Vol. 575 No. 5
8 Mr. Hogan asked the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs when the first moneys from the dormant funds accounts will be allocated; if this money is wrongfully being used by his Department to compensate for the cutbacks in real terms to the many areas under his Department, particularly funding for local development and social inclusion measures, which have been reduced by 6% in the recent Estimates; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [28650/03]
35 Mr. Broughan asked the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs the position regarding the implementation of the Unclaimed Life Assurance Policies Act 2003; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [28541/03]
76 Mr. Perry asked the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs the new programmes he intends to develop to replace the community initiative for older people in the information society. [28653/03]
78 Ms McManus asked the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs the main features of the Disbursement Plan 2003-2005 published by the Dormant Accounts Fund Disbursements Board; the total amount that will be disbursed prior to the end of 2003; the likely amount for 2004; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [28550/03]
85 Mr. Costello asked the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs the levels of disbursement for RAPID, CLÁR and the drugs task force areas that are being ring-fenced in respect of his Estimates for 2004; the way in which these amounts compare with 2003; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [28543/03]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 8, 35, 76, 78 and 85 together.
The Dormant Accounts Fund Disbursements Board published its first disbursement plan on 7 November 2003. The plan sets out the board's priorities for funding up to June 2005. It provides for the distribution of funds to assist programmes or projects targeting three broad categories of persons – those affected by economic and social disadvantage, those affected by educational disadvantage, and persons with a disability.
The plan provides for the distribution of funding annually between the three categories along the following lines. At least 40% of total funding will be allocated to economic and social disadvantage, at least 25% for educational disadvantage, and at least 25% for persons with a disability.
One of the main features of the plan is the ring-fencing of a significant level of disbursements from the fund towards projects in those areas designated as suffering particular disadvantage. In this regard, the total allocation in the first year of the plan under the economic and social disadvantage heading will be for the purposes of assisting programmes or projects within RAPID, CLÁR and drugs task force areas. In subsequent years, those areas will receive not less than half the annual allocation under this heading. In addition, not less than half the annual allocations for the purpose of educational disadvantage will go towards programmes or projects within RAPID and drugs task force areas.
Another feature of the plan is the intention to ensure that funding for persons with a disability is prioritised towards those who require more intensive levels of support in the areas of health and personal social services. Older people are specified in the plan as one of the target areas for priority support. The plan also includes support for information technology as a measure to tackle disadvantage. Within this context, it is anticipated that projects to promote access to and competence in technology for older people will be supported from the fund.
The board has engaged Area Development Management Limited, ADM, to administer the initial round of funding on its behalf. In this regard, an invitation to organisations, groups, etc. to make applications for funding under the scheme was advertised in the national press on Friday, 21 November. ADM will receive and assess applications for funding and make recommendations to the Dormant Accounts Fund Disbursements Board for decision. At this stage, as I cannot predict the number of applications that are likely to be submitted, I am not in a position to specify how much will be paid out of the fund prior to the end of 2003. With regard to spending from the fund in 2004, consistent with advice from the Department of Finance, the board has agreed to disburse a figure not in excess of €30 million.
I strongly refute the suggestion from one of the Deputies that dormant accounts moneys will be used to compensate for cutbacks in other areas of the Department. In this context, it should be noted that subhead L in my Department's Vote for 2004 provides €42.2 million for local development and social inclusion measures. While the amount provided this year was €44.662 million, it should be noted that the provision in 2003 included a budget of €1.5 million to support the implementation of the RAPID programme. Therefore, the real reduction in subhead L next year is 2%.
With regard to the Unclaimed Life Assurance Policies Act 2003, the position is that the Act provides for similar arrangements for unclaimed life assurance policies as apply to dormant accounts in banks, building societies and An Post. The Act requires insurance undertakings to take steps to identify and contact the owners of the unclaimed policies. If the owners cannot be traced, then the proceeds of the policies will be transferred to the dormant accounts fund and surplus funds disbursed by the Dormant Accounts Fund Disbursements Board for the purposes of community and societal benefit.
The Act provides that the transfer of moneys by insurance undertakings from unclaimed life assurance policies to the dormant accounts fund will take place at the end of April each year, beginning in April 2004. At this stage, the yield to the fund from life assurance policies is unknown and will only become clear following the first transfer of funds next year.
The Minister made the valid point that the RAPID programme changes the amount of money. It brings one's loss down beyond 2%. Is he willing to admit that he had €54 million in the same section in the election year of 2002? There was a reduction of 17% last year and a further cut of 2% this year at a time when wage increases and other matters have to be taken into account. Do we have a separate budget for the dormant accounts? Where can we clarify how much will be available from it? I am sorry for mixing up the position in Dublin with that in the BMW region. This is a matter of social inclusion. I did not realise that the other question had been asked.
That is all right.
Community groups, development agencies and other groups such as Triskele want to know where they stand. I know they have written to the Minister but the information they have received from the Department is extremely difficult to understand. They have asked me to raise the matter because they cannot understand what they are being told. Does the Minister understand they will have a future purpose? Will he ensure they will be given sufficient funding? Does he realise that such groups are given very small funds? Voluntary groups can deliver enormous benefits to the underprivileged. I encouraged the Minister to examine the structures in order to find waste. I do not believe the voluntary groups which give the best service to those in need should be deprived of funds. I want the Minister to clarify where they stand. When will they know?
We are straying from the original question once more. The community development support scheme, funded directly by the Department, will continue. The Department expanded it this year. I take it that Triskele is a support agency.
Yes.
One has to examine what the support agencies are doing. They were creating new groups and bringing them to a stage where they could become full CDSPs. The nature of this process has changed, however, because there is a huge number of such groups. The Deputy will appreciate that one cannot keep expanding the schemes forever. I am trying to be honest. The matter raised by him was not the subject of the original question. If he checks the record—
The money affects the question.
My memory, no more than that of Údarás, is that at the end of 2002 – the election was then over – extra money was provided to Area Development Management Limited but I stand to be corrected in that regard. This matter was not the subject of the original question which related to dormant accounts. My memory is that there was an increase after the election. I gave them more money at a time when the Deputy and others were hopping up and down and talking about cutbacks. If one is to refer to 2002 figures, one should examine the Estimate figure at the beginning of the year, not the outturn figure. In my Department, which is very good with money, the outturn figure often includes money given at the back end. If money is saved in one area, one may allocate it to an area where there has been an overspend. It is a valid way to operate. One should not pretend that the money allocated in December 2002 was somehow miraculously allocated before the election in May that year. The truth should always be respected in these matters. I know that the Deputy may have forgotten that aspect of the matter.
I am directly informed by the figures available to me.
Do the figures available to the Deputy relate to the 2003 Estimate?
The revised Estimate.
I accept that this matter has been raised in good faith.
The figures relate to the election year.
It is important, in the interests of the accuracy of the record of the House—
That is exactly what we are interested in.
The Deputy who has been a Member of the House for a long time knows that in the revised Estimates volume for a given year the comparative figure for the previous year – in this case, 2002 – is used as the best guess for the outturn. This can be seen if one looks at the head of the column. If memory serves me correctly, the outturn was much larger than the 2002 Estimate in the cases of ADM and Údarás na Gaeltachta. We gave both organisations extra funding at the very end of 2002, well after the election. Do the Deputies understand?
I understand what the Minister is saying. The difference between what both of us are saying is that Deputy Crawford and I are talking about the election year and the Minister is talking about the month of December.
If one re-examines the basic Estimate for the election year, one will see that a certain amount of money was provided. There was some underspending in the Department at the end of last year because some projects had not proceeded as quickly as possible. ADM and Údarás na Gaeltachta which operate independently of the Department approached it in November or December of last year to ask for extra funds. They were given the extra funds in December
Is the Minister saying he did not front-load it before the election?
I back-loaded it to the end of the year in order that the organisations would be in a better position for the following year. I remind the Deputy that I did not have responsibility for either of the organisations prior to the election.
I accept that.
The organisations would be outraged if the Deputy thought they had been told by some political controller to front-load in 2002. He should treat the figures available to him with care. He should re-examine the basic 2002 Estimate for the two independent bodies.
The Minister has indicated that the moneys accruing from unclaimed life assurance policies will be paid over, after all the procedures have been followed, at the end of April each year. This process will start at the end of April 2004. The Minister has said it is impossible to calculate or make an educated guess about how much money is involved but surely he can give some kind of ball-park indicator of what might be available. I would like to ask him about the issue of delivery which comes across to me as we debate these issues. Who does what? I reiterate the point I made that two years' work by the RAPID groups in local areas is being ignored. The Minister has given positive indications in that regard.
My basic question relates to achieving improved coherence across local and community development structures. While there have been indications, when will we hear something definite from the Minister in that regard? Like Deputy Crawford, I have received representations from the support group framework in my local area on behalf of CDSPs. Many are concerned because there is a lack of certainty. It is extremely important, in the interests of service delivery and continuity, that people know what is coming down the line. We have waited for a long time for the Minister's proposals which will follow the consultation process. Everyone involved in this sector needs to know when we will find out what the Minister intends to do.
I agree with the Deputy about the issue of coherence. I have said before that I will take it on board but I am not sure of the amount of money. We have fixed the figure of €30 million per year. There is a temptation to go on a big splurge because there is a few hundred million in the fund. It is intended that the fund will last at least ten years which is a conservative estimate. We will not blow it all. Deputies would a have right to be critical if we had decided to allocate €70 million or €90 million per year, thereby spending all of the money quickly on some kind of over-capacity job. Members will know the kinds of problems that we have seen before when that was done. I am therefore supportive of a "steady as she goes" approach and spreading the money out over a long period. Money is a valuable resource and we should use it carefully.
Regarding CDSPs, we will grant three year contracts again. Last year, they only had one year contracts. I wanted to bring them into line with the national development plan on a three year basis. We will give three year contracts and the CDSPs will continue. I hope to bring my proposals to Government soon. We are working hard on them and are well advanced in preparing the proposals. However, I also want to ensure that they are sensible, practical, flexible and make a difference in delivery to the people whom we all try to serve.
These questions are a development of the priority question I asked earlier. The Minister seems somewhat inconsistent in some of the figures he gives. The 5% increase in his Department's budget was the focus of his answer to me, yet he talks about a 6% cut in local development and social inclusion measures, part of which includes the RAPID administrative and start-up costs.
They have been moved over.
Yes, but the problem is that the Minister also talks about effecting savings under certain cost headings. Did I hear him right when he suggested that?
In general, everywhere.
However, the Minister's Department is not like that of Enterprise, Trade and Employment which hands back money every year.
No.
The question I wanted to ask the Minister related to his reference to comparisons between outturns and the next year's Estimates. That is a total negation of how the Estimates themselves are presented. The 5% figure the Minister quoted as a reward for his Department's activities is a comparison with last year's Estimate figure rather than last year's outturn figures.
I will explain that. In the preliminary volume that is published before the budget, the comparison is between the previous year's Estimate and that for the next year. Then, when the full volume is published in February of the following year, the comparison is different, being, for example, between the 2004 Estimate and the expected outturn for 2003. The comparative figures that we use in the two Estimates volumes are not the same. The Deputy will become more familiar with this process the longer he is a Member. If he takes the figures in the 2002 Estimates, 2003 preliminary Estimates, and final full Estimates in February, he will find different figures, one giving the Estimates figure and the other the outturn figure. They are not the same.
Perhaps I might also clarify the savings. It will happen again in my Department this year that under some heading there will be an underspend. For example, in islands, we had expected to begin work on some piers and, through no fault of my Department or my officials, it did not happen. We had also hoped to do work on the cable car to Inis Bigil, but that did not happen either. I cannot control such matters. However, within reason, where there is an underspend on one heading, one is allowed to transfer the money to other headings. One tries to ensure that at the end of the year one does not go beyond one's Vote and that one spends as much of it as possible.
One does not give back money either.
Most Ministers in their time have tried to ensure that they give back as little as possible through this process.
I had not finished asking the question when the Minister intervened. I am glad that he is providing the House with some longevity, having poured cold water on my chances of Government.
This is his last stand.
Regarding comparing outturns with original figures, one cannot have it both ways. If one has a Supplementary Estimate in the course of the year, which may happen, the increase in the next year's Estimates would be far smaller than what is being promoted in the annual Book of Estimates. There is a need for greater clarity and honesty in how we present those Estimates since it is obviously an attempt to confuse and befuddle.
No, it is not. What has happened over the past week or two is simple. The bottom-line figure does not change unless one gets a Supplementary Estimate. However, it can happen, as it did in the case of both ADM and Údarás na Gaeltachta in 2003, that there is an underspend under other headings within my Department's Vote, especially in Waterways Ireland, due to no fault of my Department but because of other circumstances that are relevant today. The agency received a bonus coming up to Christmas. It had matured liabilities which we paid them for. To compare that outturn for an organisation that gets over and above what had been intended for it in the Estimates with the following year's Estimate and then not to say equally that an underspend in one year results in a huge increase the following year is disingenuous.
If, when we get the outturn figures, the Deputy says that there has been a massive increase in the budgets of underspending Departments and a decrease in those of Departments whom we allowed to overspend by giving them extra money, that is fine, but if one is consistent, one cannot take one without the other. I will go through these figures line by line during any Estimates debate and show the Deputy how one must be consistent, so that, if there is an underspend in one Department, one must give credit and if there is an overspend in another, one must also examine that.
Will the dormant accounts money mean extra for that section? Is the Minister admitting that there is a 20% decrease in the 2004 figures as against those for 2002? That is the bottom line.
I do not have the figures in front of me. We could go back to 1997. Those that I have in my head at the moment are for 2003 and 2004. We have now come almost to the end of 2003, and the important issue is how we are going from now to 2004.
Regarding 2002 to 2004, unfortunately I must repeat myself again. If one compares the 2002 Estimate – my memory is that it was something like €47 million – one must take the €1.5 million that we have now transferred out of that Vote and into a new one for RAPID, and one will see that there has not been the decrease that Deputy Crawford said there was.
Was it €40 million?
Perhaps the Deputy will allow me to ask him a question. Let us suppose that the current Estimates volume says that I am granting an 18% increase for islands next year compared with this year's Estimates. Supposing that, up to Christmas, they had matured liabilities and I had savings and I gave another €10 million to islands, would the Deputy in his heart of hearts believe that the end-of-year extra spend would suddenly mean that the Estimate for the following year was a decrease? No he would not. He would say that the base Estimate shows an increase over the Estimate. One must take either outturn versus outturn or Estimates versus Estimates. Some Estimates will not be the same as the outturn at the end of the next year. One must take either Estimate versus Estimate or outturn versus outturn. However, the Deputy is trying to take the outturn while selectively – when it suits him—
The groups that are—
We have exceeded the time.
Written Answers follow Adjournment Debate.
