A Chathaoirligh, tá mé ag iarraidh mo chuid ama a roinnt leis an Aire Stáit, an Teachta Callely agus leis na Teachtaí Eoin Ryan agus Michael Moynihan.
Tá áthas orm deis a bheith agam labhairt ar an ábhar seo anocht. Ba mhaith liom a dhearbhú go bhfuil an Rialtas dírithe ar cheist an mhí-bhuntáiste a réiteach agus is chuige sin a bunaíodh an Roinn seo. Mar atá ráite go minic agam is é bánú na tuaithe is údar le cuid mhaith de na fadhbannaí sna cathracha, le ceantair ag fás as éadain agus easpa seirbhísí iontu. Mar a léireoidh mé tá obair chuimsitheach ar bun ag an Rialtas le díriú ar na fadhbanna seo.
I confirm that the Government is committed to tackling disadvantage and areas of disadvantage in a focused and sensible way. The setting up of the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs signalled the clear intention of the Government to put the issue of the community and the problems of disadvantaged areas, be they on the islands or in rural and urban areas, at the heart of Government.
Over the years various schemes were developed to tackle disadvantage, and for different reasons they were located in different Departments. My Department now has responsibility for scheme initiatives that were scattered over five Departments. The focus of the effort in relation to a large number of these programmes and schemes being allocated to one Department will, over time, bear fruit.
The process of change in Government is slow and the bringing together of the different strands in one Department is only the first step. As the Minister of State, Deputy Noel Ahern, outlined, many steps have already been taken by the Department to try to bring a greater coherence to the sector. This work will continue over the coming four years.
I would like to first focus on the issue of rural disadvantage. The problems of rural isolation, rural disadvantage and rural depopulation, which are all linked, are being tackled by the Government under a number of headings. This includes the introduction of the CLÁR programme and work that has been carried out interdepartmentally in relation to rural enterprise and rural infrastructure. Decentralisation, when introduced, will have a major bearing on the redevelopment of rural areas and thus reduce disadvantage.
In relation to the Gaeltacht and the islands, since 1997 there has been an unprecedented investment in both. Infrastructure projects that had been long-fingered for years are being tackled and services are being provided where none existed previously. The response of the pre vious Labour Minister in relation to the Gaeltacht was to try to do away with the Gaeltacht housing repair grants that mainly assist poor families in the Gaeltacht and the elimination of infrastructure work on roads under scéim na mbóithre áise.
Deputy Brian O'Shea yesterday referred to CLÁR, and I thank him for his kindness regarding same. The Deputy also referred to the reduction in the allocation for CLÁR this year. Obviously I regret this reduction but see it in the context of the wider budgetary pressures facing the Government. However, I assure the Deputy that because of matching funds this year and the fact that not all expenditure was matched last year, this year's programme will equal that of last year.
I would like to address the issues of urban disadvantage and the RAPID programme. I want to make absolutely clear at the outset that RAPID was never meant to be a self-funded programme but was designed as a reprioritisation of spend under the social inclusion measures of the national development plan towards the areas of greatest disadvantage. I assure the House that there has been a considerable spend in these areas as a result.
The housing commitment alone for regeneration projects in RAPID areas amounts to €900 million. From 1999 to date, €310 million has been spent on these projects. My colleague has already outlined the issues relating to CDSPs, the drugs and youth facilities fund and so on. When the Taoiseach talked about doing sums, therefore, he was talking about the facts.
I would now like to deal with the issue of community employment schemes. The position is that the target figure for places on CE schemes for 2003 is 20,000, a reduction from 24,991 in 2002. FÁS has responsibility for the administration of this scheme, including the allocation of places to individual projects. FÁS prioritises projects according to the type of services provided and levels of unemployment in the area, and co-ordinates reductions so as to minimise the negative effect on groups and services most in need of community employment.
The priority groups include the following: CE places currently provided under the national drugs strategy action plan are ring-fenced. No reduction is being made on the number of scheme places; CE places that provide child care services as part of the process of assisting unemployed parents in accessing labour market services are ring-fenced and no reductions are being made; in addition to the above, CE schemes in RAPID areas now receive top priority in terms of maintaining places – reductions will only be made after other areas outside of RAPID have been reduced; and CE places in health-related projects are ring-fenced from reduction and have remained at a constant level since March 2002. In addition, the Department of Education and Science runs a large number of schemes specifically focused at the disadvantaged.
I have admitted from the outset that there are certain elements of the RAPID process with which I am not happy. One of these is the obvious difficulty of quantifying the amount of spend in RAPID areas brought about by reprioritisation. The plans received are very varied, ranging from small, low cost actions to large-scale proposals with considerably higher cost implications.
What I am endeavouring to do is to separate the small proposals, which could be dealt with at local level by the partnerships and the CDB structure, from the large proposals that have to be dealt with at central Government level. Proposals have been formulated and a plan of action agreed to progress this issue. The first step of the process is to analyse all the proposed actions in all the plans and separate them between those considered local and those that should remain the responsibility of a Department. Over the coming weeks and months discussions will take place with the AITs, partnerships and CDBs on the proposed details of this new mechanism. We will also discuss the issue with the south and east and BMW regional assemblies.
The issue of the capital sports programme was raised yesterday and I would like to clarify that following discussions between my Department and the Department of Arts, Sport and Tourism, it was agreed that the definition of "disadvantage" for the 2003 capital sports programme would be confined to RAPID, local drugs task force areas and CLÁR areas. The definition used previously was much broader. I point out also that it is up to each group to make an individual application to this programme. They are not submitted by the AITs as such.
I would like to take the opportunity once again to clarify the issue in relation to the partnerships. ADM manages the local development social inclusion programme on behalf of my Department. The programme is delivered on the ground by 38 partnerships and 33 community groups. In 2001 and 2002, funding of £45.5 million and €47.6 million was provided to deliver the three sub-measures of the programme. The outturn of expenditure for both years was €43.2 million in 2001 and €53.6 million in 2002. The extra spend in 2002 arose when an additional €6 million was provided from savings within the Vote of my Department in December 2002 and allocated to the local development programme that year. An amount of €44.6 million has been provided in the Vote of my Department for the local development programme in 2003. This figure represents a reduction of 6% in the local development subhead over the 2002 allocated figure. Allocations from within the budget available for the programme in 2003 were agreed by the board of ADM and notified to each partnership and community group. I understand each group was given an allocation and the reductions ranged from 4% to 7%.
Some partnerships appeared to expect that they would be able to carry forward underspends of previous years. My Department, like all Departments, operates on a cash-based accounting system, not an accruals basis and cannot, therefore, facilitate cumulative carry-overs of underspends. I am examining the position regarding unpaid valid claims for payment schemes by partnerships submitted to ADM prior to Christmas 2002 and not paid until 2003.
I assure Deputies who have approached this debate in a constructive manner that their suggestions and criticisms will be considered fully by me and the Minister of State in our review of schemes operated by our Department. However, there are a number of questions I must ask the Labour Party, in particular its leader, Deputy Rabbitte. The Deputy has consistently referred to a meeting I attended in Tallaght. I can confirm this was my third meeting with people from Tallaght with whom I will have further meetings in the coming years. Deputy Rabbitte arrived towards the end of the meeting, which is perfectly understandable. Despite his late arrival, he has since pontificated on what he wants to believe I said and what was discussed that night. I admit I expressed concerns about the RAPID programme, some were my own and others had been conveyed to me. I expressed these concerns before the election when rural RAPID, known as CLÁR, was being set up. I was complimented by Deputy O'Shea who described CLÁR as being no talk and all action. I agree with him and would like to ensure RAPID will be considered in a similar light.
The reasons for the success of CLÁR are largely its effective mechanisms and the decision taken by me that instead of creating numerous structures of implementation and consultation, the programme would focus on delivery on the ground. This runs contrary to the manner in which the Labour Party constantly suggests things should be done, one which would cause endless delays and frustration for the public.
Deputy Rabbitte subsequently tabled a motion on the Adjournment and, having spoken to the motion, did not have the courtesy to remain in the House until the reply was completed. This was the first time I had seen a Deputy leave the House before a full reply to an Adjournment motion had been given.
