially buildings, in a full integration situation where all assets and net liabilities would usually transfer by agreement. I emphasise that other arrangements are possible. For example, the ownership of buildings need not transfer to an LDC. This was also made clear in the context of the information event for CDPs and LDCs held by Pobal on my Department's behalf on 10 June last.
I remain committed to the new programme and to implementing it in the best possible way. My primary concern is, and always has been, to make every effort to ensure the daily front-line services funded through my Department are protected, especially those focused on the needs of our most socially deprived communities. I reassure everyone concerned that my focus remains firmly on ensuring scarce resources are targeted at the most vulnerable communities through optimising our efforts and resources at the front line. I look forward to providing any further information members may require and answering any questions they may have.
