I propose to take Questions Nos. 16 and 17 together.
It would, I think, be appropriate as a first step to outline the history of my Department's involvement with this project.
The North Centre City Community Action Project was initially given grants of £30,000 yearly for 1978, 1979 and 1980 by the former National Committee of Pilot Schemes to Combat Poverty mainly for the purpose of discharging the salaries of the project staff. When the Combat Poverty Committee were abolished in December 1980, my Department provided funding to the project which amounted to £15,600 in 1981 and £25,500 in 1982. It was the only project in the country that continued to receive funds from my Department after the Combat Poverty organisation ceased to exist.
The funding of the project by my Department was always on a temporary basis and it was never intended that it should continue indefinitely. Indeed, on 28 October 1982 the secretary of the project was informed by letter from my Department that no provision had been made in the Department's estimates for continuation of the funding in 1983 and, accordingly, that funding would cease when the National Community Development Agency was set up but would not, in any event, continue after 31 December 1982. Notwithstanding this, however, I arranged for the payment of £2,800 to be sent to the project on 26 January 1983. This sum represented a payment of £350 a week for eight weeks up to 25 February 1983. At the same time, a month's notice was formally given of the termination of the temporary funding arrangement.
Apart from the funds which my Department made available, I understand the project has been and is receiving funds in a variety of ways. The secretary is an employee of the Eastern Health Board. In addition, I understand the project received substantial sums from a number of sources in connection with its activities from organisations such as the Inner City Group, AnCO, Dublin Corporation and the Youth Employment Scheme of the Department of Labour. My Department have received no information from the officers of the project as to the extent of the funding which was received in connection with these activities. Inquiries made by the Department, however, would seem to indicate that more than £100,000 was so received in 1982.
One would expect that any body seeking direct subvention from a Government Department would submit comprehensive information about its financial standing. This was not done in this case nor was any information given as to the extent, if any, that the organisation itself engages directly in fund-raising activities. In relation to organisational structure, my Department have never received details of any elections of officers or received reports of ordinary meetings or annual general meetings of the organisation. I can assure the Deputies that the Government are absolutely committed to the development of the inner city. No one organisation, however, has an exclusive right to exceptional treatment in this matter. When funds become available, all organisations concerned with urban renewal and social development will be given an equal opportunity of securing a fair share of those funds where their activities warrant it.
In this connection it will be essential in future to lay down clear-cut criteria for the grant of funding so that scarce resources are seen to be utilised for the purpose for which they are intended. I intend to ask the Combat Poverty Organisation, when established, to determine these criteria.