Dáil Éireann Debate, Tuesday - 11 June 2013
557. Deputy Michelle Mulherin asked the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government the reason a company (details supplied) in County Mayo had its rural development programme budget cut disproportionately more than that of other local development companies operating in less disadvantaged parts of the country; the options which are available to it to have this decision reviewed; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [27173/13]
View answer558. Deputy Michelle Mulherin asked the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government the reason there is a continuing delay in notifying a company (details supplied) in County Mayo of the funding allocation under the Leader rural development programme that was expected to be notified during the week commencing 13 May 2013; if he will confirm what the funding will be so as to end uncertainty for the project promoters affected; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [27174/13]
View answerI propose to take Question Nos. 557 and 558 together.
The LEADER elements of the Rural Development Programme (RDP) 2007 – 2013 commenced in February 2009 after a delay of more than two years which reduced the time available to allocate funding to less than five years rather than the normal seven. During 2010 and 2011 it became evident that a significant number of Local Development Companies (LDCs) who were contracted to deliver the Programme were not committing funds at the level required to ensure that all the funding would be allocated by the December 2013 deadline in line with EU Regulations. Similarly it became clear that a number of LDCs were more than capable of allocating additional funding if it was made available.
In this regard, in January 2012 my Department notified all LDCs that the original LDC allocations awarded in 2009 were no longer valid and that the Programme was being opened up on a ‘first-come first served’ basis to all LDCs in order to ensure that all the available funding would be allocated to eligible projects within the timeframe allowed. All LDCs were encouraged to maximise the opportunity this created for them. Some companies availed of this more than others.
During 2011, the European Commission approved a change in the maximum co-funding rate from 55% to 85% for the LEADER elements of Ireland’s RDP but only for expenditure incurred in 2012 and 2013. This had the effect of reducing the available funding under the Programme from €427 million to an estimated €370 million which is a 13% reduction.
In addition in late 2012 and early 2013 after repeated requests from many LDCs I agreed to allow significant additional programme funds to be assigned to the Basic Services Measure, over €19 million in total.
In January 2013 in light of all the changes to the Programme outlined above it became necessary to carry out a comprehensive review of the level of commitments and expenditure across the various measures of the Programme in order to apportion the remaining funds among the LDCs taking into account the level of commitments already entered into.
As a first step I released €42 million worth of projects which had been approved by the Boards of the LDCs asking them to progress projects that were in a position to proceed. Unfortunately only €25.5 million in that category had all the necessary approvals in place to proceed to contract.
Using an estimated final programme allocation of €370 million, the total spend to date and outstanding commitments (commitments that were under contractual arrangements) under the Programme were established and deducted from the €370m. €6 million was provided for the former MFG legacy files, new Gaeltacht projects and associated administration costs. Funding was also provided for projects that were greater than €150,000 in value that had been submitted to my Department for assessment. The original percentage of the Programme which was awarded to each LDC in 2009 was then applied to apportion the remaining funding among all LDCs. Where an LDC would receive less than 80% of its original allocation (bearing in mind that the overall Programme complement has been reduced by approximately 13%) an adjustment was made to maintain the revised allocation at 80% of the original.
If my Department had not adjusted the allocations to ensure that all LDCs received at least 80% of their original allocation a number of companies would have experienced higher reductions and in that context the allocations were calculated in the fairest possible manner.
The Company referred to in the questions was notified of its allocation on 20 May 2013. It received 82.47% of its original Programme allocation (bearing in mind that the overall Programme allocation has been reduced by approximately 13%). Of the 35 LDCs 12 received a lower percentage of their original Programme allocation than the Company in question.
