Ós rud é go bhfuil córam againn, is féidir linn tús a chur leis an gclár oibre. Ní clár ró-fhada é. The purpose of this meeting is to consider the 2008 Supplementary Estimate for Public Services: Vote 27 — Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs. It was referred to this committee by Dáil Éireann on 25 November last. Our task is purely to consider it and report to the Dáil accordingly. This technical exercise is cost-neutral to the Exchequer. I know everybody is under pressure, but it should not take us too long to do our business. Is gnó teicniúil é seo, nach gcuireann aon costas breise ar an Státchiste. Tá súil agam gur féidir linn déileáil le seo in am réasúnta gearr. Tá áthas orm fáilte a chuir roimh an Aire Gnóthaí Pobail, Tuaithe agus Gaeltachta, an Teachta Ó Cuív, agus na hoifigigh atá anseo ina theannta. Tá seirbhís aistriúcháin ar fáil más mian leis na baill úsáid a bhaint as. I welcome the Minister, Deputy Ó Cuív, and his officials. A translation service is available for those who wish to avail of it. I ask the Minister to begin his contribution, which will be followed by questions from the Deputies.
Vote 27 — Department of Arts, Sport and Tourism (Supplementary).
Tá mé buíoch as an deis teacht os comhair an choiste anseo tráthnóna chun an cur i láthair seo a dhéanamh. I wish to seek approval for a technical Supplementary Estimate on my Department's Vote to increase expenditure by €5 million under subhead B7, initiatives for tackling economic and social disadvantage, which is funded from the dormant accounts fund. The additional expenditure will be funded initially from savings elsewhere in the Vote. I am aware that Members have already received a briefing note from the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs. Therefore, I do not propose to go into too much detail at this point.
The original provision for subhead B7 was €5 million. However, due to exceptionally strong demand in 2008, an additional €5 million is now required — €3.5 million for capital projects and €1.5 million for current expenditure. This increased funding will facilitate the disbursement of additional grants from the Dormant Accounts Fund, thereby facilitating worthwhile projects aimed at tackling disadvantage. The proposed additional capital expenditure of €3.5 million will come from subhead D7, Leader — rural development programme 2007-13. The purpose of this subhead is to fund the Leader elements, axes 3 and 4, of the new rural development programme. Expenditure under this subhead commenced in 2007 and is expected to finish in 2015 with the closure of the programme. The programme is co-funded by the EU under the European agricultural fund for rural development. The Leader elements of the programme will be implemented at local level by 36 local action groups. Each local action group will deliver the Leader measures in its area in accordance with business plans agreed with the Department. It was expected that the new programme would commence early in 2008. However, a complaint lodged with the European Commission delayed the selection of the local action groups to deliver the programme and it has not been possible to achieve the expected level of expenditure in 2008. Accordingly, expenditure will be at least €3.5 million less than the voted provision. In the long term, between now and 2013, the full amount will be spent.
The proposed additional current expenditure — €1.5 million — will come from subhead B2, community services programme. Members will be aware that the objective of that programme is to support local community activities to address disadvantage, while providing employment opportunities for people from particular target groups. The target groups are people with disabilities, the long-term unemployed, Travellers and lone parents. The activities of the projects vary and include community child care services; services for the elderly or for people with disabilities; rural transport projects; projects to operate community halls and facilities; and community radio.
Expenditure in 2007 totalled €44.5 million. In 2008, the provision was set at €55 million. However, while the programme is continuing to expand on the basis of projects related to the relevant target groups, expenditure in 2008 is now projected to be at least €1.5 million less than the voted provision.
Members will be aware that disbursements from the dormant accounts fund are designed to assist three broad categories of persons — the socially or economically disadvantaged, the educationally disadvantaged and those with a disability. My Department has direct responsibility for the management of a number of payments to beneficiaries who are socially and economically disadvantaged.
Since the fund was launched in November 2003, more than 6,500 projects have been awarded funding to support the provision of a very broad range of activities. These include facilities for respite care, play, recreation, youth, community, the homeless and day care centres. Actions funded have included essential services to combat isolation, programmes to tackle or prevent substance misuse, suicide prevention, preschool education, before and after school programmes, community-based transport, accessibility, integrated mobility, and independent living schemes and projects for lessening the social and economic disadvantage experienced by persons with a disability. Allocations from the fund have also targeted specific actions in RAPID and CLÁR designated areas. My Department publishes full details of all projects approved for funding.
It is difficult to predict reclaims of grants from the dormant accounts fund due to the different lengths of time it takes projects to arrive at a position where they are ready to draw down funding. In addition, some projects are capital and others are for the provision of current funding, resulting in varying requirements from different projects. It was thought that disbursements from the fund would peak during 2009 and 2010, but the first elements of that peak have occurred during 2008.
It should be noted that the increased expenditure will be Exchequer-neutral in that it will be matched by an increased drawdown from the dormant accounts fund. It should also be noted that the funding provided to groups and organisations from the dormant accounts fund is once-off in nature and will not of itself give rise to an ongoing stream of payments.
This technical Supplementary Estimate will allow worthwhile projects tackling economic and social disadvantage to be funded from the dormant accounts fund, with the additional moneys required at this time being funded initially, as I have outlined, from savings elsewhere within my Department's Vote.
I commend this Supplementary Estimate to the committee and I will be happy to provide any additional information members may require.
In respect of the community service programme the Minister said that of the entire allocation of €55 million he has an underspend of €1.4 million. As the Minister's allocation has suffered a cut of 8% in the recent budget, that is €4.2 million, that means his budget will be down 10%. Given that the purpose of the programme is to create employment in rural areas, how can he justify making a saving of €1.4 million in the year we have just had with unemployment rising on a daily basis? Will the Minister explain how he can make a saving, the reason he did not use that €55 million and how he will manage with a 10% cut in next year's provision?
Does the Deputy have other questions?
My other question relates to the Leader programme from which €3.5 million has been withdrawn this year due to the dispute with European Commission. Will that money be added to the allocation for next year's programme? Given that groups will be amalgamated will this result in job losses? In some counties there were three or four Leader groups and now there may be only two. Will the same number of people be employed?
In regard to the dormant accounts fund the Minister has an estimate for €5 million and will put a further €5 million into the fund. Will he explain how that will work?
Those are very relevant questions. On the issue of the community services programme, a commitment was given in Towards 2016 that the community service programme would be increased dramatically. Part of that increased funding was to made available between 2007 and 2008. We were required to roll out new extra projects. The reason the saving occurred this year was that the roll-out of the projects and the process Pobal had been following on our behalf was more elongated than I had anticipated and, therefore, the projects did not proceed. To a certain extent it is just as well and because of events that have overtaken us, it will not be possible to expand the programme as had been intended in Towards 2016. However, the Deputy will be pleased to hear that with the provision of €50 million for next year all existing jobs are being retained. By making savings elsewhere in the programme, in ancillary crafts, including on payments to Pobal for administration, the programme was still being expanded but not at the rate originally intended. All the people who are on the programme at present will be retained. Recently I announced a roll-out of projects in respect of community halls. We are looking at a further tranche of those. There are four halls in Dublin that need staff and because the dormant accounts fund is running out we will lose those. Also we are looking at a number of other programmes. The Deputy may be wondering how we are making it all stack up. First, we are reducing the payments next year to Pobal and, second, we are looking at other costs within that programme where it may be possible to make cuts. As the Deputy said we need to keep people in employment and provide community services.
In respect of Leader, the €3.5 million that will not be spent this year will be paid out before the end of the programme, that is, between now and 2015. There is €425 million in that programme which will be paid out in total. Suppose a programme is commenced in January and the contracts are signed, the various Leader company applications are approved in 2009. Many of the projects will fall due for payment in 2010, 2011, 2012 and so on. In the first year of any programme the drawdown of completed projects is relatively slow. Having discussed the matter with Leader companies last week, I believe I have enough money in the programme for next year. The heavy demand in that programme will be from 2010 to 2013. There is a commitment for the entire €425 million and I do not see the State allowing co-funded money from Europe go back to Europe.
The last Leader programme was co-funded from local authorities and elsewhere. If the co-funding cannot be found or cannot be used from other organisations the Minister will have a major problem in respect of groups drawing down funding next year. The Minister has said that funding has to be drawn down completely, that they cannot get co-funding from local authorities or elsewhere. Voluntary and other groups will find it very difficult if they do not get co-funding from local authorities and there will be a major problem. This is one of the issues that will create a problem for the Leader programme.
I am glad to hear the Deputy on that particular issue. I shall come to the staffing issue he raised.
With reference to the Leader programme, Deputy Ring will be happy to hear that I have instructed the Department to raise this issue at the next monetary committee, which will take place early in the new year, and to seek permission for us to co-fund across a wide range of co-fundable actions.
Will Europe see that as a major issue or as a minor change? If it is considered a minor change, progress should be relatively fast. If it is thought to be a major issue, this could take six months or more. I will push for us to be allowed co-fund but I must get permission from Europe. I am seeking that permission and will seek it on the widest possible basis. If I can get it on that basis I can then decide about co-funding. Clearly, local authorities would be acceptable.
I met the Commissioner and asked whether, under the present arrangements, we might be able to co-fund with, for example, the development levies which are basically private moneys. However, she said that once State money is given to a local authority it becomes public money. I am trying to address that issue and I agree with Deputy Ring that it must be addressed.
With regard to staffing, the Department does not employ the staff in a Leader partnership company. Although I do not determine the staff numbers, I can assure the Deputy that we told the Leader companies that the 20% set aside for administration must continue until March 2015. We carried from the Exchequer fully funded allocations for 2007-2008 that are the equivalent of €2.14 million and €2.15 million in the new round. We will not carry the administrative burden. The companies will have more administrative resources because it is a bigger programme but they must make that money stretch until March 2015. Last week I explained the matter to Leader and to Comhar Leader na hÉireann and they seemed to accept it. We should not allow big bureaucracies grow at this time.
I shall speak tomorrow to Planet, the co-ordinating group of the partnerships, about the rest of the partnership staff. I shall stress, once again, that we will keep a tight rein on money provided for administration, that we will not allow a big percentage go to it and that companies must keep front-line services operational. Will they achieve that by modest wages or by receiving a larger amount? How they will operate it, day-to-day, is a matter for the companies but I am determined that we will make savings in the overheads and the administrative burden of these programmes. Leader was never very heavily administered in terms of staff but a big percentage of costs in the local partnership programme goes on staff.
The Deputy asked about the Dormant Accounts Fund concerning €5 million——
The Minister referenced €5 million to €10 million although he had budgeted for €5 million.
Is the Deputy asking why the amount went up?
I believe the Minister was to transfer it from one Department to——
I know what the Deputy means. We are attempting a double strategy here. One sum is clearly part of the Estimate, in other words, it is above the line in the gross Vote as indicated. I am spending an extra €5 million from the dormant accounts fund and am saving on community services programme and on Leader. However, as I said, it is also true that €5 million extra will come in beneath the line, accruing from the dormant accounts fund. One could say the Exchequer will be better off by €5 million because that saving will be made in the net Vote, although not in the gross Vote. The gross Vote the select committee is examining today concerns the famous €1,000 but beneath-the-line money will come from the dormant accounts Vote.
I am very worried about the issue of staffing. I accept that the Minister hopes a certain outcome will happen but it will not. We have seen this occur with local authorities and in the health boards. Leader funding is intended for the creation of employment in a region and for getting people back into the workplace. It does not make sense to amalgamate groups yet keep the same number of employees. In any other profession or walk of life, when a company closes down people must find work elsewhere. In County Mayo, four companies are to become two but they will keep the same staffing.
I would not put my shirt on that. It is not for me to tell companies what to do. All I can say to them is that they have a certain amount of money for administration. They can figure it out after that. Across my Department, as I believe the Deputy is aware——
I hoped the Minister would be strong on this matter.
I have told Údarás na Gaeltachta, Leader companies, partnerships and Pobal that we must slim down seriously on administration costs. One reason I am able to keep increasing the numbers in the community services programme without apparently getting more money is that I am slimming down administration. I shall give some figures from memory. In 2007, administration costs in Leader, in a non-active wind-up mode was €8.9 million. This year it is €9.4 million and is to be €10.5 million next year. However, the programme for next year is three times the size of the previous one. When I decided to stretch the money to 2015, I made an agreement with Europe that 20% be made available for administration. By stretching it the full length of the programme, I actually reduce the amount available per annum for administration. Does the Deputy understand me?
I do.
I am being very tight on that. The Deputy probably agrees with me but even if he did not I would stick by this. I believe he and I share the same view on the matter. When we come to deal with the local development social inclusion programme, the one with the big staff, both I and the Minister of State, Deputy John Curran, have indicated time and again that the same amount of money will not be available for administrative overheads next year as was provided this year. We must tighten up. We are pushing the money for front-line services. If a service out in the community is being provided it will be protected but the administration costs must be cut. I share the Deputy's concern.
That will be my job for the next year. I warn the Minister and his officials that I will monitor this very carefully. I will not let happen again what happened the Western Development Commission. I support that organisation but I do not agree that 16.5 jobs are required to administer a small fund. It does not make sense, it is not right and the taxpayer should not have to put up with it. I will hold the Minister to the 20% he quoted with regard to Leader programmes. I support him but if he thinks he can draw money from the actual funding, I shall make a complaint to Europe.
The Deputy is probably aware from his colleagues and from the board of Údarás na Gaeltachta that I have signalled there must be major savings in administration. Clearly, when one deals with a State agency there will be an issue in respect of jobs. I believe we must take a holistic view of this. There are many bodies now and, as my Department beds in, it is becoming more apparent that different groups are drawing moneys from three or four funds within my Department. They may have staff in this or that office. One of the Deputy's colleagues in Belmullet pointed out to me the number of offices in one town in County Mayo funded directly or indirectly by my Department. That must stop.
I am available at any time if anybody wishes to come and discuss these issues. The Dáil should be much more relevant and should discuss important issues. I will make myself available. We will do the Estimates as usual but if another debate is needed to tease out these issues I will be here. I wish to put the money into services on the ground.
I welcome that. The Minister is correct. There is a lot of concern about tipping money from this source and that one. Nobody knows who is drawing down what but ultimately the taxpayer pays for it. Nobody is accountable and I would welcome a debate on this matter. I shall propose one at a later stage. I ask also that the Minister and his officials provide committee members with information on all the agencies in question, detailing to which ones he allocates money and for what. There is much public concern about what is happening.
I sometimes feel that trying to keep an eye on all this is impossible. I have a friend and colleague, Seosamh Ó Cuaig, who is on the board of Údarás na Gaeltachta. I am sure the Deputy knows Councillor Ó Cuaig as well as I do. One day he said: "Caithfeá bheith ar nós péist an dá choinneáil déag le súil a choimead orthu." In other words, one would have to be like the 12-headed monster to keep an eye on them all the time. I am seriously concerned about reports I have received related to assets, transfers, the creation of posts, raising salaries and so on. There is only one way to control this. I will make two points. I have said clearly to the Leader programme companies that they must account for all of the assets, as well as staff transfers, and the same applies to the partnership companies. They cannot transfer staff and salt away assets; it is not acceptable to do so. One way I can control staff is by turning off the tap and reducing exorbitant administration costs. The companies simply must balance their budgets.
Deputy Ring's point is well made and I have no doubt it will be raised again.
I support Deputy Ring's comments on employment factors and funding. In County Kildare court cases were necessary to deal with how staff would be appointed in the case of three Leader programme groups. It does not auger well for new groups if court cases were necessary to determine how staff would be allocated and who would sit on interview boards and so on. When one hears of court cases in such instances, any initiatives to examine the groups are stifled. I hope the groups have overcome these difficulties and that we can make progress.
We all wish to see taxpayers' money well spent. Given the groups involved, does the Minister believe self-assessment represents value for money, or will the Department set up a separate group to carry out the assessment? Whatever the possibilities for the Minister and the Department to carry out assessments with the resources and supports at their disposal, it is nearly impossible for an Opposition spokesperson to keep track of all the funding and the ways and means to draw it down. Matters have improved since the establishment of a political system, but there is a need for the constant involvement of the Minister at the committee to explain matters. I appreciate his presence. He has attended more often in his capacity as Minister than many other Ministers, which is to his credit.
I refer to subhead B7 and the request for an additional €5 million. Is the additional funding required to meet existing applications or are there new ones? The Minister has stated it is difficult to predict the amount reclaimed from the dormant accounts fund because of the length of time it takes to draw down funding. I understand the position is similar in the case of national lottery funding. Certain groups have great ambitions but are unable to complete a project because of problems with local funding. I have put the case to relevant Ministers that if a project can benefit the community, for example, through the provision of a community hall, there should be a re-examination of the local contribution required. The Minister will be aware from travelling throughout the country of instances where local communities are unable to provide the necessary funding. There is a reduction in the amount local groups must provide under the RAPID and CLÁR programmes. We must examine if volunteers could be facilitated through the provision of matching funds rather than having to spend time fundraising. That would allow them to spend more time in providing alternatives for young people in terms of entertainment, sport and recreation.
What is the breakdown of the additional funding sought? Are there new projects or have some come to fruition more quickly than predicted? Is the predicament for this subhead the same as for lottery funding and dormant accounts funding? Is there something we can do to try to improve the position? It is frustrating when all the necessary paperwork has been completed, the grant is awarded and suddenly there is a hitch. In such cases the enthusiasm generated for the project in the first place may be reduced or dwindle. In some cases those who initiated work on a project leave because of all the attendant red tape.
I suggest we hear contributions from other members before the Minister replies.
My question has probably been asked, but I did not understand the answer. Subhead B7 will receive an additional €5 million from savings under other subheads, including subhead B2. The original provision in subhead B7 was €5 million and an additional €5 million is now being sought. It seems a great deal of money to spend between now and the end of the year. Are applications already in hand or have they previously been turned down? I presume the money must be spent by the groups involved before the end of the year. Is that correct? I am beginning to grasp the reasoning but I have a further question. The Minister has stated this will be revenue neutral. Does it involve money already provided which is now being switched from another subhead? Is it correct to say that subhead involves the dormant accounts fund and that additional money must now be drawn down?
I have tried to explain the position; there are two tiers.
Yes, but I did not understand it.
There is a gross Estimate and a net Estimate. The gross Estimate is the gross spend of the Department. The proposed measure will be revenue neutral in that sense. There is an extra €5 million provided from the dormant account fund, while €5 million is being taken from other areas of expenditure. It does not balance exactly because there is always a sum of €1,000 over. For some reason the accounting procedures do not allow the number nought. Beneath the line there will be an accrual, that is, money from the dormant accounts fund. The gross spend of the Department at the end of the year will be exactly as predicted. However, when one calculates the net cost of running the Department as against income, there will be a windfall gain amounting to an extra €5 million.
Is it money which would have been drawn down next year?
Yes.
What is the position on spending the money before the end of December?
We would not have asked for the money if we did not have mature liabilities and it was not necessary to spend the money by the end of the year. We have enough bills in hand to justify spending it. We have known for some time that we would require this additional allocation. The bills are stacked and we can spend the money. There is no problem, but there are mature liabilities. The Deputy is correct to say the moneys must be spent by the end of the year, at which time the position will be "game over" and we will start again next year.
I have no difficulty with the Supplementary Estimate provision. It represents sensible and prudent financial management. I clearly saw the impact of these grants when I served as chairman of the RAPID programme area implementation team in New Ross for five years between 2002 and 2007. The Supplementary Estimate is very welcome.
I have previously spoken and written to the Minister on the matter of access for people with disabilities. Many sports organisations have built clubhouses in recent years, many of which have social function rooms upstairs. Such buildings have a shaft in place but no lifts. Will the Minister consider providing an allocation in the Vote for next year to provide one-off grants towards the cost of installation of these facilities for relevant organisations? There was a view initially that the Department of Health and Children was responsible for funding projects to assist those who found themselves at a social and economic disadvantage because of a disability. This problem constitutes a social disadvantage. I am aware from travelling throughout my constituency and from those who have contacted me that access presents a problem for them and their families. For example, there can be difficulties in attending a function such as a 21st or 50th birthday party in clubs where there are no lifts. If something could be done to provide a one-off grant for these clubs it would be appreciated. Perhaps the Minister will look at it.
I apologise for not being present at the start of the meeting. I welcome the increase because I see at first hand in central Dublin and the north inner city where the expenditure goes. On the running of some projects and the duplication of services in some cases, I understand that the Minister of State at the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs, Deputy John Curran, is trying to rationalise projects and task forces that deal with drug problems.
The young persons facilities and services fund seems to have been lumped in with the drugs initiative under subhead C1. When one looks at the expenditure, €8.1 million is capital and €53 million is current. This fund has made a significant difference in many disadvantaged areas in capital spending on buildings, furnishing them and providing centres throughout the city. Should more be spent on capital funding than on current spending? How does that fit in with the overall drugs initiative fund?
I, too, welcome the increase. As a former business person, we need to protect the money allocated to these groups. As a former board member of a Leader company in Carlow, the cohesion process between the two groups involved went very well. In a time of recession we need to monitor this throughout the country. The cohesion process was a model of best practice in my constituency and could be replicated elsewhere for other agencies.
I wish to ask the Minister about the remit of the CLÁR programme. Coming from a rural constituency, the money from the programme is of huge benefit to small, isolated rural communities, such as sheep farmers and their families on the common areas of the Blackstairs mountains and older single women in disadvantaged rural areas. The money is incomparably valuable to the rural communities I represent. Is there a process to widen the remit of CLÁR programme funding?
I will work backwards. The CLÁR programme areas will not be widened. Deputy White is referring to the social elements, which is current funding, whereas CLÁR programme funding is for capital spending. It will be paid out under the local development social inclusion programme. I want to see the money reach those Deputy White refers to and make a difference in their lives.
We have had enough analysis of the problem and now we need to do something about it. We are all aware of the problems; there is little money in analysing it and more money in getting it done. The programmes which epitomise what I would like to be identified with in my approach to life are rural social schemes and community services programmes. There are people who have social problems because they are at home all day, those who have financial problems because they do not have enough money and communities that do not have enough services. If one marries the two everyone wins. When one meets those affected, they say how great it is, which is what counts.
There is a significant change taking place in the youth facilities and services fund. It will transfer to the Department of Health and Children and the Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Mary Harney, from next January. It makes sense because linking facilities with drugs may not be a great idea. Even if a drug was never in the place, a facility is needed to keep young people off the streets and keep them healthy and occupied. They are a great help in solving the problem but there are wider issues for health than drugs.
Deputy Wall raised a number of questions. We have cut the number of Leader partnerships from more than 100 to 55. They are now joined like a jigsaw; each area touches, it is neat and tidy and it is easier to keep an eye on them all.
I have told them I see no reason to have a community partnership network or PLANET network for larger partnerships and Comhar Leader na hÉireann for others; as they are now the same type of company there should only be one network. It makes it easier to get the message to the ground. We will link that and the community development projects — Deputy Curran is looking at this — with a view to deciding whether the community development projects are where they are really needed and whether we can refer them, for example, to family resource centres. In some towns a family resource centre and a community development project may be located side by side, operated by two different Departments, and there may be a very active committee that is able to grab the money, while some other town with twice the number of challenges has no service.
We are conducting a detailed mapping exercise on deprivation and matching the money provided to areas of deprivation. There may be constituent parts but we ensure they fit into the whole project. Community development projects were run by the Department of Social and Family Affairs. Gaeltacht co-operatives were in the Gaeltacht. The RAPID programme and the partnerships were under the Department of Arts, Sport and Tourism. The Leader companies were under the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
Now that, except for family resource centres — we work closely with the Department of Social and Family Affairs — they are all in the same house we can see duplication and gaps. We must be ruthless. If one area is over-supplied and has low levels of deprivation and another has high levels of deprivation and low provision, we have to move the money. It will not be welcomed but it must be done and someone must have the courage to do it.
If we now only have Leader partnership companies we are telling other Departments to put all the activity at county or sub-county level through the one agency and only have one office to achieve synergies of efficiency. We will not need five COs and financial officers, and we are moving inexorably in that direction. We will have to look at their accounts and see which are the ones that spent all day looking for money, that have multiple programmes in all directions and are not delivering on the ground, and which are focused with money and on delivering.
There is a significant job to be done and we have been doing it for five years. It is slow although with the downturn it may be easier because when money was plentiful there was resistance. When one asked someone to use the money better the answer was that the Government had a surplus of €3 billion. People are more focused on realities.
This money is for applications that were approved in 2006, 2007 and early 2008. There is still a small stream of programmes that have not yet been rolled out and they are being assessed and will go to the Cabinet when ready. The dormant accounts roll-out is slowing down because the amount of money coming in is slowing down. At the beginning there was 100 years' worth of money.
We are looking at priorities for next year. When we look at next year, I favour putting the money into the RAPID programme discretionary fund because it serves the most disadvantaged communities. I noted Deputy Connick's comments on the dormant accounts fund. I will bring the matter to the attention of the economic committee in my Department, and the Department of Health and Children is represented on it. It is a very good idea and includes Deputy Wall's point. Regardless of how one proceeds, there will be those — perhaps 5% of the overall number — who never draw down money that has been allocated. It is often not necessary for these people to obtain matching capital. In any event, they are meant to have this in the first instance. There can be 1,001 reasons such money is not drawn down. For example, a disagreement might take place. However, regardless of the reason or the type of scheme involved, there will always be someone who does not draw down the money that has been allocated.
I am becoming increasingly tough with regard to what are termed "sunset clauses". It is normally the case that people are given two years in which to complete their projects. If they can provide a good excuse for not bringing them in on time, we will extend the period. Otherwise the money relating to such projects is put back into the pot. There was one previous occasion on which money that was not spent was returned and we made savings as a result. We provided extensions in respect of a number of projects that were reaching the end of their completion periods. However, the type of one-off capital project to which Deputy Connick referred would be ideal in this regard. If savings of €2 million or €3 million were made, it would be a good idea to upgrade community facilities to make them accessible for people with disabilities.
I am of the view that everyone should pay or contribute whatever they can be reasonably expected to pay or contribute. However, I really believe in the concept of matching funds. I have two reasons for doing so. First, those facilities that are provided too easily are never valued. There are facilities throughout the country which were built with 100% State funding and which are not appreciated by anyone. Where people are obliged to struggle in order to obtain something, it is often the case that they value it more.
My second reason is that if there is no requirement for matching funds, heartbreak is usually the result. In the absence of such a requirement, one receives thousands of applications and one must spend years sorting through them in order to make a decision with regard to who will be the lucky few to receive funding. People waste a huge amount of money completing funds and obtaining data. In circumstances where one receives 1,000 applications and can only provide funding for ten projects, 990 people will have wasted more than the total sum of the funds available in making those applications. The requirement for matching funds is normally a great test as to how serious someone is about a project.
I would include a codicil in this regard. Everyone should be obliged to pay according to their ability to do so. In RAPID areas, people do not have much scope in the context of collecting money. However, there is a way to get out of jail in that regard. Let us say that Athy receives €100,000 a year from the discretionary fund. As far as we are concerned, the authorities in the town must make difficult choices because that money cannot be used in respect of every project. They could choose to devote €50,000 of the funding to the development of a football pitch, a community hall or whatever. They can use it as if it is private money but only a certain amount. I have no difficulty with 80% or 90% grants being provided in RAPID areas. However, there should also be some investment of own resources.
Many of the Deputies present share my passion for the GAA. That organisation has become so large and strong because its philosophy, whether on the pitch or in the context of developing facilities, has always been that each parish must compete against its neighbours. It was not always the biggest parishes that won. The GAA helped to foster among people an attitude towards self-help, getting things done, making a commitment and beating the odds. That is the driving force behind the organisation. The GAA has created massive physical wealth and good luck to it. Many pitches throughout the country were only developed because one parish wanted what its neighbour possessed.
What the GAA has engendered has been a major social force. If we got rid of it and made matters too easy for people, we would kill off a great deal of what drives them. State money cannot do the job. It should be used as leverage or as a means to facilitate people in doing things for themselves.
On the rural social scheme, circumstances have changed during the past 12 months, particularly in the context of unemployment. Many farmers work part-time on the land and part-time in the building industry. However, the amount of work available in the latter has decreased dramatically. Is there any possibility that further funding might be obtained in order to increase the numbers on the rural social scheme?
Local authorities have lost their way. Their core business used to be the upkeep of roads, cutting hedges, waste management, etc. However, they have now moved into the area of arts and farts and away from the business they were established to deal with in the first instance. Despite the criticism levelled at it, FÁS and the rural social scheme have been extremely successful in rural areas. The Department of Social and Family Affairs has obtained further funding to allow it to provide more for those who are unemployed. If the Minister could obtain similar funding to allow him to increase the numbers on the rural social scheme, it would be good for rural areas and for the people who are unemployed in those areas.
I am becoming concerned because the Deputy and I appear to be in agreement on many issues.
The Deputy does not seem to hold to the same line as his party leader in respect of FÁS.
We are all in favour of FÁS. We are merely concerned with regard to the abuses that occurred.
The great thing about appearing before this committee is that everyone is interested in the common good. I agree with Deputy Ring in respect of the rural social scheme. I have ring-fenced the numbers for next year, which was not easy. I was obliged to make difficult decisions in respect of other programmes in order to facilitate this. I took similar action on the community services programme. In my opinion, these programmes provide people with a livelihood and ensure that they do not sit around at home all day.
I calculated that the additional costs relating to the rural social scheme when compared with that relating to farm assist is approximately €7,500 per head, which is quite modest, particularly when one considers all the good that is being done. If one carried out a cost-benefit analysis, one would discover that each of those on the rural social scheme is responsible for €30,000 to €40,000 worth of work each year. That represents good value for money.
I do not believe it is possible to have our cake and eat it. We must engage in a serious debate on these issues. Is it possible to allow the situation where people in receipt of farm assist are not obliged to work, while those on the rural social scheme must do so, to continue? In my view a debate is required, particularly as the number of people out of work is going to increase. Perhaps the old ways, where people received money and were not obliged to do anything, will have to be brought to an end.
People who are unemployed would prefer to be on the rural social scheme or on FÁS schemes rather than merely being in receipt of social welfare or farm assist payments.
It would be interesting to see what would happen if those on farm assist were informed that they would be obliged to take a rural social scheme job or face losing their payments. In such circumstances, I wonder how many of those on farm assist would disappear and how many would remain.
I suggest that this topic included on the agenda of the joint committee for discussion in the future.
That is fine.