Jimmy Deenihan
Ceist:16 Mr. Deenihan asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry if he will include all County Kerry in the Leader 2 Programme.
Ceisteanna-Questions. Oral Questions. - Leader Programme.
Alan M. Dukes
Ceist:72 Mr. Dukes asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry the steps, if any, he proposes to take to ensure the continuation of funding for the Leader companies in the period from June 1994, when final allocations under the Leader 1 Programme have to be completed, and January 1995, when it is expected that funds from the Leader 2 Programme will come on stream; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Robert Molloy
Ceist:73 Mr. Molloy asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry if he will give an assessment of the progress to date of the Leader Pilot Programme under the National Development Plan 1994-1999.
Liz McManus
Ceist:95 Ms McManus asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry the number of women involved at board or management level in the current Leader projects; the plans, if any, he has to encourage the greater participation of women at board and management level under the next phase of the Leader initiative; if his attention has been drawn to the fact that the recent Teagasc Advisory Group on Training for Rural Development contained only one woman; the plans, if any, he has to encourage the greater participation of women in rural organisations, both voluntary and statutory; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Eamon Gilmore
Ceist:160 Mr. Gilmore asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry if, in regard to the National Development Plan 1994-1999, he will give details of the additional resources that will be provided for the Leader initiative; the plans, if any, he has for the expansion of the Leader initiative; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 16, 72, 73, 95 and 160 together.
I object to the taking of Question No. 72 with other questions because it is a totally different question. It has nothing to do with whether Kerry is included in the Leader 2 programme; it has to do with the structure of the leader programme. I object most strenuously to the inclusion of this question with a specific question about Kerry from my colleague, Deputy Deenihan. The import of Question No. 72 is totally different from that of Deputy Deenihan's question and if the Minister seeks to include it he is evading answering the question.
It is the prerogative of the Minister to group questions.
It is the prerogative of the Minister to avoid answering questions.
Can we hear the Minsiter's reply?
I have absolutely no desire to undermine in any way Deputy Deenihan's question. I am quite prepared to answer any supplementary question in relation to any aspect of the Leader programme, be it from Deputy Dukes, Deputy Deenihan or any Member of the House.
That is no way to treat questions.
Let us hear the reply.
The Minister should be allowed continue without interruption.
The current Leader programme officially ends at the end of this month. By that date, the groups must have decided on the allocation of the public funds to projects or activities. Under their formal agreement with the Department the groups have till 30 June 1994 to make all payments on foot of completion of projects. However, the EC Commission is currently considering an extension of the 31 December deadline on the basis of submissions made by the Leader groups. Subject to a favourable decision on this matter by the Commission, my Department is prepared to consider an extension of the 30 June deadline provided the groups can, among other things, demonstrate that they have sufficient funding within their approved financial plans to administer the programme. Alternatively, a group may of course continue without public funding if it can fund the costs of administration from its own resources.
As Leader is one of the Community initiatives, funding for it is not expressly provided in the National Development Plan 1994-1999. The EC Commission's Green Paper on the Future of Community Initiatives indicates its support for a Leader 2 programme but the amount of funding for this, both on a Community-wide and national basis, is a matter yet to be decided by the Commission. I have already stated publicly that my wish is to see the present programme extended to all parts of the country and with increased funding in the next round, and this view is reflected in the National Development Plan. At this stage, however, it is not possible to guarantee that any particular county or area will be included in Leader 2.
I understand that, in the light of responses to its Green Paper proposals, it will likely be early 1994 before the EC Commission formally adopts and publishes its Leader 2 programme. Given the lead time to receive and assess proposals from member states, decision on the approval of groups and their funding allocation cannot be expected till late 1994. I am aware, as indeed is the EC Commission, of the concerns of the current Irish Leader groups to ensure continuity of Leader activities and for my part, I will be doing all I can to secure the earliest implementation of Leader 2. In the interim the arrangements I indicated at the outset for the extension of operational time limits offer some scope for keeping to a minimum any gap between the completion of the current programme and the start of the next one.
The interim report of the consultants evaluating the Leader Programme is generally favourable. The consultants were impressed with the progress achieved to date and the commitment of the groups. A detailed final report, based on a comprehensive evaluation of the programme to be undertaken over the coming months, will be completed in March 1994.
As regards the involvement of women in Leader groups, 20 women, representing 9 per cent of total, are members of boards while 47 women representing 63 per cent of total, are in management or administrative positions. As the House is aware, under the new National Development Plan, the Government intends that all programmes and measures comply with the principle that there is no direct or indirect discrimination on grounds of gender and will actively promote equal opportunities for both genders. In the case of Leader, I expect that the degree to which these issues are addressed in the business plans of applicant groups will be a factor in their selection for funding.
I am aware of the Teagasc review group referred to by Deputy McManus. I understand that Teagasc invited the participating organisations to nominate the persons with functional responsibility for rural development to serve on the group. The Government's policy in relation to representation by women among its nominees to State boards was set out in the reply of the Minister for Equality and Law Reform to Question No. 6 of 6 July 1993. Representation by women in voluntary organisations is entirely a matter for those organisations.
May I ask the Minister if it is the intention to exclude larger urban areas from the Leader 2 Programme? In view of the fact that a submission made by the North Kerry Economic and Social Council was not accepted although very high on the last list, would the Minister ensure that that submission gets priority in consideration of the areas for the Leader 2 Programme? Will the Minister give some advice as to the procedure to be followed by groups preparing to apply for the next Leader Programme?
I am aware of Deputy Deenihan's concern about the North Kerry group — he raised the matter with me on a number of occasions. Unfortunately, I can give no committment in terms of prioritising that application in the next round. The procedure is that following the announcement of Leader 2, groups throughout the country will be invited to submit business plans. On the basis that the group to which the Deputy referred submitted a very objective plan on the last occasion, I am sure they will build on that plan and I hope they will be successful. I am of the view that there will be sufficient funding for a national leader programme on the next occasion. As Deputies will be aware, the present programme is a pilot programme covering 16 pilot areas. Evaluation of the programme clearly indicates that it is successful. I hope that groups such as that referred to by Deputy Deenihan will be considered in the context of the Leader 2 Programme.
In reply to the Deputy's question as to whether urban areas will be excluded, I do not envisage that that will be the case. I hold the view, which I have expressed on many occasions, that smaller urban areas are very dependent on a vibrant and expanding rural hinterland. I see a great inter-relationship between small urban towns and villages and rural areas. The Leader programme should be compatible with that kind of rural-urban infrastructure. To the extent that I can influence the shaping of the next Leader programme, I will certainly keep in mind the views expressed by the Deputy.
I call Deputy Alan Dukes——
May I ask a final brief question? In view of the Minister's statement that it will be a national programme, will all communities be free to make individual applications or will there be a population requirement which might prevent some communities from applying?
The extent to which the programme can be applied nationally will obviously depend to a very large extent on the amount of funding available both from the EU and the Government. Our submission to the EU will be on the basis of seeking sufficient funding for a national Leader programme for the entire country. There are no fixed views in regard to a population requirement for catchment areas which apply for funding under the Leader programme. The Deputy asked about the advice I would give to local communities. My advice to them is that, through their county development teams and other rural structures, they should think seriously about formulating business plans which can be submitted for consideration in the context of the next Leader programme. We want to avoid duplication and to have an organised co-ordinated approach so as to get the maximum funding. On the basis of what is happening at present, the Deputy can take it that the Leader programme is emerging as a very worthwhile new concept in national development.
Is the Minister indicating in some way that the county enterprise development boards might be moving in on Leader territory? If that is what he is indicating, I think there will be very serious worries about the entire Leader process. All of the money under the current programme must be spent by June of next year. The Leader groups have a certain amount of funding for their administration. They do not like to use money they collect from local communities for administration — they want to use that money for development which is the whole purpose of the scheme. Between June of next year and January 1995 it will be necessary to continue work, as the Minister has suggested, on the preparation of programmes for inclusion in the Leader 2 programme. Most of the Leader groups, including the Wicklow Leader group who have been to see me specifically about this issue, do not have the funding to continue to carry out the work needed to prepare the programmes. What steps can the Minister take to ensure that funding, from whatever source, is made available to be channelled into those Leader groups so that they can continue work on the preparation of their plans for inclusion under the Leader 2 programme? Will he give an undertaking to look at that specific problem so that the momentum is maintained right throughout the Leader 2 programme?
I do not envisage any conflict between the county enterprise boards and the Leader programme. In fact, they can be complementary to each other. There is a need for an element of network development by all of the agencies — the county enterprise boards, Teagasc and other rural organisations — so as to maximise for the nation as a whole the value of these rural development programmes. There is a vast different between the Leader concept and the county enterprise boards. I hope there will never be any interference with the Leader concept under which communities identify in a voluntary way their potential for development, prepare business plans and apply for funding. This new concept within the overall framework of national development is proving to be a success and should not be interfered with. I have very strong views on this issue.
Deputy Dukes asked a relevant question about the period between the ending of the current Leader programme and the commencement of the Leader 2 programme. As I indicated in my reply, the increased degree of flexibility we have negotiated will be of some help in bridging that gap. I would be less than honest if I gave any kind of indication today that I would be able to negotiate some interim funding to bridge the gap between the two programmes. I am discussing that proposal but I have to concede that I am not making much progress. Nevertheless, it is a valid point which I will keep in mind.
Having regard to the very detailed and comprehensive replies he has been giving to questions, will the Minister elaborate further on what he means by a national Leader programme? Is he saying, on the one hand, that all rural areas which submit plans will qualify but, on the other hand, that there is only a limited amount of funds? If there is only a limited amount of funds, will the situation which arose in regard to the Leader 1 programme arise again where more plans were prepared than there were funds available to support and somebody had to adjudicate on which plans would receive funding? In the event of that happening will the Minister inform the House who will decide on which programmes will qualify for grants and which will be rejected? Will the decision be made by the Commission or the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry?
As Deputy Molloy is aware from his past involvement in this area, the present programme is a pilot programme which covers 16 areas. On the basis of the programme being successful, it is our view that it should be extended nationally; in other words, we would have a scheme which would cover the entire country or which would at least enable individual communities to formulate business plans and submit them for funding. I indicated that the extent to which the programme can be applied nationally will obviously depend on the amount of funding available. In the event of the number of applications exceeding European and national allocations, there will have to be some kind of selection process. The Deputy is facing the reality of the situation by raising that point. I have not thought about how the new programme will be evaluated or assessed following the submission of individual development proposals to the Department. On the last occasion — I was not in the Department at that stage — the matter was initially dealt with by the Department and then by the Government before finally being forwarded to Brussels. I have not thought through this important point but I will be glad to come back into the House to keep Deputies updated on how we will address that problem in the context of the Leader 2 programme.
I am surprised the Minister of State is not aware that on the previous occasion all the applicants were submitted to Brussels and that Brussels, and not the Department, decided which plans qualified. I am disappointed that the Minister has not been able to give me a clear indication of the procedure to be followed in the context of the Leader 2 programme.
Change the Government.
The Deputy was correct in saying that on the last occasion the 32 national submissions were sent to Brussels and the decision was made at that level. I have no hidden agenda. I have not yet addressed the issue of how an assessment will be made in the event of sufficient funding not being available for all the national submissions. I will address this matter and will be quite happy to answer questions in this House at a later date about how we propose to deal with it.
It will largely depend on individual submissions.
Will the Minister agree that it is not realistic for the Leader 1 programme to continue beyond the June deadline without financial support? One is talking about a large number of administrative staff, etc. In relation to Leader 2, what kind of time span is involved before it will be established? If the Minister is examining the assessment of Leader 2, would he accept that 9 per cent participation by women on these boards is derisory in view of the contribution women make to Irish rural life? The Minister could impose a condition on all applications submitted to his Department that there would have to be full participation of women in any future projects. If the Minister does not include that as a condition he would be disregarding the Joint Programme for Government which contains a very clear commitment towards gender balance. Would the Minister ensure that women will be included on these boards?
I indicated in my reply that in the assessment of future Leader applications the question of whether the applicant groups adhered to the gender balance in accordance with Government policy would be a factor in deciding eligibility, and that is still my position. To put it more simply, in the context of Leader 2 and in our contacts with the various Leader groups, we will bring to their attention the importance of maintaining a gender balance when putting the management structures in place. That would have an influence in terms of eventual decisions. I hope that meets Deputy McManus' requirements.
As long as that is spelled out.
I am aware of and concerned about the time lag between the termination of Leader 1 and the commencement of Leader 2. We have narrowed that gap in the context of being able to extend it at both ends. However, a vacuum continues to exist which, from my point of view, cannot be financially addressed by the Department or the EU. This is a matter we have taken up with the Commission and we have indicated that bridging funding would be necessary to ensure continuity. However, I do not wish to mislead the House and pretend that progress has been made in that regard because it has not.
The Minister is aware that we have a very successful Leader project, Ballyhovra Failte, in Limerick and as a result of their activities, the West Limerick Resource Group has prepared a business plan. While I understand the Minister cannot give a commitment at this stage as to what project will be considered, he will be very impressed when he receives the submission from this group and I trust it will be favourably considered.
What impacts on many of these Leader projects, particularly if one is interested in the tourism aspect, is the urgent necessity for good clean water. Not only is it important for tourism but it is important also for the farmers who have probably made additional investments. With the dilution of funding in recent times for group water schemes, is there any possibility that within a Leader programme a group water scheme would be considered? This would be extremely important. If the scheme falls within the Leader area, I believe it would be worthy of consideration. I would like the Minister of State to comment on the feasibility of this.
I am not sure how relevant the Deputy's question is.
The purpose of Leader is to create a community economic infrastructure geared towards the creation of jobs. While I accept the Deputy's point that a piped water supply is an essential feature of any rural infrastructure, that kind of project does not fall within the overall Leader structure. This matter was raised on a previous occasion. I made inquiries in relation to its potential as far as the Leader programme is concerned, but it is not a qualified project under the broad framework of Leader funding.
Coming from a county that has shown leadership in the Leader programme, the Minister cannot be seriously considering redundancies in any of these offices, regardless of how short the periods. That would result in a loss of the experience these people have gained under the last Leader programme. Can the Minister give a definite commitment to those people that their jobs are safe and that their work will continue into the next programme?
I can say to Deputy Boylan and to all Deputies in the House that I have very close contacts with the Leader network and they have discussed that particular problem with me on numerous occasions. I do not want to mislead this House; I understand the problem and I am willing to continue to make a case to Brussels in terms of obtaining bridging funding which would enable the continuity of Leader 1 into Leader 2.
Would the Minister of State throw in a few pound to help out?
In relation to the Minister's replies concerning people who may submit a business plan for Leader 2, would he be amenable to applications from local authorities, such as Clare County Council, or SFADCo? Can these bodies draw up a plan and submit it for Leader 2?
If we needed any evidence of the success of the Leader programme, we would only have to consider the number of questions that have been raised here this evening. There is nothing to prevent a local authority, or any other community structure, from submitting an application under either the current Leader programme or Leader 2. It is a question of a group preparing a business plan with a clear focus on job creation. That is what it is all about.
I am aware of the great personal interest the Minister of State is taking in the Leader programme and that is very important for its future. From his knowledge of the programme, is he aware that one part of County Sligo is in the Arigna pilot scheme, another part is in the Moy Valley pilot scheme and a third part, with similar inferior social and economic conditions, is in neither scheme? Would he regard that as being totally unsatisfactory and leading to great difficulties on the ground?
We are dealing with specifics now.
The only way that kind of anomaly can be corrected is for communities to recognises those differences when preparing their proposals and business plans. There are no county boundaries in respect of Leader, and neither should there be, and the kind of anomaly, if it is an anomaly, the Deputy has identified should be corrected and dealt with by communities on the ground when preparing their applications.
I also come from the Cavan-Monaghan region and I am very worried about the future of the Leader programme in that area. The Minister is taking about extending the programme to the whole country, and he has not ruled out the possibility of Dublin city, for instance, which could require large amounts of money.
The Minister has suggested that if the gender balance is not correct in the make-up of the board he may not consider the application. Does this mean that a successful scheme, such as the Cavan-Monaghan Leader, would not be accepted for a future programme if the famous gender balance was not correct?
It might be more successful.
This programme has a very good balance in the workforce. I appreciate the Minister of State's effort in this regard, but surely we must have the full commitment of the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry that the jobs established as a result of Leader will be maintained. We appreciate the Minister of State's commitment but the only way that can be proved beyond question is to ensure that these jobs will be maintained.
I have already answered that question in about three different ways. I am aware of the problem. I have discussed it with the Leader network and taken it up with the European Commission. I will do my best to ensure that that vacuum is filled pending the introduction of Leader 2.
That concludes Question Time for today.