Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

COMMITTEE OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS díospóireacht -
Thursday, 2 Jun 2005

Vote 42 — Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs.

Mr. G. Kearney (Secretary General, Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs) called and examined.

There is no relevant correspondence.

Witnesses should be aware that they do not enjoy absolute privilege before this committee. The attention of members and witnesses is drawn to the fact that, as and from 2 August 1998, section 10 of the Committees of the Houses of the Oireachtas (Compellability, Privileges and Immunities of Witnesses) Act 1997 grants certain rights to persons identified in the course of the committee's proceedings. These rights include the right to give evidence; the right to produce or send documents to the committee; the right to appear before the committee, either in person or through a representative; the right to make a written and oral submission to the committee; the right to request the committee to direct the attendance of witnesses and the production of documents and the right to cross-examine witnesses. For the most part, these rights may be exercised only with the consent of the committee. Persons invited before the committee are made aware of these rights and any persons identified in the course of proceedings who are not present may have to be made aware of them and provided with a transcript of the relevant part of the committee's proceedings if the committee considers it appropriate in the interests of justice.

Notwithstanding this provision in the legislation, I remind members of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the House or an official, either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. Members are also reminded of the provisions in Standing Order 156 that the committee shall refrain from inquiring into the merits of a policy or policies of the Government or a Minister of the Government or the merits of the objectives of such policy or policies.

I invite Mr. Kearney, Secretary General, Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs, to introduce his officials.

Mr. Gerry Kearney

I am accompanied by Mr. Joe Hamill, Mr. Deaglán Ó Briain and Mr. Michael Conroy.

I invite Pól Ó Duibhir of the public expenditure division of the Department of Finance to introduce the official accompanying him.

Mr. Pól Ó Duibhir

I am accompanied by Mr. David Hurley of the Vote control section of the Department of Finance.

I ask Mr. Buckley of the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General to introduce Vote 42.

Mr. John Buckley

The year under review, 2003, was the first full year of operation of the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs which was established in June 2002. The Department has approximately 240 staff who are employed mainly in Dublin and Na Forbacha in County Galway. Some of its schemes such as the local development social inclusion programme, the RAPID programme and the PEACE II programme are administered by Area Development Management Limited on its behalf. ADM Limited is an intermediary company established by the Government on foot of an agreement with the European Commission.

The Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs spent over €250 million in 2003 in its three broad activity areas. Half of its expenditure is spent on promoting development and social inclusion in local communities. The rest is spent on encouraging rural development, developing the Gaeltacht areas and the inhabited islands and promoting the Irish language. The Department is the Irish supervising Department for two North-South agencies, An Foras Teanga, which received €13.6 million in 2003, and Waterways Ireland, which received a grant of €22.3 million in 2003. The principal State-sponsored agency under the aegis of the Department is Údarás na Gaeltachta. It also has functions in respect of the Dormant Accounts Fund Disbursements Board, the Commissioners of Charitable Donations and Bequests for Ireland and Bord na Leabhar Gaeilge.

No reporting issues arose from the audit of the 2003 appropriation accounts. Accordingly, the Comptroller and Auditor General has given the accounts a clear certificate.

Mr. Kearney

Gabhaim buíochas leis an choiste as an deis seo a chur ar fáil dom ráiteas gairid a dhéanamh ar an ócáid seo nuair atá an cuntas don bhliain 2003 do Vóta na Roinne Gnóthaí Pobail, Tuaithe agus Gaeltachta á scrúdú. Ag an tús, ba mhaith liom aitheantas a thabhairt don obair phroifisiúnta atá déanta ag Oifig an Ard-Reachtaire Cuntas agus Ciste i ndáil leis an gcuntas seo.

Members will be aware that 2003 was the first full year of operation of the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs. The Department was established by the Government in June 2002 and brought together a range of functions previously undertaken by six Departments. It has been given an overall mandate to provide for more co-ordinated engagement by the State with communities nationally as they pursue development.

In its work the Department focuses on five main areas. In the area of community and local development it encourages and facilitates local communities, with a special focus on disadvantage, to pursue social and economic progress. It addresses drug misuse by facilitating a more integrated and co-ordinated response by State agencies to the problem within the framework of the national drugs strategy. In the area of rural development it supports populations in rural areas by helping to foster sustainable and culturally vibrant communities. It assists Gaeltacht and island communities through the development of infrastructural, social and cultural supports and helps to increase the use of Irish nationally while supporting the maintenance of the language in Gaeltacht areas. It also plays a role in the promotion of North-South co-operation with two of the North-South Implementation Bodies — An Foras Teanga and Waterways Ireland — coming within its ambit.

The operation and roll-out of programmes and schemes continued in 2003 under the heading of community and local development. The community development programme aims to mobilise disadvantaged communities to participate in mainstream local development, training, education and employment programmes. The local development social inclusion programme seeks to counter disadvantage and promote equality by targeting our most excluded individuals, including vulnerable children. Funding for voluntary and community organisations, principally in disadvantaged areas, is provided through grants for locally based community and voluntary organisations. The scheme of community support for older people funds initiatives to improve the security of vulnerable older persons.

The White Paper on a framework for supporting voluntary activity sets out a scheme of assistance for national federations, networks and umbrella bodies in the community and voluntary sector and a funding scheme for training and supports. The Department, supported by ADM Limited, is also responsible for the co-ordination of the RAPID programme which targets the 45 most disadvantaged areas in the country.

As well as continuing to operate local and community development programmes and schemes in fulfilment of its mandate to provide for more co-ordinated engagement by the State with communities, the Department, in conjunction with the Departments of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and Justice, Equality and Law Reform, initiated a review of the structures employed in their delivery. On foot of this review, the Government has decided to increase the involvement of county development boards, to use existing local structures for new initiatives, to seek the input of local bodies, to create a rewards scheme for workable proposals for improved cohesion measures and to restructure ADM Limited. Work on improving structural and working arrangements continues at local and central government level.

A key element of the Department's activities is the facilitation of a more integrated and co-ordinated response by State agencies to drug misuse within the framework of the national drugs strategy which focuses on the four pillars of supply reduction, prevention, including education and awareness, treatment and research. Local drugs task forces continued to implement local action plans at community level in 2003. The work involved projects on education, the curbing of local supply as well as local treatment and rehabilitation support.

Significantly, 2003 saw the transfer of administrative responsibility for the young persons facilities and services fund to the Department. The transfer of responsibility facilitated the targeting of increased resources towards at-risk youth in the context of the Department's wider remit on drugs. Beidh an coiste ar eolas go bhfuil tuarascáil amach ar maidin — a report is being published this morning setting out the findings of mid-term review of the national drugs strategy.

Key legislative developments in 2003 were implementation of the Official Languages Act, publication of a consultation paper on the reform of charity law, implementation of the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs (Powers and Functions) Act 2003 and the announcement by the Government of proposed changes to dormant accounts disbursement arrangements. The proposed changes became law within the past week. Other developments in 2003 included the extension of the CLÁR programme, a targeted investment programme in disadvantaged rural areas, and the adoption of new initiatives to promote language planning in Gaeltacht areas in line with the recommendations of Coimisiún na Gaeltachta.

The creation of more than 1,050 full-time jobs in Údarás na Gaeltachta assisted enterprises in 2003 was offset during a difficult year by job losses of almost 1,280. North-South co-operation was promoted in 2003 through shared institutional arrangements while the delivery of the Leader and national rural development programmes continued with the establishment during 2003 of the majority of the 190 new businesses brought forward since late 2001.

A new rural social scheme was announced in 2003 while the European Union's Salzburg conference set out key policy principles to emphasise the development of the wider rural economy outside the farm gate. The policy principles which constituted an especially significant development have been reflected in the draft rural development regulation published by the European Commission and currently under negotiation.

What I have outlined represent a sample of the Department's wide-ranging and diverse responsibilities, on which I will be happy to expand if the committee so wishes. The various initiatives are drawn together by the Department's underlying focus on communities. A key aspect of our mandate is to provide a coherent and positive interface between the Government and communities as they seek to fulfil their potential. The work involves dealing not only with local and community development groups but also, critically, with other Departments and statutory agencies. Each community group, from the most isolated rural area to the most densely populated inner city parish, is entitled to proper access to a range of State supports. Part of the Department's job is to seek, through enhanced coherence and in co-operation with other Departments and agencies, to improve co-ordination, dialogue and, ultimately, supports for such groups and local communities. While impacts tend to be reflected in the medium to longer term, significant steps were taken in 2003.

I wish to refer briefly to the 2002 report of the Comptroller and Auditor General on the provision of subsidised ferry services to the Aran Islands. The report which has been considered by the committee set out four critical areas — more effective management and monitoring of existing services, the need for a more strategic and co-ordinated approach generally, the re-evaluation of the service to the islands from Galway city and the need for formal contracts with enforceable performance clauses. The Department has taken the necessary steps to implement the key recommendations.

It is important to highlight the work undertaken to strengthen financial management in the Department. This work has been especially important following the assimilation of a range of new functions in 2002. Steps taken to strengthen financial management include the implementation of a new financial management system; the reconstitution of the audit committee and the bringing on board of independent external expertise; the advancement of risk management; and the progressing of implementation of the Mullarkey report.

Gabhaim buíochas leatsa, a Chathaoirligh, agus leis an gcoiste as an deis a fháil an ráiteas tosaigh seo a dhéanamh. Beidh an-áthas orm aon cheist atá agat féin nó ag comhaltaí an choiste a fhreagairt ar mo chumais.

May we publish the statement?

Mr. Kearney

Yes.

Before I call Deputies Rabbitte and Fleming, I wish to refer to an issue which has been the subject of correspondence between the committee, Údarás na Gaeltachta, the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs and a person in the west who has expressed ongoing discontent at the fact an t-údarás mistakenly awarded a grant to a project marginally outside a Gaeltacht area and not legally within its remit. I am sure Mr. Kearney is aware of the matter. Some committee members expressed reasonably strong concerns that there had been no attempt to recover the moneys paid. We would like to hear Mr. Kearney's comments on the matter.

Mr. Kearney

The position is that the grant was paid on 15 December 1998 on the incorrect understanding that the company was operating within the Gaeltacht boundaries. The amount approved was €66,468 and the sum paid was €55,234. Subsequently, in early 2002, it came to light that the company was not operating within the Gaeltacht boundaries. Údarás na Gaeltachta accepted that an error had been made and put in place procedures to avoid a similar occurrence.

In view of the fact that there was no evidence to suggest the grantee deliberately misled Údarás na Gaeltachta, no further action was taken. Our understanding is that the Comptroller and Auditor General initially looked at this matter in the context of his review of the Údarás na Gaeltachta accounts for 2002 and subsequently revisited the matter during an interim audit in 2004. He took the view, corresponding with that of Údarás na Gaeltachta, that no further action would be taken as the costs of initiating action to retrieve the money could well outweigh the benefits which might accrue.

To step back to my role in the matter, I do not have jurisdiction in terms of individual decisions by Údarás na Gaeltachta. However, as Accounting Officer, I have responsibilities to ensure the procedures and practices it adopts accord with good practice. I sought legal advice as to whether I also had jurisdiction regarding the particular retrieval of the moneys involved. The advice given was that my responsibilities related solely to the general practices involved and the extent to which Údarás na Gaeltachta had improved its practices in terms of the determination of Gaeltacht boundaries so as to avoid a recurrence of such an error.

Údarás na Gaeltachta has advised that it has taken steps at three levels — in terms of the manuals from which it operates, supporting technical advice and legal support — so as to avoid a recurrence of this incident. On that basis and on the basis of the review undertaken by the Comptroller and Auditor General, that is where the matter stands.

While I understand, respect and accept Mr. Kearney's position, this is a recurring item at the committee through correspondence. While the committee fully understands the position taken by the Comptroller and Auditor General, there is still a view within the committee that some attempt, even initial steps, should be taken to recover the money. We believe it is a matter of bad practice if money is paid inadvertently or inappropriately to persons and no attempt is made to recover it. The committee is not advising that the Department or Údarás na Gaeltachta should go down a legal route but, at a minimum, Údarás na Gaeltachta should request the return of the money on the grounds that it was paid inappropriately.

Similar circumstances have arisen in other Departments. Mr. Kearney will be aware of a large overpayment to general practitioners under the GMS scheme by the Department of Health and Children. In the view of the committee the Department and Health Service Executive should attempt to recover the money. It is of a similar view in this case. I ask Mr. Kearney to communicate this view to Údarás na Gaeltachta, although representatives of the organisation may appear before us at some point.

Mr. Kearney

I will be happy to do so.

While the committee does not regard the matter as a major item, it is a recurring issue which should reach a conclusion quickly. The committee believes the best way of doing so is to determine how far the Department or Údarás na Gaeltachta can go in recovering the money. If no progress is made, at least they will have taken some steps to try for recovery.

I welcome Mr. Kearney. Will he give us a quick thumbnail sketch of the industrial side, subhead H.2 — Údarás na Gaeltachta — Deontais do Thionscail agus Caiteachas Caipitil ar Fhoirgnimh? Approximately €24 million has been allocated under this heading. What is the approximate figure in terms of aid per job in the Údarás na Gaeltachta remit?

Mr. Kearney

I will give the Deputy an overview on that issue. Aid per job in 2003 worked out at the order of €13,180.

Does the Secretary General know off the top of his head how this compares with that for the IDA or Shannon Development?

Mr. Kearney

I am being very tentative in this regard and emphasise a reasonable health warning to the figures I have with me as I am unsure as to exact comparability. There is a mixed comparison for the year in question. For Enterprise Ireland, the cost per job appears to be €8,961, while the cost for IDA Ireland appears to be higher — of the order of €16,500.

In terms of the peculiar difficulties of the Gaeltacht areas, the €13,180 figure would not be a bad average.

Mr. Kearney

That is correct. I do not wish to mislead the committee on direct comparisons and I am mindful of the Chairman's comment that it is possible that representatives of Údarás na Gaeltachta will attend the committee at some stage. The comparisons for other years may not be as favourable. Let me indicate to the committee, therefore, that the cost per job in 2002 was approximately €14,431, as compared with a figure of €10,191 for Enterprise Ireland. The figure for 2004, when the cost per job was €15,727, shows another increase on the previous figure for Údarás na Gaeltachta.

Is there any particular reason the graph is moving in an upward direction?

Mr. Kearney

I am not aware of a particular reason. Members will probably be well aware that the issues in the Gaeltacht areas in relation to remoteness, infrastructural deficiency and the skills levels pose particular difficulties. I note there is also a degree of increase in the IDA and Enterprise Ireland figures, although it is not consistent. I assume this may reflect the difficulties encountered in attracting employment into the areas in question in an increasingly competitive environment and the practical geographical and other issues which arise in the Gaeltacht.

Is a global figure available for Údarás na Gaeltachta assisted jobs in the Gaeltacht?

Mr. Kearney

I would have taken the sum of €13,180 to be the global figure.

I mean the total number of jobs in Údarás na Gaeltachta assisted companies.

Mr. Kearney

Yes. At this juncture figures to the end of 2004 show there are 7,507 full-time and 4,470 part-time jobs in Údarás na Gaeltachta supported employment. As I stated, the average cost per job in 2004 was €15,727.

Is any trend noticeable in terms of the durability and sustainability of employment in recent years?

Mr. Kearney

I noticed one particular trend was that the scale of job losses during the difficult period of 2001-01 had moderated significantly in the latest reckonable year. It was at a high between 2001 and 2002 — 1,281 and 1,432, respectively — but fell back to 910 at the end of 2004.

Has funding remained the same for the various drugs initiatives? As we are aware, cocaine has been added to the cocktail and the position, notwithstanding the success of the initiatives, is, unfortunately, getting worse in the country generally, for example, with the spread of opiate misuse outside Dublin. What is the spend in that area?

Mr. Kearney

I touched on this matter in my opening statement. The transfer of the young people's facilities and services fund of €15.8 million to the Department in 2003 was reflected in the Estimates. It has provided a very positive impetus to the fight against drugs because the money is targeted in local drugs task force areas at youth at risk. If one aggregates the money with the figure for the drugs initiative under subhead K.2, one will see that the actual spend in 2003 increased by almost 20% because an extra €5 million was available from elsewhere in the Department which enabled us to provide for a real improvement. One is really talking about a spend of €36 million.

The availability of the extra cash that year and since has meant youth and community centres and facilities are being opened in the most disadvantaged areas of the city. I will refer to a few examples. A youth resource centre in Finglas cost €2 million and in Donnycarney, €3 million. A central youth facility in Ballymun cost €1.86 million while St. Catherine's centre in Marrowbone Lane cost €4.27 million. A centre was also built in Donore Avenue. Facilities are located in areas in the city that have been black spots for the provision of community and youth services. Combining this funding with the money for the drugs initiative has enabled increased targeting of the capital spend.

Perhaps underlying Deputy Rabbitte's question is a concern about the scale of services we provide for communities to support these initiatives. As he will be aware, we have an increased allocation for 2005. There is increased pressure to provide youth development workers, youth service workers and other staff to build relationships with communities, to target youth at risk and to provide facilities that would offer an alternative to a drug lifestyle. If we compare the figures from 2003 to 2005, we will see there has been a very significant increase. If one looks at the range of facilities and services being made available in the targeted areas, particularly the local drugs task force areas, one will see that they are certainly improving but the corollary is increasing demand on the current side to sustain and develop such services.

That is not Mr. Kearney's concern as there will soon be a spreading west out of Ballymun and Finglas, which I am glad to see have been well looked after. I wish to ask him about the spend on the RAPID programme. What was it in the year in question?

Mr. Kearney

Although an obvious question, it is a difficult one. Our subvention in support of the RAPID programme in the year in question was €1.5 million. This was money we provided for Area Development Management Limited, first, in support of a national co-ordinator for the RAPID programme and, second, for facilitation of the activities of the area implementation teams, AITs.

There has been a recurring difficulty with the RAPID programme since it was launched in 2001 in terms of different sets of expectations as to what the programme should produce. One view was that it was to provide for a front-loading of resources under the national development plan for targeted areas of disadvantage in the State. Another view was that it was to enable projects, not just those outlined in the national development plan but also substantial additional funding to be pumped into the areas in question. Because of this disagreement there have been ongoing differences and difficulties with Departments in tracking what exactly has been done.

Where did this disagreement happen? We are all agreed on what happened on this side of the table.

Mr. Kearney

It was due to differences in expectations in the communities in question and what was understood when the programme was being rolled out.

Apart from targeting funds, the RAPID programme has had a number of advantages that might not be readily apparent. The first is that it provides clear and identifiable geographic areas that are now accepted as being in need of priority investment by public bodies. Reflecting this, we are now witnessing in the sports capital programme, for example, and in programmes in other Departments an acceptance of the legitimacy of these disadvantaged areas in being targeted in mainstream programmes. The sports capital programme awards extra points to such areas while the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform gives priority to RAPID programme areas in the provision of CCTV systems. In excess of 50% of the initial spend under the dormant accounts fund has been targeted at RAPID and CLÁR areas. There is a benefit in terms of prioritisation in mainstream programmes, apart from the front-loading of resources under the NDP. The final string to the RAPID programme which does not receive much attention is integrated service provision.

It is a fact that for many communities, particularly those experiencing disadvantage, the interface with social services, the Garda Síochána, education and health services is fragmented. It is a critical objective of the RAPID programme to try to radically improve the level of co-ordination between State agencies. This work is under way and the initial soundings in provincial towns are that significant progress is being made.

That is good. Can we go back to the issue of front-loading? What front-loading has actually taken place?

Mr. Kearney

I am not in a position to provide that information for the committee today. I understand the co-ordination group has asked each Department to itemise——

I have a press release dating from February 2001 which stated the purpose of the RAPID programme was to fast-track rather than front-load — they are one and the same — a sliver of the national development plan to targeted areas of disadvantage. It was opined at the time by the Minister that this would amount to €1.9 billion. To what extent has this happened?

Mr. Kearney

The national co-ordinating committee has requested each Department to track by reference to the area action plans produced by the team in each disadvantaged area and to report back on the exact spend under the RAPID programme. This work is in progress and I expect figures to be available shortly.

The Department has since assumed responsibility for dormant accounts. What is the anticipated level of revenue that will be at its disposal?

Mr. Kearney

Of the order of €293 million has been transferred to the dormant accounts fund in total.

Is that just from bank accounts?

Mr. Kearney

No. That is a sum from credit institutions amounting to in excess of €262 million. When I say credit institutions, I mean banks, building societies and An Post. In the order of €30.6 million has come from insurance undertakings. I can break down the figure for the committee. Almost €54 million has been reclaimed, which people can obviously do. They retain an entitlement to reactivate the accounts after the period in question. Of the figure of €293 million, €53 million or €54 million has been directly reclaimed at this juncture. A further €60 million has been or is being disbursed by the Dormant Accounts Fund Disbursements Board. The bulk of the allocations have now been concluded.

How much was it?

Mr. Kearney

It is €60 million. The Board would have made allocations resulting in a sum in the order of €56 million and would currently have a reserve of €4 million to deal with appeals and work through the residue of material.

Will any of that money be referred for RAPID programme grants?

Mr. Kearney

With your agreement I will complete my statement and then revert to your further query.

A further €10 million has been allocated to the rural social scheme. One is talking about a net figure of between €160 and €170 million when one accounts for these adjustments. I am not taking into account board expenses and interest, just other variables.

On the RAPID programme, the disbursement plan of the Dormant Accounts Fund Disbursements Board explicitly provides that, for the initial period, there will be targeting of in excess of 50% of the spend in RAPID programme, local drugs task force and CLÁR programme areas. The bulk of this additional funding is being directed towards RAPID programme projects.

Has any expenditure been incurred by the Department in respect of decentralisation?

Mr. Kearney

I do not believe we have incurred direct, significant expense. Like every other Department, we have deployed some of our existing staff to undertake decentralisation duties. We have undertaken some work in terms of providing information. We have not embarked on the acquisition of property, temporary or otherwise. We have not incurred significant expense.

When does Mr. Kearney believe he will be in Knock?

Mr. Kearney

Sin ceist an-mhaith ar fad. Given that so many applications to the Department are from staff already located in rural areas, it would be extremely difficult for us to expect such persons to travel to Dublin and then to Knock. The more sensible arrangement for ourselves would be to seek initial temporary accommodation in Knock to which we could transfer staff. There are imponderables such as the availability of accommodation and signing off centrally with trade unions on staff agreements, etc. Subject to these, I hope that in the later part of next year we will be able to aim for the initial transfer of a small office to Knock. All other things being equal, the target is that the main building will be available to us such that we can move by mid to late 2007.

I thank Mr. Kearney.

I thank the delegation for attending. I want to concentrate on the grants to community and voluntary services, amounting to approximately €30 million. I believe responsibility in this area transferred from the former Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs. Roughly how many applied for and received funding in this category?

Mr. Kearney

It might be helpful if I outline the sub-elements of that figure. We have established 185 projects in disadvantaged areas. We inherited most of them from the former Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs. The idea behind them is to try to have a centre in the relevant communities where people can access information on training, employment and education. The projects have an automatic claim and are established. They are generally two person outfits.

This is the community development programme, under which in 2003 we spent a sum in the order of €20 million. Let me break this figure down. Close to €16 million was expended on supporting projects in disadvantaged areas. However, there was a group of intermediary agencies which we also inherited minding those projects. When we took over the schemes, the intermediaries were receiving €4.5 million. One should think in terms of money flowing into a community and being filtered. The intermediary agencies' budget of €4.5 million in 2003 was reduced to some €3.5 million. We subsequently reduced it further to approximately €2.9 million, thereby increasing our funding for additional projects in the areas in question. Some €20 million goes into our community development programme which is for small projects which are focal points in communities and designed to build communities to allow them to obtain information and access services relating to child care, education, training and employment.

We also run a scheme of community supports for older people. This involves security grants for socially monitored pendant alarms, lighting, improving security on doors, etc. Our spend in 2003 in this area was €2.906 million.

There are a number of block grants available. There is a standing arrangement with the Society of St. Vincent de Paul and Protestant Aid which jointly received an amount in the order of €1.3 million. Arising from the peace process, and subsequent funding, a payment was made to a national organisation for the reintegration of ex-prisoners, amounting to €136,000. The remainder was directed towards settling bills or liabilities arising from the student summer jobs scheme which was ending.

I know this is a rough overview but this is the basic infrastructure that I need to describe to the committee.

I was going to ask about repeat applicants but Mr. Kearney has partly explained the matter. He said an established group of 185 had been receiving funding, possibly for a number of years.

Apart from the grants for locally based community and voluntary organisations, paid from national lottery funding, how much is available under the same heading? How many apply?

Mr. Kearney

I have some figures available.

There is a very long list, running to approximately six pages, in the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General.

Mr. Kearney

Yes.

It mentions grants of over €6,500. How many apply overall?

Mr. Kearney

I will, first, supply the information the Deputy originally requested on grants to locally based organisations. There were 2,500 applicants under the scheme and a total of €2.337 million was disbursed to 767 groups.

Three quarters of the groups which applied were not successful.

Mr. Kearney

That is true so.

Will Mr. Kearney tell me about the procedures for issuing payments to the groups concerned?

Mr. Kearney

In the 2003 programme we relied very heavily on the staff of the regional offices of the Department of Social and Family Affairs in terms of their knowledge of groups found to be eligible. I will refer to the relevant text because it is probably the most useful way of proceeding. After initial vetting to check the eligibility of groups, the applications were referred to the local regional office of the Department of Social and Family Affairs. The assessment of the recommendations had regard to the guidelines with a specific focus on the targeting of disadvantage.

The question went further into the next stage of the process but I do not have the material to hand. I will have to check the matter for the Deputy.

I ask this question because people looking for funding from the national lottery through the Department of Arts, Sport and Tourism must fill out a complicated application form giving precise financial details and tenders. When the application is approved, the body concerned must come back with details of paid invoices. I have heard, however, that the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs just sends cheques to people. Is there a way to assess how money is spent on projects? In some cases there is no way of knowing because the cheque arrives following approval of the application without any request that the group shows how it spends the money. It is strange that another Department has a different procedure for lottery funds that is much tighter.

Mr. Kearney

For all grants awarded, both one-off grants and payments for the security of the elderly, we require detailed accounts and the notification of the payment is accounted for as soon as practicable. Where groups are involved, we require an income and expenditure account, showing clearly the receipt of the grant, receipts and vouchers to the total amount of the grant payment and a statement from the treasurer and chairman of the group receiving it to the effect that the grant was used for the purpose for which it was paid.

Applications are not considered from groups which have not adequately accounted for money. There is no fail-safe system. We take reasonable precautions and use internal audit, apart from looking at receipts and vouchers, to see the goods are on site.

Therefore, the cheques are sent without any knowledge of whether the money has been spent on the project or without receipts to prove the money has been spent and the Department asks for a copy of income and expenditure some time later to show it has recorded the money arriving in its account. That could take up to one year. The Department does not check that the money is spent on the project before the cheque is issued, unlike the Department of Arts, Sport and Tourism. It is understandable we would have a problem with this.

Mr. Kearney

I understand the question but unlike other Departments, we are dealing with groups in the most disadvantaged areas. The amounts involved can be €200 for some office chairs and we must use proportionality in our approach to the amounts involved.

While many receive grants for €200, I am not talking about them. An applicant for a grant of over €5,000 must produce a tax clearance certificate but the Department issues cheques for much larger amounts without ever going down that road. There is a need to be more careful with larger cheques to ensure they are properly spent. The Department of Arts, Sport and Tourism has a tighter regime in place.

Page 362 of the Comptroller and Auditor General's report deals with risk assessment, stating the Department has undertaken a process of identifying corporate risks and, arising from this, established a national corporate risk register. Has this issue of paying funds without verifying that they are spent for the purpose noted in an application been identified in the corporate risk register?

Mr. Kearney

There are two levels, the corporate register and the divisional risk register. The risks attaching to payments described by the Deputy are reflected in the divisional risk register that relates to such payments. Many of the payments we make are to community development projects that we also fund and the Department already knows the various groups' track record.

When functions are taken from five Departments and put together in one space, variations in practice may come to light that are not always driven by logic but often by culture and precedent. Since 2002 we have put a lot of work into our audit activities, including audit follow-ups on the payments of such grants which have not brought to light any difficulties to date. I am happy to take the Deputy's point, particularly on the more substantial grants payable and the differences in practice between the two Departments.

Many functions have been transferred to the Department from others and inevitably there are different cultures and approaches. I accept that the Department has not uncovered any problems but staff will see substantial differences in approach to similar issues. The risk assessment should cover this.

Is the money for the co-ordination of the national drugs strategy well spent? Is there a benchmark to measure good results that would indicate if an extra €10 million would produce a measurable improvement? Is there any way to assess value for money? I am not suggesting there is a problem, I am just interested.

Mr. Kearney

The national drugs strategy sets out 100 actions across the areas of supply reduction, prevention, treatment and research and clear measurable outputs are required for each. Today we are reporting tangible progress in specific areas.

Ongoing research into drug use in Ireland is a wider indicator. We can look at this in terms of heroin, a particular drug, and the wider use of cocaine and drug misuse generally across the State. It becomes a more difficult area when we look at it because we are not just taking a snapshot against previous levels of misuse but also looking at the extent to which interventions under way are preventing the position from getting worse. A report published by the NACD found that the situation in Dublin had improved since 1996, with 12,500 users, but the position outside Dublin is worsening, where in excess of 2,000 are using opiates.

There are specific actions and performance indicators attached to the national drugs strategy to be delivered that can be measured but it is more difficult when we simply look at usage. The heroin problem in Dublin has lessened but that does not minimise the problems with cocaine, poly-drug use and alcohol as a threshold drug into drug misuse. We are seeing for the first time in the most disadvantaged communities in our city the establishment of community and youth services which have powerful links to those communities. The provision of services targeted at youth at risk has crystallised in the past three years and promises resources and support for those communities in the fight against drugs.

I wish to follow up on a point Deputy Fleming made. The Department seems to conduct all the audit processes properly and thoroughly in respect of grants to community and voluntary bodies. It requires detailed applications before sanctioning payments and the files show strict procedures. We have some doubts, however, about whether the money provided is dedicated to the purpose stated on the application form. The sums are quite large; according to the list, 14 are in excess of €250,000.

Mr. Kearney

The list sets out the grants for community development projects of organisations we sponsor. Their core funding is subject to tight control and covers the pay of two officials and premises costs. The area to which I understood the Deputy's query related — with respect to the Chairman's contribution — was once-off grants which can range from €200 up to a few thousand euro; payments to many such existing groups which they cannot spend in advance, and the commensurate controls for those grants. The large amounts are generally in respect of core funding.

Deputy Fleming mentioned a sum of €50,000.

I accept that it is not feasible to vouch for or check sums in the order of €200 or €500. I was referring to larger sums.

In general, the Department focuses on the least advantaged communities. I am interested in Neighbourhood Watch because when I was in the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, I instituted that programme. The first one was initiated in Malahide. My perception was that volunteers in a community, in co-operation with local gardaí, would be the eyes and ears of the community. There would be a flow of information to one's neighbours and the Garda to combat crime or anti-social behaviour.

I do not understand why such large grants for capital expenditure are being drawn down. There is one on the list for €129,798 which is being paid to a Neighbourhood Watch scheme in Greystones which I would not have included in a list of the least advantaged parts of the country. Obviously, the money is being put to a good purpose but to which one?

Mr. Kearney

I will state my understanding of the position but if subsequent research departs from this, I will inform the committee.

Under the scheme of supports for older people, we pay out grants for socially monitored alarms. A group in an area may invite older people to apply to receive a grant of perhaps €300 for such an alarm, security lighting, locks, etc. It is likely that the particular organisation had a wide catchment area and succeeded in submitting a large volume of applications. These were in respect of security equipment for older people.

The Department was somewhat concerned about these large blocs, regardless of who the beneficiaries were, and after 2003 the maximum amount payable was in the order of €30,000. Payments under the scheme are not means-tested.

There is a similar case in which the Department is paying €203,521 to a Neighbourhood Watch scheme in Drimnagh. It appears to be directed to the address of a private house. Does Mr. Kearney have background information on this grant?

Mr. Kearney

I do not have background notes on it.

It is on page 360 of the summaries of the grants being paid.

I am aware of that scheme. There is a concentration of elderly people in the area and an active Neighbourhood Watch scheme which ensures all of the elderly people in the area have the fob or wrist alarm. I assure the Chairman the money is well spent.

Mr. Kearney is probably aware that most of the groups to which his Department gives funding have a voluntary base and the money they receive would be the greater part of their income each year. Those involved in community and voluntary work find it difficult when depending on such funding to know how and when funding is given. Does the Department conduct any analysis of the additional costs accruing to these groups from unnecessary delays in the provision of funding? It is common for community and voluntary groups to use overdraft facilities and pay excessive bank charges and interest rates as a result of delays. Does the Department do any work to counteract this problem?

Mr. Kearney

The 185 community development projects I mentioned and the partnership companies are in a straight funding arrangement for three years. It is a structured, tangible and predictable funding cycle.

The timing of once-off grants is problematic from our point of view as a new Department. For two consecutive years we have run such schemes late in the year, which means a delay in providing funds, albeit modest amounts. This year, however, we have brought forward both schemes by approximately six months to try to improve matters.

We are also conscious that many small groups operating on a voluntary basis were set up by Departments at different times. Each has compliance requirements for funding which it must meet separately through its voluntary board. The Department set up a fund, worth almost €5 million this year, to encourage groups to come together to work out arrangements to improve administration between themselves such as shared financial management and agree these with the county or city development board. If they do this, we will provide them with extra cash in support of the measure and to support the provision of new services. This has been positively taken up, with Fingal leading the way.

The Department is responsible for implementing the White Paper on voluntarism which predates the establishment of the Department. The document is more than four years old. However, it is not apparent from the accounts what moneys are being put aside to further its recommendations. Does Mr. Kearney accept that it is within the remit of his Department to foster, encourage and maintain the levels of voluntarism in our society and counteract many of the difficulties met by those involved in community and voluntary organisations in providing necessary social services? They have to raise funds to meet the cost of most of these services and much of the funding raised goes to meet unacceptably high insurance premiums. The Department and the Government appear to chase one another regarding the money being provided, rather than having a long-term strategic view on how most of these costs can be met in communities.

Mr. Kearney

Arising from the commitments given in the White Paper, the Department commenced a three year funding cycle in the order of €4.5 million for federations, networks and umbrella groups, as well as training support measures. Separately, we provide in excess of €1 million for a number of anti-poverty networks.

On the wider strategic view, in terms of our interface, the Deputy is correct. This is a major issue in the context — paradoxically — of economic success and the pressures on people. The Deputy is no doubt aware that the Taoiseach has announced the establishment of a forum on citizenship to look at various issues, including volunteering.

We are mindful of and provide core funding for many voluntary groups, partnerships, CDPs, networks and groups operating under the White Paper schemes but the challenges facing such groups are considerable and we have to pursue the issue. The mechanisms underlying the White Paper are subject to review. The implementation advisory group has reached a particular junction and the Department is looking at how best to support the principles set out in the White Paper in view of the fact that there have been many institutional changes since it was issued. However, we have made some progress.

Is the Department considering an audit of the moneys provided in terms of their effectiveness to determine if they are going directly or ostensibly towards the purpose for which they were provided, given that so many voluntary groups spend so much time fund-raising and incur unnecessary additional costs in insurance premiums, bank charges and interest payments because of the way in which they receive the relatively small sums of money provided by the State? Surely one of the roles of the Department should be to conduct such an audit to ensure as much of the money as possible is going directly to the agencies providing the services to do the job for which they were established.

Mr. Kearney

One of the first actions of the Department was to look at the amount being taken by intermediary agencies and substantially reduce it. I am talking, in particular, about the regional support agencies. We reduced significantly the amount being taken by intermediaries so as to increase the funding available for other smaller groups, in particular community groups involved in the provision of services.

On the wider front, I expect, in the context of the conclusion of the three year cycle of funding in which we are engaged under the White Paper, that we will have to carry out a review. Outputs are specified but before agreeing to further funding cycles, we will have to review the effectiveness of the spend and the approach adopted.

I do not disagree with the Deputy but we believe our funding of a multiplicity of groups does not necessarily serve communities best. In rural areas one can have a combination of Leader groups, community partnerships and others. In some counties a single group manages both LEADER and Partnership programmes and it seems reasonable to consider this as a possible model to be pursued in the future. I appreciate, however, that the Deputy's point was not just related to institutional agencies but also to groups closer to community level. We will be looking at the issue which is also likely to arise in the forum on citizenship.

I note the outlay on grants for community and voluntary services was 5% lower than what the Department had intended to pay out. Mr. Kearney might explain this. To a large extent, the multiplicity of agencies is the result of structures put in place by the Government. There is an ongoing debate about localism and centralism.

Outside the Department, what State agency is responsible for community development? It seems the Combat Poverty Agency, Comhairle and ADM are involved. Mr. Kearney talks of the problems encountered in making small grants available to many local groups but surely the problem starts at national level.

Mr. Kearney

The Deputy is correct. In my opening statement I should have alluded to one of the critical jobs — putting our own house in order at institutional or even Department level. One of the reasons we have a cross-departmental review is that we cannot do this on our own. The Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government has a major interest in the matter through local authority provision, as has the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform in the area of child care. That is why they form the nucleus of the review group.

The Deputy is correct regarding the Combat Poverty Agency and Comhairle. Certain of Comhairle's functions were transferred to the Department, with some of those of the Combat Poverty Agency with regard to the anti-poverty networks. ADM comes within our ambit.

The Deputy is correct on the need for the institutions of the State to work in a more coherent manner, rather than just seeking more coherence from others. Three Ministers are pushing the review, with the support of Government decisions, some of which I touched on in my opening statement. I hope the journey will continue. It belongs with us. I must be clear on our responsibilities regarding community development.

Other Departments have parallel programmes and are actively involved. They include the Department of Social and Family Affairs and the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. All we can do is seek to develop rules, have them agreed by the Government and use programmes such as the RAPID programme to translate co-ordination into a meaningful experience at local level.

The Deputy asked about an underspend under this subhead in a particular year. There was a significant saving in the order of about €1 million regarding White Paper supports for the community and voluntary sector. The Deputy may be aware that the process for the competition for White Paper funding had to be structured and dealt with carefully. As the roll-out took some time to complete, this gave rise to some savings. Savings also accrued in respect of the regional support agencies. Using some spare money, we initiated 15 new community development projects but as it took longer than expected to get them up and running, significant costs were not incurred until 2004. The amount drawn down by organisations for the rehabilitation of prisoners was also less than expected.

Mr. Kearney will be aware of the controversy during the year about an anti-poverty network not receiving further funds. I do not want to get into the details of the decision and realise a ministerial and political decision was made but, as Secretary General, is Mr. Kearney satisfied that grants given by the Department allow all such groups to critically engage on how the money is spent and whether it is spent effectively? As a result of the decision referred to, there is a perception that if people are critical of the Department, or the Government in general, future funding allocations will be affected.

Mr. Kearney

The strength of a community and its activities lies in people's capacity to innovate and be critical, particularly where the institutions of the State fall short. It is a resource rather than a hindrance. In our dealings we tend to attract considerable criticism which is par for the course and part of a healthy democracy. I would not allow this to be a basis for our decision-making or recommendations; I do not regard it as valid.

As far as core funding for organisations is concerned, there is an issue. In the past, when they wanted to pilot projects, Departments identified a small number of groups and placed them in a funding stream. That is absolutely fine to get something going, in evolving and learning, pushing out the gates and developing a service and knowledge. There comes a point, however, where that pilot arrangement should come up for review. Other players should be admitted and there should be an evaluation of what the groups concerned are doing.

In the specific case of the anti-poverty networks, they were included in a three year funding cycle that ended. On a stop-gap basis, they were allowed funding for a further year. The broad criteria in looking at their performance was simply to ask what voices of disadvantage they had represented. If they did not represent a specific disadvantaged voice, we asked what they were contributing. It was in that context that the decision regarding the group mentioned arose.

There are other funding schemes available. I anticipate that, not only regarding the anti-povery networks but also funding supports under the White Paper, we will have to move to a situation where groups can openly compete to be included in three year funding cycles rather than continuing in a cycle indefinitely. I see this as opening up opportunities for others to do so by reference to their outputs and what they are offering, rather than a small number remaining in a funding stream indefinitely.

Ar cheist na Gaeilge agus na scéimeanna éagsúla sa Roinn chun í a fhorbairt, an bhfuil aon torthaí ar fáil nó figiúirí maidir leis an gcostas atá ag baint leis, agus an bhfuil aon fhreagra eile ag an Uasal Kearney faoi athbheochan agus leathnú na teanga dúchais? I would like to raise the question of Irish and the schemes operated in the Department. Does Mr. Kearney have any results to inform the committee of success, failure or otherwise, the money involved, and anything else that he would like to tell us about the effort to ensure more of our population can be involved in a very distinctive speech variety?

Mr. Kearney

Is é an rud is úsaídí ná féachaint ar thorthaí an daonáirimh. If we look at the most recent census results, we will see that they give some indication of the ultimate direction of the language. Sa dtreo eile, tá cur i bhfeidhm an Achta teanga an-tábhachtach ar fad, mar leagann sé amach spriocanna an-tábhachtacha do na heagraíochtaí agus na comhlachtaí poiblí, agus beidh an-jab le déanamh againn chun na spriocanna sin a bhaint amach.

Coming back to the first point, if one considers the figures for cumas Gaeilge a labhairt sa nGaeltacht, one will see that, from 1996 to 2002, there was an increase, from 61,000 to just over 62,000, taobh istigh den Ghaeltacht féin. One is seeing an apparent stabilisation in the Irish-speaking community taobh istigh den Ghaeltacht féin. Tá níos mó daoine ag an bpointe seo ina gcónaí sa nGaeltacht. Therefore, one has to qualify this by saying it is a smaller proportion of those living there. Beidh an Teachta féin ar an eolas freisin go bhfuil roinnt mhaith daoine ina gcónaí ar imeall chathair na Gaillimhe, nach mbeadh Gaeilge acu ar chor ar bith. There is an apparent stabilisation but if one looks at the situation lasmuigh den Ghaeltacht, one will see that approximately 1.6 million people say go bhfuil sé de chumas acu Gaeilge a labhairt. That is slightly less than the figure in 1996 but it is broadly comparable. I suppose the problem with the figure is that one is allowing for self-evaluation. People will assess their own capability.

A further indicator is na daoine a labhraíonn an Ghaeilge go laethúil. Tá titim beag ansin. Rather than a figure of 60% go laethúil, we are down to around 56%. Taobh amuigh den Ghaeltacht, the figure is around 21%. One can use figures to support whatever argument one wishes. What is apparent is a degree of stabilisation taobh amuigh agus taobh istigh den Ghaeltacht, ach tá fadhbanna móra ann, agus tá an brú an-mhór ann freisin. There are now particular pressures on Gaeltacht communities. The entire youth culture, whether musical or technological, radiates Béarla far more powerfully ná mar a tharlódh roimhe seo. Tá obair an-mhór romhainn chun na dúshláin nua atá againn a bhaint amach.

If the Deputy wishes, I can briefly take him through our various schemes. I am particularly conscious that the scéimeanna cultúrtha agus sóisialta, under subhead F, probably conceal a wealth of initiatives within the Gaeltacht which are very important to cúrsaí sóisialta, eacnamaíochta agus teanga taobh istigh den Ghaeltacht féin. Outside the Gaeltacht, the Deputy will be aware of the subhead relating to An Foras Teanga which also covers Foras na Gaeilge. This is our principal insitutional arrangement, apart from what we do ourselves. Obviously, we have specific responsibilities regarding the Acht teanga, not only regarding é a chur i bhfeidhm sa Roinn féin ach faoi scéimeanna áirithe atá curtha le chéile ag na comhlachtaí poiblí. Beidh siad á cur faoi bhráid an Aire. We will certainly be seeking to support public bodies nuair a bheidh siad ag iarraidh na scéimeanna sin a chur i bhfeidhm. Sin jab eile atá le déanamh. If the Deputy wishes, I will be happy to take him through some of the schemes.

There is no need. We can access that information another time. We must speed matters up as I know time is of the essence.

Regarding the Gaelscoileanna, tá a fhios ag an Uasal Kearney go bhfuil an-fhorbairt sa tír ar fad ar na scoileanna sin. Does the Department have any association with them, or is there a linkage regarding the decisions on where to locate schools? Sometimes it seems there is a contradiction regarding how we spend our resources. To what extent is the Department involved?

Mr. Kearney

Sin ceist an-tábhachtacht agus an-mhaith ar fad. At this stage, our involvement with Gaelscoileanna is through Foras na Gaeilge which provides certain funding. I acknowledge that the question is even more fundamental. It is a question of the comhoibriú idir an Roinn féin agus an Roinn Oideachais agus Eolaíochta. I am conscious that both Departments have a shared agenda. In the past there have been coistí bunaithe, on which some work has been done, but ní raibh an comhoibriú ró-shásúil. We have recently established an institutional arrangement whereby the Secretary General of the Department of Education and Science and I will meet quarterly to review progress on shared issues. We have also established a working group chaired at assistant secretary level which will set out a shared agenda of issues in regard to the Irish language which are common across both Departments and should be addressed as a priority, one of which is likely to be the development of Gaelscoileanna. We hope to have some input in this regard.

Members are aware that An Coimisinéir Teanga has made comments in regard to the scale of investment in the Irish language by both Departments and the return on this investment. In this context, the institutional mechanism is important in bringing a shared focus to this challenge.

We will hear more about that next week.

Mr. Kearney

Tá súil agam.

Tá an Roinn ag tabhairt €50,000 d'Oifig Eorpach na dTeangacha Neamhfhorleathna. Ní mór an méid sin leis an Ghaeilge a chur chun cinn mar theanga oifigiúil san Aontas Eorpach.

Mr. Kearney

Tá an ceart ag an Teachta ach cuirtear an t-airgead sin ar fáil le cabhrú le costas riaracháin na hoifige. Sin an méid atá i gceist. Bunaíodh an biúró i 1982 le ceanncheathrú i mBaile Átha Cliath. Ní bhaineann an t-airgead seo ach amháin le costas riaracháin na hoifige i mBaile Átha Cliath a íoc ach tá aitheantas a thabhairt ag an Rialtas don bhiúró as an airgead sin. Sin an méid atá a chur ar fáil le fada anuas. Níl a fhios agam an raibh tuilleadh á lorg ag an oifig ach ceapaim nach raibh.

An mbeidh an Ghaeilge mar theanga oifigiúil san Aontas Eorpach?

Mr. Kearney

Má tá na nuachtáin léite ag an Teachta ar maidin, tá a fhios aige go bhfuil sé á phlé ag an bpointe seo. Tá dul chun cinn á dhéanamh.

Mar thoradh ar an Acht teanga, bíonn tuarascálacha foilsithe go déanach gach am. Nuair a chuirtear ceist ar Airí cén fáth nach bhfuil siad foilsithe, tá siadsan ag rá go gcaithfidh siad iad a scríobh i nGaeilge fosta.

Mr. Kearney

Ní bhaineann an dualgas tuarascálacha a fhoilsiú go dátheangach leis an Acht teanga amháin ach leis an Bhunreacht agus an chairt sheirbhís chustaiméara a cuireadh i bhfeidhm beagnach deich mbliain ó shin. Roimh an Acht teanga, bhí tuarascálacha dhátheangach á bhfoilsiú ag comhlachtaí poiblí ann a bhí chun cinn i dtaobh seirbhísí custaiméara. Bhí siad in ann na tuarascálacha bliantúil a sheoladh amach i mBéarla agus i nGaeilge ag an am céanna. An rud atá i gceist ná a bheith réidh go luath leis an tuarascáil a aistriú chomh luath agus is féidir agus gan bheith ag déanamh an chéad job i mBéarla gan an Ghaeilge. Baineann an dualgas sin faoi tuarascálacha bliantúil a sheoladh amach go dátheangach le seirbhís custaiméara agus dualgais atá ar chomhlachtaí poiblí i gcomhthéacs an Bhunreachta.

Tá scéimeanna feabhsúcháin sa Ghaeltacht i bhfo-mhírcheann E. Tá €1 milliún níos mó sa chaiteachas ná atá sa Meastachán. An chúis atá ann ná an deá-aimsir. Faoi fho-mhírcheann I, na hoileáin, bhí an aimsir deas céanna ann ach níor caitheadh an t-airgead ina iomlán ansin. Cén fáth sin?

Mr. Kearney

Ní mar an gcéanna cúrsaí mara agus cúrsaí ag baint le bóithre sa Ghaeltacht. Bhí an aimsir maith le dul chun cinn a dhéanamh ar na bóithre straitéiseacha ach ní raibh sé sásúil ó thaobh mara de mar bhí an fharraige an-gharbh agus ní raibh muid in ann obair a dhéanamh ar na céanna. Bhí tionscnaimh áirithe ag baint le hInis Bó Finne a bhí muid réidh dul ar aghaidh leo ach bhí fadhbanna pleanála ann. Bhí breis is €1 milliún ag baint leis an carr-chábla chuig Inis Bigil ach nuair a bhí fadhbanna pleanála ann, ní raibh muid in ann dul ar aghaidh leis.

On a community affairs matter, three sports halls have been allocated for RAPID programme areas. One is located in the offices of Inchicore VEC, another in the offices of St. Kevin's VEC on Clogher Road in Crumlin and the third in Finglas, in the constituency of my colleague, Deputy Carey. The establishment of these sports halls was promoted in a cross-departmental fashion by the Departments of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs and Education and Science. Dublin City Council was also involved. These facilities are under construction and will require staff and resources to allow them to open. Mr. Kearney will excuse me in taking the opportunity to ask him about this. I have already raised the matter with the Minister for Education and Science, Deputy Hanafin, who has suggested cross-departmental progress is required. Is Mr. Kearney aware of the situation in this regard and can he report progress?

Mr. Kearney

While I cannot give the Deputy a specific response, I can outline to the committee——

Is Mr. Kearney aware of the situation?

Mr. Kearney

I am aware of it in a general sense. I mentioned that our progress in providing funding for capital projects was leading and would increasingly lead to pressure to provide current funding for staffing to open such centres and to ensure the maximum range of services were available to the communities concerned.

I congratulate the Department on its achievement in regard to St. Catherine's community centre, to which the Secretary General referred, and the centre on Donore Avenue. They are exceptionally fine buildings, both architecturally and in terms of the use to which they are put.

Mr. Kearney

We currently fund 171 youth and outreach workers in the context of the development of services available in community centres. We have also appointed and fund 41 managers and support staff. There will be political decisions to be made in regard to the Estimates in coming years but the Department is conscious of the value of such centres in countering anti-social behaviour, particularly in the context of drug misuse, and the importance of building on the investment in them. However, I must leave it to political decision and priority in terms of increased funding. The Department is certainly conscious that, having had a period of strong capital investment, we now need to consider the requirements on the current side in regard to managers and support staff to attain the true value of the centres.

On a personal note, will the Secretary General come back to me on the current position on the centres at Inchicore and St. Kevin's on Clogher Road? What does he intend to do about them?

Mr. Kearney

I will.

Cuireann sé díomá orm nach féidir le haon chomalta go dteastaíonn uaidh nó uaithi gnó a dhéanamh anseo trí Ghaelainn. De réir an dealraimh, tá riail déanta ag na baill féin gurb é as Béarla de ghnáth ba cheart an obair a dhéanamh, fiú nuair atá an Aire Gnóthaí Pobail, Tuaithe agus Gaeltachta istigh. Tuigim go bhfuil baill den choiste nach bhfuil Gaelainn líofa acu agus tá sin go breá ach, as seo amach, nuair a thagann an Roinn seo isteach, ba cheart go mbeidh aistriúchán le fáil go bhféadfaidh aon bhall gnó ina iomlán a dhéanamh trí Ghaelainn agus go mbeidh aistriúchán do na daoine nach bhfuil Gaeilge acu. Cuireann sé ionadh orm nach bhfuil leagan Gaelainn de thuairisc an Phríomh-Rúnaí os ár gcomhair inniu.

Mr. Kearney

Tá leagan Gaeilge ar fáil má tá aon éileamh air.

Fuair mé comhairle ón rúnaí sular thosaigh muid agus dúradh liom gurb é an precedent istigh anseo ná an gnó a dhéanamh trí mheán an Bhéarla, fiú nuair a bhí Roinn Gnóthaí Pobail, Tuaithe agus Gaeltachta nó Údarás na Gaeltachta isteach. Tá sé soiléir go bhfuil cumas ag formhór na gcomhaltaí anseo gnó a dhéanamh trí Ghaeilge agus tá an-chuid Gaeilge ag an Phríomh-Rúnaí. Ní raibh a fhios agam sin agus b'fhéidir nuair a thiocfaidh Údarás na Gaeltachta isteach, déanfaimid an gnó trí mheán na Gaeilge agus beidh Teachtaí ábalta Béarla a úsáid chun pointe a dhéanamh ach beidh béim ar an Ghaeilge.

Bhí formhór na hoibre leis an Roinn seo déanta trí Ghaeilge ag an PAC nuair a tháinig an Príomh-Rúnaí os ár gcomhair anseo roimhe.

Glacaim le moladh an Teachta Higgins agus nuair a bheidh an Roinn linn, déanfaimid formhór na hoibre trí Ghaeilge ach beidh sin mar rogha ag comhaltaí ceisteanna a chur i mBéarla fosta.

Agus go mbeadh córas aistriúcháin ann do na daoine nach bhfuil Gaeilge acu. Tá sin an-tábhachtach ar ndóigh.

Tuigim sin.

Ar aghaidh linn ansin.

The Department is responsible for the proposed legislation dealing with charities. Where stands the planning for such legislation? It seems extraordinary that there is virtually no regulation of charities in the State. Usually their only interface with authority is with the Revenue Commissioners when they apply for tax-free status. The horror of the tsunami showed the extraordinary generosity of the Irish people in contributing to the various organisations involved in the relief effort. There are hundreds of charities in the State raising a substantial amount of money, yet we do not know how much they raise. Moreover, we do not have a full picture of how many are operating. A consultation paper in this regard was published in 2003. Therefore, regulation is long overdue. While I am sure most of those involved in raising cash for various causes and urgent necessities are genuine and honest, there are always a few chancers around. The generosity of ordinary people should be protected from them.

Mr. Kearney

I agree with the Deputy. He will be aware there has not been a legislative initiative in this area for close on 40 years. There are three main areas, to which he referred, one being the absence of a regulator for the sector. The Commissioners of Charitable Donations and Bequests has a finite role in regard to cy-prés applications, advice to trustees and so on. However, we lack a register or regulator of charities. There is also a lack of a strong legal definition of charities.

I can only agree that the situation is as the Deputy described it. Subsequent to publication of the consultation paper on charities, a review was undertaken. The summary of findings was also published and is available on my Department's website. Work is being undertaken by the Law Reform Commission in regard to charitable trust law. I understand the Minister of State has indicated that the legislation which will be substantial is expected within 12 months. This will be the first substantive movement in terms of legislative and regulatory reform in the charities sector for decades.

Will it be another full year before we can expect any draft legislation?

Mr. Kearney

The Minister of State suggested it would be sooner than that. I think he said it was expected in the spring of next year.

What is the current position on the definition of Gaeltacht boundaries and their rationalisation to reflect existing realities?

Mr. Kearney

A linguistic survey is being conducted by Ollscoil na hÉireann, Gaillimh and NUI Maynooth of the usage of the language across Gaeltacht areas. When that work is complete, it will provide information on language planning and also create a framework within which the question of boundaries can be considered. I understand the group's work is due for completion next year. It will be a careful, systemic survey of the use of the language in Gaeltacht areas and form the basis for considering the limistéir Ghaeltachta.

Boundaries are only one issue. We are acutely aware of the significant pressure on Gaeltacht areas in terms of culture and language. Will the survey give an in-depth picture of the current position in the Gaeltachtaí?

Mr. Kearney

Yes, that is the reason for it. It is a lengthy survey. The intention is that it will give a qualitative and differentiated analysis of the strength and usage of the language within Gaeltacht areas. It is not narrow and not principally about Gaeltacht boundaries but about the strength and usage of the language. It will also provide a basis for informing linguistic strategy.

It is rather urgent. We need to know the main influences in the Gaeltachtaí militating against the continuation of the language as a normal language of daily intercourse. Also, as many Gaeltachtaí depend on the industry, we need to know the precise impact of various aspects of tourism. Although the phenomenon of attaching planning conditions regarding the ability to speak the language for some new homes in the Gaeltacht is new, we need to see if it has something positive to offer in order that the language and culture are not unduly diluted, which is the current problem.

On a related issue, is Mr. Kearney's Department responsible for implementing the new regulations on signposting in Gaeltacht areas?

Mr. Kearney

Yes, it comes within the framework of place name orders made under the Acht teanga which is the basis for the initiative.

As a Gaeilgeoir and strong defender of the Gaeltachtaí, the regulation is daft in so far as there is a prohibition on the use of place names in English commonly known to people. This is counterproductive. This is a bilingual society and we must act as such, particularly with regard to visitors and tourists from abroad. Coming to terms with the anglicised version of our Irish names is difficult enough without trying to grapple with the full place names in Irish. Hence, the Department should revisit this question. We should have a bilingual policy for Gaeltacht areas, with the townlands and so forth as Gaeilge ar ndóigh with the commonly known anglicised versions. It is not a problem where the names are close, in terms of the focal Gaelach and the leagan Béarla. However, where they are different, it is. I do not know if this is a policy issue on which Mr. Kearney is not free to comment but it is causing unease, including among those committed to the Gaeltachtaí.

Mr. Kearney

I will respond briefly to the Deputy's point by reflecting that since 1970 the legal position has been that the road directional signs in the Gaeltacht are in Irish only. As to the point raised by the Deputy, this is based on section 33(2) of Acht na dTeangacha Oifigiúla 2003, rather than a particular initiative by the Department. It is rooted in legislation passed by the Houses of the Oireachtas.

I know the Acht passed through the Dáil. I was a Member of the Dáil and, to be honest, it escaped me. However, had people been aware of the full significance as to how it would eventually be given effect, there would have been a modification. We must seriously look at this issue. Mr. Kearney is telling the committee that an amendment to the legislation would be needed for us to have a bilingual policy regarding place names in the Gaeltachtaí.

Mr. Kearney

Yes, that is correct. I emphasise to the Deputy that the 1970 legislation is also pertinent to the issue.

Mr. Buckley

Since no particular audit issues arise, we will bear in mind what we have heard in the course of the debate in future audits and factor it into the 2004 and future reports.

Go raibh maith agat, Mr. Kearney. Bhí an míniú seo a thug tú an-shoiléir ar fad. Is it agreed to note Vote 42? Agreed.

The witnesses withdrew.

The agenda for the meeting on Thursday, 16 June 2005 includes the 2003 annual report of the Comptroller and Auditor General and Appropriation Accounts; Votes 26 to 29, inclusive — Department of Education and Science; chapter 9.2, centres for young offenders and chapter 9.3, qualified audit certification of Appropriation Accounts. The committee will also meet in private session next Thursday, 9 June, for a first reading of its next report on the Justice group of Votes which will be published in a couple of weeks' time. I also remind members that at 2.30 p.m. today we will launch the report on the group of Votes for the Revenue Commissioners, the NTMA and the Department of Finance.

The committee adjourned at 1.25 p.m until 11 a.m. on Thursday, 9 June 2005.

Barr
Roinn