Dáil Éireann Debate, Tuesday - 25 May 2004
30 Mr. O’Shea asked the Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism if he is considering establishing an independent body to monitor grant aid to sporting organisations awarded funds under the sports capital programme; his views on whether the criteria for allocating these funds needs to be reviewed in order to achieve an equitable spread of money to sporting organisations across the country; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [15368/04]
View answerI have no plans to establish an independent body to monitor grant aid to sporting organisations allocated funding under my Department's sports capital programme. The current arrangements for administering the scheme which have been applied by successive Governments over many years have been extremely successful in ensuring the programme is responsive to local needs. It is entirely appropriate that the Minister for sport should be in a position to use this important instrument of sporting policy to achieve objectives such as supporting projects of particular local or regional significance or encouraging the development of minority sports. Over the six-year period 1999-2004, inclusive, €313.5 million has been allocated to over 4,000 projects. This massive investment in the creation of a local sporting infrastructure is now yielding benefits both in terms of local community developments and increased participation in sport. The scheme is administered in accordance with pre-determined eligibility criteria, all of which must be satisfied before projects may access funding allocated to them.
I remind the Deputy that as Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism, I am directly accountable to Dáil Éireann for the operation of the sports capital programme. This accountability is ongoing and finds expression, for example, through parliamentary questions, Adjournment debates, Estimates debates and engagement with Dáil committees. This is a feature which would be notably absent were the administration of the sports capital programme to be made the responsibility of an independent board. Apart from the obvious issue of how one determines "independence", experience elsewhere has shown that decisions by independent boards do not always receive universal acceptance. Where a grant scheme attracts a level of applications well in excess of available funding as is the case with the sports capital programme, unsuccessful applicants will always experience an understandable sense of disappointment, whatever the decision-making process.
Given the massive investment of public funding in sports facilities since 1999, which apart from the sports capital programme also includes other significant national facilities and the local authority swimming pool programme, the Government committed in An Agreed Programme for Government to develop a strategic plan for the future provision of sports facilities. This plan will include a national audit of sports facilities and will also review the eligibility criteria for the sports capital programme. The current criteria were adopted following a review of the programme carried out in 1998.
I am satisfied the development of the long-term strategic plan, building on the advances made in recent years in the area of facility provision, will ensure continued good value for money, effective use of resources, an equitable distribution of available funding for a wide range of sports and the availability of high-quality, sustainable facilities for all levels and types of sport across the country.
Does the Minister agree the sports capital programme has operated as something of a slush fund? When Deputy McDaid was the Minister with responsibility for sport did the current Minister intervene to ask him to look favourably at the funding application of the Killorglin rowing club, which is in the Minister's constituency? Is it the case that the club had scored 63 points when the approval rate was 70 points and that funding followed the current Minister's intervention?
Does the Minister agree the Government made a decision recently whereby the funding from the Dormant Accounts Disbursement Board will no longer be disbursed by the independent board but by the Government? Is it now the case that where we have more than one slush fund operating a new one will come into operation soon?
I do not accept it is a slush fund. The current criteria which apply to lottery funding are much stricter than the criteria which applied, if any, when the Deputy's party was in office. There were no calls for a change in procedures then.
It is a matter of public record that I made representations on behalf of the Killorglin rowing club, by writing two letters to the then Minister with responsibility for sport, Deputy McDaid. My understanding of the position is that after the score was originally awarded, the Minister was informed the amount he would have available for distribution would be €20 million greater than he had anticipated at the time the score was awarded. To be quite honest and to the best of my knowledge, I did not know what score the project had been awarded. It is going back a few years now.
I did what any Deputy would do in the normal course of events, whether on the Government or Opposition benches. I made representations on behalf of my constituents. That is what I am elected to do and it is my constitutional function. If I did not make such representations, I would not be here this afternoon to reply to the Deputy.
I take the Minister's word for it that he did not know what points had been allocated to the particular project. However, has he subsequently learned that the score of 63 points, which was below approval level, was used to bring this grant to the club in Killorglin? Does he agree this is an argument in favour of having an independent board to disburse these funds?
I do not know the exact position with regard to the scores and to the best of my recollection I did not know then. I made representations in the same way every other Deputy makes them. Every day of the week I receive representations from Deputies on various projects.
None of the projects which is awarded provisional grant allocations under the sports capital programme can access any of the allocated funding unless it has demonstrated full compliance with the terms and conditions as communicated to it by the Department. These conditions include, compliance with public tendering processes, legal and tax clearance requirements and the submission of invoices in respect of completed work on the project. In other words, unless a project fulfils all of the criteria, it cannot qualify.
It is important that we have political accountability in the Dáil and that is what I am doing here. It is also important that Deputies are politically accountable to their constituents.
31 Mr. Connolly asked the Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism the level of grant aid allocated to applicants under the sports capital programme in County Monaghan and County Cavan on a yearly basis since 2000; the way this funding compares with the overall annual sports capital programme allocation in each year since 2000; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [15395/04]
View answerThe national lottery funded sports capital programme allocates funding to sporting, voluntary and community organisations at local, regional and national level. The programme is advertised on an annual basis. In regard to the 2004 sports capital programme, I announced funding allocations, totalling €50.8 million, to 717 projects on 7 May last.
I set out in the following tabular form the specific data requested by the Deputy for the funding allocated for each year to counties Cavan and Monaghan from 2000 to 2004 and how this relates to the overall level of funding in those years.
The overall total of the allocations made in that period under the programme was €284.6 million. Of that amount, 64 projects located in County Cavan received grants totalling over €3.2 million or 1.14% of the total allocation. If the funding were allocated on a strict per capita basis only, the county would be entitled to 1.17% of the total allocation. Some 72 projects located in County Monaghan have been allocated over €3.8 million in the period in question or 1.35% of the overall total. Again, if the funding were allocated on a strict per capita basis only, Monaghan should receive 1.34% of the total allocation. On the basis of these figures, the level of funding received by the counties is very much in line with what might be expected.
Those projects which receive funding under the 2004 programme, which are located in areas covered by either of the Government's CLÁR or RAPID schemes for prioritising disadvantaged areas are in line for additional funding from the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs, which administers those schemes. A statement will issue in due course from my colleague, the Minister at that Department, Deputy Ó Cuív, regarding top-up funding allocations under these programmes.
Of the projects which have received provisional grant allocations to date in 2004 in County Cavan, eight are located in either CLÁR or RAPID areas, while in County Monaghan, two projects are located in CLÁR areas.
I am satisfied that projects in counties Cavan and Monaghan have been treated fairly in the administration of the programme and I expect that the Deputy will agree with me that the funding provided has made a major difference to the range and quality of the sports facilities in counties Cavan and Monaghan since 1998.
|
Year |
Allocations to County Cavan |
Allocations to County Monaghan |
Overall Allocation |
|
€ |
€ |
€ |
|
|
2000 |
452,027 |
502,181 |
45,496,874 |
|
2001 |
591,698 |
615,823 |
56,179,561 |
|
2002 |
691,200 |
1,233,000 |
78,779,400 |
|
2003 |
580,000 |
485,000 |
53,352,500 |
|
2004 |
925,000 |
996,000 |
50,800,000 |
My question refers to the spread of grant aid allocations. People in counties Cavan and Monaghan are not receiving their fair share of grant aid. This is a frequent bone of contention. At times, the way some grants are allocated smacks of political patronage. I will refer to some allocations for 2003, but not to the most recent ones because they have been well bandied about. Three concerns in the south Kerry area received more grant aid than allocated to eight counties, namely, counties Cavan, Monaghan, Laois, Sligo, Carlow, Limerick, Longford and Westmeath. All I am seeking is that the people in my area get their fair share of grant aid allocations. Two clubs to which the Minister for Finance belongs were given more grant aid allocations than those given counties Cavan and Monaghan in 2003. There is an element of unfairness in such allocations.
I will refer to two clubs which submitted grant applications which are in difficulties.
The Deputy should put a question to the Minister.
Some 17 people have worked voluntarily on a scheme under the Ballybay Development Association and have provided interest-free loans. They have attracted participation from schools and universities from Northern Ireland. Its counterpart body in the North, the Wildlife, Fowl and Wetland Trust in Belfast will receive funding of £2 million sterling to help its development, yet the Ballybay Development Association, which cost €868,000 to establish, submitted an application for grant aid for €180,000 which is not forthcoming.
There is also a lakeshore heritage development in Concra Wood, the core activity of which is golf. That development has been refused funding on the grounds that golf is not one of those activities that attracts funding despite that in some local economies, especially a local economy such as Castleblayney, such recreational sport would attract the provision of additional bed and breakfast accommodation and tourists. Does the Minister agree that it would be beneficial to the economy for these types of clubs to gain from the sports capital grant?
In terms of Government aid, the Deputy should not focus on my Department in isolation. He should consider the entire spectrum of Government and he would note that there have been substantial transfers of resources to his constituency since 1997. That is a fact. For example, I travelled to Monaghan earlier this year to examine the swimming pool in Monaghan town and there is no question but that the people of Monaghan require a new swimming pool. I did everything I possibly could to advance the cause of the swimming pool, as everyone in County Monaghan knows. I sincerely hope that a new pool will be built there soon. That funding would be included under the swimming pool programme and not under the sports capital programme. Therefore, one cannot be selective in this regard.
It is also the case, and little can be done about this, that in many circumstances the people living in the county from where I come submit many applications for funding under the sports capital programme and often the proportion of applicants can be higher than the number in other counties. The percentage of funding awarded to counties Cavan and Monaghan was reflective of the population and other grants for other projects have been and will be sanctioned for those counties. The Deputy need have no concern about that.
Will the Minister consider allocating each constituency a sum of €1.2 million for such funding per annum? That would be a much fairer system of allocation, given that counties in the centre of the country cannot benefit from such tourist attractions from which coastal towns would benefit.
The difficulty that would arise in that regard is that criteria are laid down against which every project is benchmarked. Under the tourist development scheme in my Department, which is overseen by a committee, Killarney in my constituency is not included while the Deputy's constituency is included. Therefore, one cannot be selective and one must view this matter in an overall context.
