Dáil Éireann Debate, Tuesday - 9 November 2004
75 Mr. O’Shea asked the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs the progress that has been made to date in regard to the restructuring of ADM, specifically the changes which have been made to the memorandum and articles of association of ADM to date; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [28072/04]
View answerI refer the Deputy to earlier replies to questions on this topic, in particular my reply to Question No. 127 on 27 April 2004 and Questions Nos. 186, 194, 198, 218 and 228 on 5 October 2004. As mentioned in these replies the first steps in the process of restructuring ADM has taken place with the appointment to the board of three persons nominated by Government. Following such appointments, work is now under way by ADM to develop appropriate changes to its articles and memorandum of association. Government approval will be required before changes are finalised.
The Minister is not telling us much. In the context of the review, the Minister gave us that information in October, that is, that the Government nominees had been appointed to the board. In what direction is the review heading? Does the Minister regard it as vitally important that ADM retains its independent status as a buffer between his Department and community and voluntary groups on the ground? Does he agree that the representatives of the community and voluntary sectors should be retained in all the areas in which they are located? How will he ensure that the expertise built up by ADM during the past ten years is not lost in the context of the streamlining of delivery of service which appears to be the basis for the Government decision?
I am interested in what the Deputy had to say about the buffer. I can never understand why we need a buffer between ourselves and the electorate. Perhaps some day somebody will explain to me what the buffer is about. I could understand it in the case of a planning appeals authority but when providing direct services to the community we all serve, I cannot understand the reason we are paranoid about putting distance between ourselves and the electorate. The decision is that the board and the chair of the company are to be appointed by the Government. The name of the organisation is to change from ADM to Pobal — presumably the staff would say there is no reason for it, other than normal staff turnover, and that it will not happen.
There are two major community sectors under the aegis of my Department, the CDP system and the partnerships. One's relationship to the Department is direct without the so-called buffer and the other is through ADM. If the Deputy considers there has to be an intermediary body, I am surprised he is not pressing that the CDPs operate in a similar way through an intermediary body. There appears to be an inconsistency there. That shows how the whole system grew up with a lack of consistency and now we are trying to bring to it a much more focused delivery in order that the people on the ground benefit from the money we are spending.
The Minister asked why a buffer is necessary. The case has been made to me that where the Leader programmes had to interface with the Department of Agriculture and Food the relationship tended to be non-administrative in the context of how money was allocated. I have been informed that what was lacking was a grasp of what community development is all about and the skills and experience of people on the ground are being lost. A buffer is necessary in this area because Departments, if dealt with directly, tend to be more straight-laced and rigid in how they operate than a group that has operated in an independent capacity and which has no allegiance to either the Department or the sector. I do not accept the Minster's point that I was making a distinction between the community and voluntary sectors in terms of the area partnerships. I regard these as part of the process. Maybe the generic term I used was not sufficiently comprehensive, but I certainly had that in mind.
The Deputy missed my point. I am saying that the community development programmes deal directly with the Department while the partnerships deal through ADM. If the Deputy believes the second method is the best, logically he should believe that it would also be good for the CDPs.
The Deputy misunderstands the point regarding Leader. Leader's administration tends to be administrative because it is an EU programme bound by a sizeable book of rules. The Department does not have discretion as a consequence and therefore its main role is to administer the rules agreed with Brussels. The Leader companies appreciate this and have discussed it with me frequently. They know there is little room for manoeuvre.
I disagree with the Deputy on the basis of my experience. I was a co-operative manager for many years and dealt with both Údarás na Gaeltachta and the Department, Roinn na Gaeltachta. The consensus among the co-operative managers was that they would much prefer to deal directly with the Department than with Údarás na Gaeltachta. This is not to cast a slur on the latter as I refer to its structure rather than its staff. Deputy O'Shea's point related to the ADM. The co-operative managers felt there was much more flexibility, much less bureaucracy and more willingness to adapt to change in the Department. Most people working in the area, certainly those who shared my experience, would much rather deal directly with the Department.
