68 Deputy Michael Ring asked the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs his position in relation to the community support for older people scheme; if he will confirm that this scheme will recommence in 2009; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16848/09]
69 Deputy Jack Wall asked the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs if his attention has been drawn to the concern expressed by community groups and representative groups for the elderly at the decision to terminate the scheme of community support for older people, which provided assistance for the installation of personal monitored alarms and items of home security; his views on whether the scrapping of the scheme will leave elderly people vulnerable to attack; the amount to be saved as a result of the move; if he will reconsider the decision and re-establish the scheme; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16851/09]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 68 and 69 together.
The scheme of community support for older people was suspended on 7 April. This was done with a view to affording my Department the opportunity to review the scheme's operation and to consult with interested parties over the next few months to address a number of concerns.
It is essential that we recognise the home security concerns of our older citizens. While statistics will tell us that the incidence of crime affecting older people is low compared to other age groups, older people's perception of the risk of crime is high. It also may be useful to remind Deputies of the background to this scheme. It was introduced in 1996 arising from a special task force on security for the elderly following a spate of burglaries on the homes of older people. It was based on the concept of providing funds to voluntary and community organisations working with or providing support for vulnerable older people to provide a range of personal security devices. Since 1996, some €43.7 million has been paid out under the scheme.
My Department has operated the scheme since mid-2002. In excess of €20 million has been provided since then to community and voluntary organisations with an estimated 60,000 older people being direct beneficiaries — either by being supplied with a monitored alarm, sometimes referred to as the pendant alarm or panic button, or one of the other security items for their homes.
My Department has reviewed the scheme on a couple of occasions in recent years and, as a result, a number of innovations have been introduced. Arising from recommendations made in 2004 the grant is now fixed at €300 per installation for the monitored alarm and lower amounts for the other equipment available. This approach has helped to ensure that community groups get good value for money and that commercial suppliers are obliged to provide quality equipment at a reasonable price, given that these products vary little in their design or service.
Other changes introduced include increasing the maximum individual grant in respect of physical security equipment to €200 and the maximum individual grant in respect of security lighting to €200; from 2006, the introduction of a grant of €150 for interior emergency lighting for qualifying older people living on our offshore islands; providing grant support in respect of smoke alarms and emergency lighting; and providing funding for carbon monoxide detectors where they are supplied as part of other smoke detection devices.
In addition, the 2006 scheme saw the introduction for the first time of an administration subvention to participating groups. The amount of this subvention is based on the size of a group's previous year's grant, with a maximum of €600 and a minimum of €100 being made available. This subvention recognised the role of the community groups in the administration of this scheme and I think Deputies will agree we owe a great debt of gratitude for their work over the years.
The changes introduced in the past few years, however, have meant that the demand for grants has grown to unsustainable levels. From 2002 to 2006, average annual expenditure on the scheme was approximately €2.4 million. In 2007, expenditure went to €3.7 million and it increased further in 2008 when expenditure reached €4.3 million. Deputies will agree that these levels of increase are unsustainable. While the changes introduced to the scheme in recent years have provided for greater flexibility and access, I have concerns that it may no longer target genuine need among older people. The suspension of the scheme will allow an opportunity to examine these concerns and a range of other issues that also have been identified. I know there is broad agreement as to the value of the scheme but I honestly believe there is an urgent need to review it in order to ensure it operates effectively.
In the circumstances, last week the Minister, Deputy Ó Cuív, and I met representatives of Age Action Ireland, the Society of St. Vincent de Paul, Muintir na Tire, Irish Rural Link and the Senior Citizens' Parliament to discuss the suspension of the scheme and the concerns about how it currently operates. Arising from those discussions, we have agreed with these groups a process that will set the broad parameters for a review of the scheme and for the necessary consultation to be undertaken as part of it. I am hopeful the review process can begin in May and be completed by mid-September.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House
The bodies have agreed to participate in the review process and to work with my officials. They have also agreed to work together to give their general view about the scope of the review and how they see it developing. I assure Deputies that all applications received up to the suspension of the scheme will be processed and approved, as appropriate, in line with the current eligibility criteria. Funding will be made available to eligible groups in the coming weeks. More than €1 million worth of applications have been received in the first three months of this year and at the end of March, nearly €640,000 had been paid out to eligible applicants.
I am hopeful that with the co-operation of the national bodies referred to, the terms of reference for the review can be finalised fairly quickly. It is important to note, however, that the suspension of the scheme does not in any way affect those who have already received a monitored alarm device. I wish to reiterate my commitment to this scheme. It is my intention to relaunch it later in the year, once the review is completed.
On 6 April the Minister of State announced funding for this scheme and on 7 April his colleague beside him, the senior Minister, announced the suspension of the scheme. Many elderly people throughout the country are worried. Many people who are living in their homes would be in nursing homes were it not for this scheme. The scheme has had a great voluntary element with many people supporting it on a voluntary basis. The Government attacked the over-70s with the removal of the medical card and it is now attacking elderly people who live at home. This scheme worked well and it gave people confidence, particularly now when we have high crime levels. Many elderly people have been beaten up in their homes, some of them having to go to hospital and others being robbed. At least when they had a panic button they could press it and a neighbour or the Garda Síochána would come to their assistance. I hope this announcement is not merely to get the Government over the local elections. I hope it is not the case that the Government is announcing the suspension of the scheme in order to reinstate it or review it by September.
That never entered their heads.
Of course it would not.
I want the Minister of State to answer a straight question. Is this scheme going to continue? That is my question. I want the Minister of State to reassure the elderly people of this country who are waiting for an answer. We do not want a review. This scheme is working and it costs very little money in the context of the Government's overall budget. There are many other areas within the Department where funding could be cut, and where it is being wasted, rather than suspending this scheme. I want to know if this decision is being made just to get the Government over the local and European elections.
I reject the Deputy's allegation about the local elections. If I were being devious I would not have made the announcement until after the local elections——
It shows the Minister of State does not know what is going on.
It is easy for Deputy Ring to stand up and say there is loads of money in the Department. When he suggests that funding should be cut elsewhere, where would he cut the funding. On what programme would he cut funding?
I will show where in the next question.
I will afford him the opportunity.
The tradition is that the Opposition asks the questions and the Government answers them.
I am doing my best to answer them.
Thank you, Leas-Cheann Comhairle.
I wish to clarify that the scheme was suspended following the budget and it is unfair to blame the Aire here beside me because it was my decision to suspend it and review it in the context of the budget. The Deputy asked if it was a review and will the scheme be brought back. The whole point of reviewing it is that the figures have increased very substantially——
And rightly so.
——and at a time when we must be sure when spending the money that we are targeting those in real need. If we did not review the scheme and have guidelines in place, those people in real need would be missed.
I did not have an opportunity to complete my reply in the House but it is important to say — in case there is any misunderstanding — that the applications received on hand prior to the suspension of the scheme have not yet been processed but they will be processed in the normal way as part of the original or ongoing scheme. Applications received before the suspension still have to be processed.
It is an absolute disgrace that this has happened. I do not blame the Minister of State, I blame the man sitting beside him. It is a total lack of recognition of the value of this scheme. What does one say to the Clontarf Active Retirement Association who held a meeting and 50 people turned up? Does one say, "Hold on, there are too many of ye, we cannot give ye all money, we will give it to one or two in the group"? This scheme worked and it was creating employment. Does the Minister of State not realise the various groups created employment by hiring electricians or people to install the equipment? It is unbelievable to think there will now be a fourth review of the scheme which has been in operation since 1996 when it was introduced by Prionsias De Rossa. The Minister of State is now going to start another review. It is unbelievable to think that the Minister, Deputy Ó Cuív, is hiding behind all the associations and he is using them. I do not blame the Minister of State, Deputy Curran. The Minister is using those associations to hide one of the worst decisions of the budget. He did not have the guts to come out and say the scheme was being cut because the money was not there. He hid behind the associations, saying there would be a review when each and every one of them wrote to every Member saying the scheme should not be suspended. They said the scheme was of wonderful benefit to the communities where it was being implemented. The Minister should not try to tell us he is working with the associations. He is hiding behind them. The Minister, not the Minister of State, Deputy Curran, is the man responsible for this.
I reject the accusation that the review is a waste.
It is an absolute and total waste.
The scheme has been reviewed on a number of occasions and every time it was reviewed it improved significantly. The most recent review meant people could make an application on an ongoing basis. Traditionally, one could apply only once a year and if one missed that, one had to wait 12 months. If we are to target resources at people with real need, we must review this scheme to ensure it is doing that. As I pointed out earlier, the scheme was working at a certain level and suddenly the figures increased dramatically. We are in a time where a certain amount of resources are available to us and it is my job to ensure that those resources are targeted specifically at the elderly people who need them most. The scheme is being reviewed. The groups I mentioned previously sat down with us and are happy — very much so — to fully participate in that review, despite Deputy Wall's comments. It is my firm intention to clarify, in case there is any misunderstanding, that the scheme will be back in operation.
If there are problems in the scheme, the Minister should tell the House what they are. He has enough officials in his Department to deal with these problems. If there is a problem he should deal with it. The overall scheme worked and elderly people felt safe in their homes. There was a large voluntary capacity. Many people actively supported this scheme and were not being paid. There might have been a commercial element, but the Minister should deal with that if there is a problem. I want, and I have, the Minister's assurance that this scheme will continue. The Minister might tell the House what the problems are besides money because he has an overall budget.
The budget was announced on 6 April and on 7 April the Minister said the scheme was to be suspended. Did the Minister and Minister of State talk to one another? Some Ministers do not talk to each other. Do the Minister and Minister of State talk to one another? If not, will they get together and talk and try to keep this scheme up and running?
The reason there were more applications is that the groups around the country made the senior citizens aware of it. There are not people who are not senior citizens applying for the scheme. The Ministers should cop themselves on and not use the line that there are too many applications. Did anybody ever hear such a stupid idea that there are too many applications when every one of them qualified for the scheme? How does the Minister make that assertion when each applicant must state his or her age and qualifies? The Minister said too many have qualified. What he is trying to convince us of is unbelievable. Ms Phyl Lee, secretary of the Clontarf Active Retirement Association, said the group recently held a meeting to explain the scheme and 50 people turned up. They were 50 senior citizens who are entitled to the scheme and the Minister says there are too many of them. It is an absolute joke.
I repeat that the scheme was designed to meet real needs. Members of this House, the Deputy's party included, have made representations and spoken to me and the Minister about their concerns regarding the scheme. There is a finite amount of resources available at any time and my concern is to ensure that the scheme is administered so that the real needs of those elderly people are met and accommodated through this scheme. In response Deputy Ring, the Minister and I talk.
70 Deputy Michael Ring asked the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs the discussions he has had with cohesing Leader groups and partnerships with regard to assets held by groups in order to protect State interests in the context of the programme; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16849/09]
Officials from my Department are in ongoing contact with the cohesing Leader and partnership companies to ensure State and community interests in assets, either held by the companies or otherwise developed under programmes delivered by them on behalf of the State, are protected either through the transfer of these assets to the relevant local integrated structure or other means as appropriate.
That is a very short answer. I have been raising this with the Minister for a while. The previous Minister asked me to find savings for the Department. This Minister announced the Leader programmes. A number of Leader programmes all over the country have not made applications for the programmes and the Minister has amalgamated a number of groups. There is great concern about this issue. There were four Leader programmes in my county and the Minister has reduced that to two. One did not even apply and the other is in discussions and is part of the process.
What has the Minister done about the State funding put into these Leader programmes? Will these assets return to the Minister, Department and the people of the country, or will they stay with the people who established companies? There is outrage about this issue. What is the amount of assets involved? Which groups have not given the Minister the assets for which the State provided the money? This is a very serious situation. If taxpayers' and European money is given to Leader groups which have property all over the country, and if these groups are no longer taking part in the Leader programme, are those assets returning to the State? What has the Minister done about the new Leader programme to protect us and ensure that this does not happen again?
I will try to answer those questions as speedily and comprehensively as I can. All assets held by cohesing companies and identified under the due diligence process will transfer to the new, integrated company unless other arrangements are specifically agreed by the Department. Capital funding allocated for the development of assets through the programmes administered on behalf of my Department by the companies in question is subject to contractual obligations. These contractual provisions provide for the protection of the State's interest and will not be weakened in any way by the establishment of the new cohesing companies.
My Department is also in discussion with other Government Departments and agencies to ensure that the State's interest is protected regarding funding provided by it through these companies. My officials are in ongoing contact with the various cohesing groups regarding assisting them through the due diligence process. If the Deputy has particular concerns on assets held or developed by any specific company he should contact my Department directly and my officials will be only too happy to help him. That deals with the issues of bringing it forward. There is the legal process of due diligence.
On the new arrangements put in place by the Government, all integrated local development companies and partnerships are required to be compliant with the guidelines and model memorandum of articles of association issued by my Department in October 2007. These provide that: "The income and property of the company shall be applied solely towards the promotion of its main objects as set forth in this memorandum of association and no portion thereof shall be paid or transferred directly or indirectly by way of dividend, bonus or otherwise howsoever by way of profit to members of the [company]." It also gives a very detailed procedure for when a company is wound up and how the assets are dealt with. I can send the Deputy a copy of this because it is very relevant. We have due diligence, which is a legal process in which they must all come over. I do not have the total value of the assets. We are working with that process to ensure they all come over. When we changed into these new structures to protect ourselves, there were very clear provisions in the articles and memorandum to protect all assets now and in the circumstances of a wind-up.
I will try to give the Minister the evidence I have. There is concern that some of these assets are being offered for sale to the private sector, even though State and Leader funding provided the assets. How many Leader companies had not co-operated with the Minister and will he take legal action against them?
If anybody has not complied with the law, legal action will have to be taken. I know the company of concern to Deputy Ring and he knows I know.
There is a number of companies about which I have received information.
The first obligation is on the company to comply with the law. Anywhere one gives a grant the State has a contractual arrangement for clawbacks if, for example, people dispose of assets. All that is provided for and protected in the normal way. However, if the Deputy believes there are people or groups not complying with their legal requirements and if he has information on this about which we are not aware we would appreciate receiving that information on a confidential basis and would follow up the issue.
I have a final point. This is very important on behalf of the State.
I do not want to hear——
I will not name any names. I shall put it very simply. Leader programmes equal taxpayers' money equal European money. These people did not get the Leader programme and they have major assets. My information is that these people are holding on to assets which were provided by the State. I wish to know whether the State and Europe are being protected because there is concern among the public that those in question have not handed the assets back to the Minister, namely, to the State, but, as private companies, are keeping them even though taxpayers' money actually provided the assets.
A brief reply, Minister.
Under the Leader programme there is a provision whereby a Leader company cannot provide money to itself for building but can provide to other companies. I assure the Deputy that where there are assets belonging to the State everything in our power is done to protect those assets. If it happens, for example, that a Leader company gives a grant to a private individual for an asset such as a community hall, that is perfectly all right. As the Deputy knows, if the person sells the community hall he or she must repay some of the grant, depending on how long it had been held. On the other hand, if the private individual continues to use the place as a community hall or if he or she has a little enterprise he or she then owns the asset. As long as the grant is used for the purpose given the individual has outright ownership of it.
With regard to the asset the Deputy mentioned I cannot judge how it was given and what were the contractual arrangements. I do not have the details here. However, if there are issues of concern about which the Deputy believes I am not aware, if he gives them to us on a confidential basis we will appreciate that and will follow it up.
I wish to put on record that I would be as concerned as the Deputy that every contractual obligation be fulfilled, whoever it may be who gets a grant or any other funding from the State. We are pursuing this with vigour. I know the Deputy is concerned but I am equally so.
71 D’fhiafraigh Deputy Brian O’Shea den Aire Gnóthaí Pobail, Tuaithe agus Gaeltachta an mbeidh an toghchán d’Údarás na Gaeltachta in Aibreán 2010 bunaithe ar na teorannacha nua agus ar an sainmhíniú nua ar cad is Gaeltacht ann; agus an ndéanfaidh sé ráiteas ina thaobh. [16852/09]
Faoi réir alt 28 (1) den Acht um Údarás na Gaeltachta 1979, arna cur isteach trí alt 1 den Acht um Údarás na Gaeltachta (Leasú) 1999, déanfar toghcháin ó am go ham de réir mar a fhorordófar le rialacháin ón Aire, faoi réir iad a dhéanamh i gceann tréimhsí nach giorra ná ceithre bliana ná nach faide ná cúig bliana agus sé mhí.
Reachtáladh an toghchán deireanach d'Údarás na Gaeltachta ar 2 Aibreán 2005. Níl aon chinneadh déanta agam fós maidir le dáta don chéad toghchán eile. Is féidir glacadh leis, áfach, go reachtálfar é in am agus i dtráth de réir na reachtaíochta atá luaite agam, nó cibé reachtaíocht a bhéas i bhfeidhm ag an am, agus i gcomhthéacs aon leasú a dhéanfar amach anseo ar chumhachtaí agus ar fheidhmeanna an Údaráis.
Ní miste dom a lua gur chas mé le bord Údarás na Gaeltachta ar 24 Aibreán agus gur phléigh mé an cheist seo leo, i measc nithe eile.
Tá an tAire ag rá go bhfuil cead aige an toghchán a chur siar go dtí deireadh na bliana seo chugainn. An bhfuil sé ar intinn aige an toghchán a chur siar chomh fada agus is féidir? An bhfuil cinneadh déanta ag an Rialtas maidir le teorannacha Gaeltachta agus an bhfuil sainmhíniú socraithe ar cad is Gaeltacht ann? An bhfuil aon rud ag tarlú?
Sin an rud a chuireann isteach go mór ar dhaoine. Níl dealramh ar an scéal go bhfuil aon obair ar siúl maidir le reachtaíocht a bheidh ag teastáil chun na teorannacha Gaeltachta a aistriú nó an sainmhíniú a leagan síos agus reachtaíocht nua a ullmhú d'Údarás na Gaeltachta. An bhfuil sé ar intinn ag an Rialtas Meitheal Forbartha na Gaeltachta agus an t-údarás a chomhtháthú?
Tá trí cheist shainiúil ansin. De réir an dlí mar atá sé i láthair na huaire, d'fhéadfainn an toghchán a reachtáil am ar bith idir 2 Aibreán 2009 agus 1 Deireadh Fómhair 2010. Ó tharla go bhfuil an plean 20 bliain ann, agus is ansin a bheidh moltaí maidir le hathruithe ar an reachtaíocht — agus glacaim leis go mbeidh athruithe reachtaíochta i gceist, ní hamháin don údarás ach maidir le sainmhíniú ar Ghaeltacht, agus tá ráite agam go mbeidh an sainmhíniú sin bunaithe ar chritéir theangeolaíochta — shamhlóinn go mairfeadh tréimhse an údaráis seo go fómhar na bliana seo chugainn, sé sin go n-úsáidfaí an cúig bliaina go leith atá sa reachtaíocht mar thabharfadh sin tréimhse ama tar éis don phlean 20 bliain a bheith faighte leis na hathruithe reachtaíochta a mbeadh gá leo a thabhairt isteach. Ní chreidim, más féidir é a sheacaint ar chor ar bith, gur ceart toghchán a reachtáil faoin reachtaíocht atá ann faoi láthair má tá seans gur féidir é a dhéanamh faoin reachtaíocht nua agus na hathruithe radacacha curtha i gcrích roimh ré.
An rud atá curtha in iúl agam do bhord an údaráis agus do bhord MFG ná go creidim go raibh fís ag na daoine a d'iarr go mbunófaí Údarás na Gaeltacht an chéad uair go mbeadh údarás láidir Gaeltachta ann le réimse leatha cúramaí agus, mar sin, tá an ceart ag an Teachta, tá i gceist na cúramaí atá ag MFG de réir a chéile a aistriú isteach faoi chúramaí an údaráis.
Tá an mhéar fhada i bhfeidhm arís, tá an Rialtas ag dul siar chomh fada agus is féidir leis an toghchán. Cad é go díreach atá ag tarlú leis an straitéis? An bhfoilseofar é roimh sos an tsamhraidh? Cad faoi phlean gníomhach don Ghaeltacht? Tá gach dealramh ar an scéal nach bhfuil faic ag tarlú. Tá an tAire ag caint i gciorcal an chuid is mó den am agus níl a fhios ag éinne cad tá ar siúl. Ba cheart dó a rá anois go bhfoilseofar an dá chaipéis roimh sos an tsamhraidh.
Ní bheidh dhá thuarascáil ann, ní bheidh ach tuarascáil amháin ann, tá sin ráite agam cheana. Beidh aiseolas ar an staidéar teangeolaíoch mar chuid den straitéis 20 bliain don Ghaeilge mar chuimseoidh an straitéis sin an Ghaeltacht chomh maith leis an chuid eile den tír. Tá dréacht againn.
Tá dha chaipéis ann.
Caipéis amháin a bheidh ann. Beidh straitéis 20 bliain ann don Stát agus is cuid den stát í an Ghaeltacht. Beidh aiseolas maidir leis na cinntí a dhéanfar bunaithe ar an staidéar teangeolaíoch mar chuid den phlean 20 bliain mar sin foilseofar caipéis amháin.
Cathain a fhoilseofar í? An bhfoilseofar roimh an tsamhraidh í?
Tá dréacht ag mo Roinn agus tá muid á scrúdú i láthair na huaire.
Tá freagra maidir le dáta don cheád chruinniú eile den Choiste Comhaireachta i gceann de na freagraí Dála, an mhí seo chugainn, mí na Bealtaine. Tá sé ag bogadh ar aghaidh.
B'fhéidir go bhfoilseofar an straitéis an mhí seo chugainn ansin.
Déanfar an chaipéis a fhoilsiú chomh luath agus is féidir.
72 D’fhiafraigh Deputy Dinny McGinley den Aire Gnóthaí Pobail, Tuaithe agus Gaeltachta an ndéanfaidh sé athbhreithniú ar an gcinneadh sa Ghaeltacht a chur ar ceal, de barr na ndeacrachtaí a chruthaíonn sé sin; agus an ndéanfaidh sé ráiteas ina thaobh. [16850/09]
Mar is eol don Teachta, d'fhógair mé ar 7 Aibreán 2009 nach mbeadh mo Roinnse ag glacadh le tuilleadh iarratais faoi Scéim Tithíochta Gaeltachta don chuid eile den bhliain seo de bharr líon na n-iarratas a bhí ar láimh ag an am agus méid na ndeontas a bhí ceadaithe cheana féin.
Mar iomlánú ar an gcomhthéacs sin, ní miste dom a mhíniú don Teach go raibh luach €6.1m de dheontais ceadaithe ag mo Roinnse ach gan a bheith íoctha nuair a rinne mé an fógra sin; agus iarratais ar chúnamh suas le €4m idir lámha ag mo Roinnse.
Cé go raibh suim iomlán €5 mhilliún íoctha amach ag mo Roinnse faoin scéim i 2008, i gcomparáid leis an soláthar €4 mhilliún — d'íoc mé amach €1 mhilliún breise ag an Nollaig — a bhí curtha ar fáil don bhliain sin, ba léir — ag féachaint do na cúinsí atá luaite agam — nach mbeadh an soláthar de €2.95 mhilliún atá ar fáil i mbliana dóthaineach.
Is féidir liom a dheimhniú don Teachta, áfach, go ndéanfar próiseáil ar na hiarratais uile atá idir lámha ag mo Roinnse agus ceadófar deontais bunaithe ar na hiarratais sin sa ghnáth-bhealach. Chomh maith leis sin, ní miste a lua go bhfuil se tagtha chun solais go bhféadfadh líon beag cásanna a bheith ann ina raibh cead pleanála iomlán faighte ag daoine le haghaidh teach nua a thógáil sa Ghaeltacht nuair a rinneadh an fógra ar 7 Aibreán agus, cé nach raibh iarratas déanta acu, go bhféadfaí a rá go mbeadh siad cáilithe le haghaidh deontais faoi choinníollacha eile na scéime. Sna chúinsí sin, tá socraithe agam go mbeifear sásta, sa tréimhse suas go 15 Meitheamh 2009 amháin, iarratais ar dheontais do thithe nua a bhreithniú ar bhonn eisceachtúil in aon chás inar féidir le hiarratasóir a léiriú go soiléir go raibh cead pleanála iomlán aige nó aici ina hainm nó ina ainm féin don teach nua atá i gceist ar nó roimh 7 Aibreán 2009. Beidh fógra ina thaobh seo á eisiúint ag mo Roinnse go han-luath.
Ar deireadh, ní miste a lua gur fhógair mé freisin go ndéanfar athbhreithniú ar scéim tithíochta mo Roinne i gcomhthéacs an phlean 20 bliain don Ghaeilge agus an t-airgead a chuirfear ar fáil do mo Roinnse sna Meastacháin do 2010.
Ba mhaith liom ar dtús buíochas a thabhairt don Aire as soiléiriú a dhéanamh ar phointe an-thábhachtach ar fad, is é sin gur cuireadh deireadh go tobann agus gan choinne leis an deontas ar an 17 Aibreán. Tá áthas orm go dtuigeann an tAire go raibh daoine a chur costas mór orthu féin sna Gaeltachtaí le cead pleanála a fháil agus go bhfuil síneadh ama anois go dtí an 15 Meitheamh chun é sin a dhéanamh.
An aontódh an tAire liom go raibh éifeacht mhór leis na deontais seo sa Ghaeltacht mar go raibh an oiread sin daoine ag cur isteach orthu, ní hamháin do thithe úra, ach le feabhsúcháin agus deisiúcháin a dhéanamh ar thithe? An aontódh sé go raibh leas mór á bhaint as na deontais seo ag muintir na Gaeltachta? An aontódh sé chomh maith gur deontas é a bhí ceangailte go dlúth le labhairt na teanga, mar go raibh sé mar choinníoll gurb í an Ghaeilge an teanga teaghlaigh le cáileadh don deontas? An bhfuil an deontas seo ar ceal go sealadach nó an bhfuil an scéim ar fionraí. An bhfuil sé ar intinn ag an Aire é a thabhairt ar ais nuair atá an brú seo imithe?
Ó thaobh figiúrí de, bhíodh an deontas ag ríocht idir €3.5 mhilliún agus €4 mhilliún sa bhliain. Ansin, tá cúpla bliain ó shin, thug mé isteach deontas speisialta aon-uaire le déileáil le fadhbanna a d'éirigh ó thaobh na mná tí agus cúrsaí slándála agus tine, agus chuaigh an t-éileamh suas. Shíl muid nuair a bheadh an obair sin déanta go laghdódh an t-éileamh ar an scéim, ar ais go dtí an áit a bhíodh sé nó níos lú, mar, mar is eol don Teachta go maith, tá riail seacht mbliana maidir le hiarratais. Bhí súil agamsa mar sin, idir an €5 mhilliún anuraidh agus an €3 mhilliún i mbliana — sin meán de €4 mhilliún mar a bhíodh ann cheana — go mbeadh dóthain airgid ann.
Mar a thárla sé, tá éileamh an-láidir ar an scéim faoi láthair. Ciallaíonn sé sin, mar atá ráite ag an Teachta go beacht, nach bhfuil dóthain soláthair agam leis an scéim a choinneáil ar oscailt. Shíl mé mar sin go mb'fhearr déileáil leis na hiarratais atá ar lámha. Má cheadaítear gach iarratas, ach is dóigh nach gceadófar mar ní bheidh gach duine in-cáilithe, ach ag glacadh leis go mbeidh roinnt áirithe nach gceadófar nó nach n-éileofar, tá muid fós ag caint go bhfuil luach dhá bhliain ar a laghad, nó b'fhéidir le cois sin, ar lámha againn de cheadúcháin a bheidh muid ag íoc amach as seo i mbliana agus an bhliain seo chugainn agus an bhliain dar gcionn. Creidim go bhfuil luach leis an scéim seo, ach, ar ndóigh, tá teorann leis an airgead. Tá go leor rudaí éagsúla le déanamh. Níl sé éasca freastal ar chuile trá.
An cheist dheiridh a chur an Teachta ná céard faoi thodhcaí na scéime. Maidir le todhcaí na scéime, ba mhaith liom a dheimhniú don Teachta ——
Ba mhaith liom ligint don Teachta ceist ghairid a chur.
Tuigeann an tAire an deacracht mhór atá ag baint le tógáil ar oileán. An bhféadfadh sé eisceacht a dhéanamh dos na hoileáin? An bhféadfadh sé a dheimhniú dom nach mbeidh aon ró-mhoill le híoc deontais do theach a bhfuil an obair críochnaithe air? Tuigim go bhfuil deacrachtaí agus moilliú ar an Aire i láthair na huaire. An bhféadfadh sé deireadh a chur leis sin agus an t-airgead a thabhairt amach nuair atá an obair déanta?
Maidir le íoc amach, níl aon mhoill ar sin. Go deimhin, bhí mé ag breathnú ar fhigiúirí inniu agus chomh fada agus is cuimhin liom, tá leath de dheontas na bliana seo íoctha amach cheana féin. Sin figiúr i bhfad níos airde ná mar a d'íoc muid amach chomh luath seo sa bhliain, go bhfios domsa, le blianta fada.
Sin de thoradh an obair a rinneadh anuraidh, b'fhéidir.
Tá sé íoctha amach anois. An áit a raibh moill, ná ní raibh ceadacha nua á dhéanamh mar bhí bac ar cheadacha nua caipitil le cúpla mí anuas ón Roinn Airgeadais. Beidh muid ag ceadú na ndeontas, agus sin cúis eile go mb'fhearr stopadh, mar tá riar mór iarratas ar lámha. B'fhearr liomsa na hiarratais sin ar fad a phróiseáil agus an liosta sin a ghlanadh uilig le go mbeidh cinneadh faighte ag gach aon duine an bhfuileadar ceadaithe le haghaidh deontas nó nach bhfuil. Tá iarrtha agam ar oifig na Roinne dlús a chur leis an obair sin, mar chreidim má chuireann duine iarratas isteach gur ceart freagra a fháil agus cinneadh a fháil ar an iarratas laistigh de thréimhse ama réasúnta. Tagaim go hiomlán leis an Teachta i dtaobh sin.
