Joint Committee on Social Protection, Community and Rural Development and the Islands díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 12 Jul 2023

Public Service Performance Report 2022: Department of Rural and Community Development

An Cathaoirleach

Apologies have been received from Deputy Joan Collins. I ask members and witnesses to turn off their mobile phones or ensure they are in silent mode. Members participating in the meeting remotely should use the raise hand icon on Microsoft Teams if they wish to contribute.

The committee will consider the Public Service Performance Report 2022 with officials from the Department of Rural and Community Development. This is the committee's second engagement on the report, following consideration of it with officials from the Department of Social Protection last week. As part of the committee's work on performance indicators, it is hoped we can collaborate with the Departments in the coming year on the targets selected to appear in the performance report. Scrutiny of these measures will play a pivotal role in the committee's consideration of the Revised Estimates and the public service performance report for 2023. Performance-based budgeting aims to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of public expenditure by linking the funding of public sector organisations to the results they deliver by making systematic use of performance information. The key output of this project is a framework to tag and track all areas of public expenditure across dimensions of equality, wellbeing, the sustainable development goals, SDGs, and green budgeting. I welcome Mr. J.P. Mulherin, assistant secretary, corporate affairs and strategic development division; Ms Deirdre Kelly, principal officer, social inclusion and communities unit; and Mr. John Orme, assistant principal officer at the finance and evaluation unit.

Before we start, I wish to explain some limitations to parliamentary privilege and the practice of the Houses as regards references witnesses may make to other persons in their evidence. The evidence of witnesses physically present or who give evidence from within the parliamentary precincts is protected pursuant to both the Constitution and statute by absolute privilege. Witnesses are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not criticise nor make charges against any person or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable or otherwise engage in speech that might be regarded as damaging to the good name of the person or entity. Therefore, if their statements are potentially defamatory in respect of an identifiable person or entity, they will be directed to discontinue their remarks. It is imperative they comply with any such direction. Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

I call Mr. Mulherin to make his opening statement.

Mr. J.P. Mulherin

I thank the Chair and wish everyone a good morning. I thank the committee for the opportunity to present this opening statement on behalf of the Department of Rural and Community Development. The Department has been invited to speak on the topic of the Public Service Performance Report 2022. As members will be aware, the report was published just last month and provides metrics and information for all Vote groups. The material is compiled by the Department of Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery, and Reform, which works with colleagues in each line Department, including the Department of Rural and Community Development. One of the stated aims of the report is to provide a more succinct and accessible overview than is set out in the Revised Estimates Volume. The Revised Estimates contains a greater number of metrics and is presented at a time detailed outturn information is not available in respect of performance under each of the published metrics for the previous year. As such, the public service performance report attempts to address this shortfall by providing Oireachtas committees with details as to what was achieved in the previous year.

Given the purpose of the report, the metrics tend to focus on the larger schemes within the Department while attempting to reflect the variety of measures that are seen as particularly impactful on the ground and for the citizen. The metrics presented provide a good overview of the extent of delivery and support planned and the Department’s progress in meeting those targets. In some instances, targets were not met. The continued impact of Covid-19 in 2022 slowed the delivery of larger capital projects in particular. This learning is in itself is a valuable outcome as it ensures we are more focused on progressing delivery in these areas. In other instances targets were exceeded. For example, the social inclusion and community activation programme, SICAP, expanded to provide support for people from Ukraine and those seeking international protection. This greatly increased the number of individuals supported compared with the target originally set. Further details in respect of all of the indicators are included in the briefing note provided to the committee and I am happy to explore the members' views on these.

I also note performance budgeting forms just one part of the Department’s focus on ensuring schemes are impactful and represent value for money. The Department has an inspection and compliance unit, which is a key component of ensuring projects have been delivered as agreed. Furthermore, an evaluation unit is also in place and this unit has, among other work, completed focused policy assessments on a range of schemes including the local improvement scheme, LIS, the town and village renewal scheme and the rural regeneration and development fund, RRDF. These reviews consider specific funding areas and assess the investment with respect to alignment with the original rational for funding, scheme outputs and impacts and finally scheme relevance in the context of sectoral and Government policy. The reports arrive at recommendations for improvements to scheme delivery that are fed back into policy units. All these reports are published on the Department's website.

We will also shortly publish the Department’s annual report for 2022, which I believe will provide committee members with a good sense of the breadth of activity within the Department and which goes deeper than the very specific indicators in the public service performance report.

Finally, the Department is also fully engaged with the interdepartmental work on equality budgeting and attends the interdepartmental group that is progressing this work area. The Department has equality budgeting metrics for four funding schemes in the Revised Estimates - LEADER; SICAP; the community services programme, CSP; and the senior alert scheme - although a considerable number of our community-focused schemes support wider social equity measures. We will continue to actively contribute to this work across government, which is helping to develop knowledge on how funding is impacting particular groups in society.

In closing, the Department is very much engaged in the performance budgeting process. Monitoring delivery on targets helps to ensure that we are accountable to the public and that we can address delivery issues when they arise. I look forward to the conversation today on the public service performance report, and will seek to address any questions or queries that might arise, and follow up afterwards if necessary. I note in the Chair's opening address the reference to collaborating with Departments, and we are happy to do that in the coming months in advance of the preparation of the Revised Estimates Volume in October and November of this year.

An Cathaoirleach

I thank Mr. Mulherin for his opening comments. I want to pick up on his last comment. I know this is slightly different within his Department from within the Department of Social Protection, but the latter produces a set of statistics on a quarterly and annual basis. That is going to be used initially by the committee in starting its engagement on the indicators. The reason I am saying that is that there is a huge body of data that is being collected by every Department. What we want to do is get the right metric. We do not want to reinvent the wheel. There are a huge amount of metrics being collected on a regular basis from the Department, and what we found with the Department of Social Protection is that the committee members feel the correct basket of data is not being monitored. What would be of assistance to us is for the Department to furnish us with the data that it collects and has, so that we could use that as a template to look at what are or would be the effective indicators, rather than us trying to reinvent the wheel.

We would like to get detail on the breadth of data and statistics. In the Department's case it is probably more financial than statistical with regard to persons because it is a different Department, the Department of Social Protection. However, we would like to get that breadth of statistics so we could look at that and maybe some more effective indicators that we could both agree will deliver on the Department's objectives, but also give us a perspective of what is happening on a daily basis. I will leave that with Mr. Mulherin.

Mr. J.P. Mulherin

We are happy to do that. There is quite a broad breadth of schemes, and there is a broad amount of information. One gets different information types depending on the scheme. That is not to confuse matters. The conversation today might help to pinpoint some of the areas that we need to focus on as well. If one takes schemes like SICAP or the CSP, there are detailed annual reports with very detailed indicators provided as part of that. For schemes like the RRDF or the town and village renewal scheme, a lot of what we have is qualitative information, like case studies of projects and things like that, which would not necessarily fit neatly with the public service performance report. We are happy to engage further and see what we can provide in that regard.

An Cathaoirleach

Deputy Ó Cathasaigh is first to indicate.

Deputy Marc Ó Cathasaigh

I thank the Chair. I have a couple of reasonably straightforward questions. I think we all forget that 2022 was a Covid-19 pandemic year, and about the impact there was on capital projects. We kind of wiped the memory banks on that.

I wanted to ask about the walks scheme in particular, and the uptake. Any reaction I am getting from it on the ground is really positive. The landowners are quite happy with how it is working, and they are talking to other landowners and saying if the walks scheme is proposed on their land, it is not a bad idea. It is working out. That is one pocket of the world, and I wonder if the Department finds that kind of positivity across the country. That spend, in my mind, still represents value for money, but I would be interested in the Department's opinion on that.

On the My Open Library project, there was a target of 55 and delivery was reported at 87, but the number in service by the end of 2022 was 30. In my own town of Tramore, we have got a very ambitious one. We are all really looking forward to it, but at the minute the library in Tramore is boarded up. I think we only realised how important it was in the town when the doors closed. I would like a progress update on that.

Then, on a bigger ticket, there is the RRDF and the town and village renewal scheme. We have two fairly landmark policies in the area, the Our Rural Future and town centre first policies. I wonder has there been any difficulty integrating the RRDF and the town and village renewal scheme into that, or is a level of policy coherence making those things add up to more than the sum of their parts? Has it made Mr. Mulherin's life more difficult or easier to see those overarching policies come into position?

Mr. J.P. Mulherin

On the walks scheme, the target was to have 80 in place and we are a little bit behind that. My expectation is that all of those walks will be on stream by the end of the year. That will represent a doubling of the number of walks under the scheme. The reaction on the ground is very positive. It is now open to additional expressions of interest for new walks that want to come into the scheme, and I believe there is considerable demand for it. We have increased the number of rural recreation officers across the country to try and support the development of those walks and the development of outdoor recreation opportunities generally. This fits in with the new outdoor recreation policy that was published by the Department in the second half of last year. From a tourism and well-being perspective for local communities, there are huge opportunities there. That is reflected in the outdoor recreation policy that was published, and the value that we are getting from the walks scheme is significant. I always go back to the point that these are walks that are provided on private land with the goodwill of farmers, and this is engaging farmers in maintaining those walks for people who use them. It is a win-win for everybody, and something which we and the Minister for Rural and Community Development, Deputy Humphreys, are keen to build on.

On My Open Library, there is a lot of work going on in that space to try to expand the numbers there. The numbers that are actually delivering the service relative to the supports that have been provided is less than we might have anticipated, but the expectation is that it is going to grow over the next couple of years. There is a new libraries capital programme that has opened up as well to provide additional investment in the development of libraries.

On the Deputy's last point about the town and village renewal scheme, the RRDF and policy coherence, the development of the town centre first policy has, in fact, really been of benefit for both of those investment programmes. Even within the Department we have restructured how we do things a little bit. We have brought the town and village renewal and RRDF schemes together with the town centre first policy. What we are really trying to do under those schemes is very much aligned with what is happening under town centre first. There has been a huge amount of investment under both of those schemes in the last number of years. What the town centre first policy is trying to do is bring a bit more structure to planning at a local level, so that all of the community is bought into whatever investment is going into the towns. We moved away from the more low-hanging fruit types of projects that have been around for years, and now there is a bit more of a focus on town teams and town centre first officers trying to identify the best opportunities within these towns to be supported under these schemes. We see that the town centre first policy has really been an opportunity for the delivery of both of those investment programmes.

Deputy Paul Donnelly

I have a couple of questions and comments. My first question relates to the impact on existing supports under SICAP, in the context of the outturn of €56 million and the original estimate of €51 million. I know most of that increase is related to extra supports for Ukrainian refugees. Is there a way that we can separate the funding going to Ukrainian refugees?

I would be slightly concerned that supports which were originally going to, or were designated for SICAP and for people in disadvantaged communities, would in some way be utilised for Ukrainian refugees. Is there any sort of slippage in that in terms of supports? When it is all put into the one pot, and we have had 80,000 Ukrainian refugees come into the country, extra funding of €6 million to SICAP does not seem an awful lot as a support for 80,000 coming in the space of a year or a year and a half. My concern is that some of the existing services are suffering.

As to the local community development committees, LCDCs, one of the big concerns is around community engagement. I see there is an underspend though it is not a huge amount of money. There are concerns around the LCDCs, community supports, community engagement and how we ensure community participation. I am a bit concerned about there being an underspend. I know there was Covid-19, which probably would have affected that underspend as well. I refer to the community enhancement programme for the community centre investments in particular. There is a concern. One group in my constituency got a fairly decent amount of money for a community centre. However, the problem is that when they went in to get the assessment and the builders in, they discovered a significant problem and that has kicked back their timeline. I know the money has to be spent within a certain timeframe, but as we all know in building works, things happen in very old buildings. I asked the Minister, who said the Department would look at individual cases to allow the community to extend the time. However, I am wondering is that correct? Will that be allowed if something comes up? As we know ourselves, building projects can overrun.

Regarding the community services programme, CSP, is that underspend Covid-related and the fact that it is up to €2 million? Also, looking at the number of organisations supported under the CSP, it targeted 436 and there was delivery for 427. Regarding the numbers of those employment, there was a target of 2,005, which ended up at 2,120. I seek detail around the numbers in that.

Mr. J.P. Mulherin

I will make a few comments and then will get my colleague to come in on some the social inclusion stuff as well.

Regarding SICAP and Ukraine in particular, I commend the work which the local development companies are doing on the ground. They are really making a significant contribution to the integration and support for Ukrainians and indeed those seeking international protection. From our perspective in the Department, an additional €5 million was provided in the second half of last year and €10 million this year. This was specific additional funding on top of what local development companies already had to assist with that existing additional workload and burden. There is no doubting that there is additional pressure in what they are doing but we are confident the additional funding is certainly going a good deal of the way to supporting them in that work. Again, I will turn to Ms Kelly in a few minutes to say a bit more about that.

As regards the LCDCs, the underspend is fairly marginal. It is more operational than anything else and is not significant in terms of the funding that is going into it. There is a huge level of engagement. LCDCs are getting involved in more and more things all of the time. There is a specific unit in our Department to support the LCDCs. There is funding going into staffing in the LCDCs to the work they are doing. There was a review of that recently to ascertain whether that was sufficient or what additional supports we could provide. There was also guidance produced recently to assist engagement with the community and voluntary sector and guidance around all of that, which again should help community engagement as referenced in the Deputy's remarks.

On the community centre fund specifically, there was a huge demand for it and huge investment going into it. The information I am getting is that the delivery is very strong and that the level of spend under the programme is very healthy. We always run into problems with capital funds. We have seen it under the RRDF, in particular, but we see it right across the programmes which the Department is delivering. We have always shown a degree of flexibility in cases where projects run into trouble. We understand that these are communities trying to deliver these projects. At the same time, we are also conscious of our responsibility to manage the funding we have and try to deliver projects as quickly as we can. When projects are delayed, it potentially removes that funding from being available to others. However, insofar as we can, we always work with those who have been given the funding to try to overcome those problems and I suspect that will continue to be the case under the community centres fund. I suggest they engage with Pobal and the Department as part of that, if the Deputy is referring to a very particular case.

The community services programme has been completely reviewed over the past year. The new scheme was launched at the start of this year. Some really substantial changes were made to the programme. Additional funding is now available for the existing groups and for the staff and the managers within those CSP organisations. A lot of work is being done behind the scenes in monitoring performance and looking at what has been achieved. The review has shown it is a very successful programme. The Minister of State, Deputy Joe O'Brien, has launched a new call for new organisations to come into it. This is now closed. There is a considerable level of demand for that as well. It is a real positive story around the community service programme and how it is helping social enterprises and those who are distant from the labour market and providing community spaces and services. There has been some drop-off in spend in the year the Deputy referenced. We are confident that will not be repeated given the additional funding that is being provided to these organisations. After the review that was done of the programme, we might have expected the changes to have come in sooner than they actually did but they are in place now. I will hand over to Ms Kelly on the social inclusion programme.

Ms Deirdre Kelly

I will add to what Mr. Mulherin has said about the additional funding that has gone under the banner of the social inclusion programme to the Ukrainian population. The SICAP annual report is just being finalised at the moment and will be published shortly. It will give a much broader and more holistic sense of what is going on under SICAP. However, it certainly appears from the metrics to come in the annual report that there has not been any significant impact on other services, while recognising that there was been a significant increase in the services provided to both the Ukrainian population and also the population of other migrant cohorts. To give the committee a sense of it, the supports to individuals, who would be described under SICAP as new communities and which covers all the different cohorts, has increased from 13% in 2021 to 31% in 2022 and it is at 38% already this year. Therefore, it has increased significantly but the other metrics around other populations or other areas of support under SICAP have not decreased to the same extent. There are a couple of them that have decreased but there are other reasons for that. For example, the unemployment situation in the country is different now than it was in 2021 and 2022 and the supports are adjusting accordingly. Other than that, there really has not been any significant decrease in any of the other metrics under SICAP. As Mr. Mulherin indicated, the local development companies are doing absolutely amazing work on the ground in the context of social inclusion. This is the case under SICAP, under other programmes that are funded by various Departments, and other funding as well, and that continues to be the case. At the moment, we are about to go to procurement for the next iteration of SICAP which will start next year. We envisage that work continuing both with the indigenous populations and cohorts who SICAP normally works with but also with all new communities. The additional funding that was provided under SICAP for the Ukrainian community has been expanded now to include all international protection accommodation services, IPAS. It covers all new communities therefore that additional funding can be used for these as well. It appears to us from the metrics we have and we are confident that it is working well for the new communities but also for the other communities. Obviously, we never have enough resources and we could always have more but the ones we have are working well at the moment under the social inclusion banner.

Deputy Paul Donnelly

I thank the witnesses for the responses. The work that has been done is absolutely phenomenal. It is good to hear that when the report comes out around the social inclusion and community activation programme, SICAP, the metrics do show that the existing communities who continue to need that support are not being impacted and that they need extra funding or extra support. That is welcome.

The libraries issue is completely off the track on this in terms of funding, but I commend the people working in the libraries. We need to give them supports with regard to some of the issues they have been facing with people coming into the libraries, particularly the right-wing groups that have been harassing them. I know this a funding issue, but it needs to come very strongly from this committee that the staff within those libraries need to be fully supported.

An Cathaoirleach

I think that is unanimously supported by all members of the committee. That type of behaviour should not be tolerated anywhere in this country. People are carrying out their very valuable work on a day-to-day basis and this other behaviour should not be tolerated.

It would be useful for the committee if we got the figures under the SICAP segregated out. Ms Kelly might furnish us with those data when she gets a chance, excluding the Ukrainian aspect of it, in order that we can compare like with like over the year. We acknowledge that it is a very different employment market, but it would give us a clear indicator of what is happening.

Does anyone else want to come back on what Deputy Donnelly said or are members happy to move on? Does Deputy Ó Cuív wish to comment?

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív

I will just come back in on the SICAP. These programmes are valuable but whether it is sufficient is a different issue. Does Ms Kelly have any metrics, especially in very disadvantaged communities, with regard to the actual impact this is having in terms of third-level access or a reduction in the number of people who wind up in prison? Are these societal programmes having the impact? If they are not then they are totally insufficient.

There are two types of what we call deprivation. There is one concerning the individual, which we can have in any community. Then, there is the more agglomerated form we used to call rejuvenating areas through planning, investment and development, RAPID, where we get huge areas of challenge, which has a lateral effect within the community where we get very low educational attainment and, unfortunately, relatively higher numbers going to prison, more antisocial behaviour, more drug use and all these things. Are we making any impression on any of these things? At the end of the day, we can measure all the metrics we want, but these are the only and the ultimate metrics that should count to us on this side of the room.

Ms Deirdre Kelly

The annual report is coming soon. There are a number of case studies, and more analytical work is done in the annual report. I have a few outputs that may be of interest. The level of detail I have to hand would not be able to give the Deputy a full answer but certainly, there are a few outputs here that might be of interest.

Since 2018, which is the current SICAP programme, 107,553 individuals have been supported under SICAP on different things, such as lifelong learning, unemployment supports, etc. A total of 5,539 local community groups and 953 social enterprises have been supported under SICAP. A total of 8,782 people have progressed into employment since 2018 with the supports they got under SICAP, and 11,036 people have set up their own businesses, which is another element of SICAP, by the way, that provides supports for enterprise development and start-ups with mentoring and that kind of thing. Nearly 53,500 people have participated in what is defined as lifelong learning, which is training and further capacity-building supports under SICAP. They are just some of the numbers. I know that is not what the Deputy is looking at really. It is more impact rather than the outputs.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív

Yes, because any organisation on that basis can appear to be successful in doing anything and presumably the Department would insist on that. From our point of view, however, we have to look at a much wider figure.

Ms Deirdre Kelly

Absolutely, yes.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív

Has a metric ever been done against the overall effect of all the programmes in tackling unemployment, which should be at a record low anyway? That is true right across society. As I said, this includes antisocial behaviour and convictions. If a person goes into prison once, that is a major problem for the rest of his or her life in terms of reputation and getting jobs. Any of us who deal with people will know the number who get into apprenticeships, trades and various third-level institutions and so on. I would not measure third level as being the be-all and end-all of everything.

I remember that, at one time, a community scheme measured it on three levels, that is, third level, an apprenticeship or a particular skill, and then there were those who wound up unskilled, doing general labour or unemployed. Is the State measuring the effect of these programmes against those wider metrics? Worthy and all as they are, it is totally insufficient in these concentrated areas that we, and I mean the whole Oireachtas and Government, are not actually making the gains on concentrated urban deprivation that we should.

Ms Deirdre Kelly

I know what the Deputy is saying in the context of impact. As I said, in the annual report for the SICAP in 2022, there is much more analysis rather than just the numbers. From the government-wide perspective, there is another initiative to note under the SICAP that was developed a couple of years ago and that is sort of in the air. It is in the early to mid-stages of analysis, if you like. It is called a distance travelled tool. When individuals come in for supports, information is collected on them all the way through their engagement with SICAP to determine whether the programme is working for them and providing the impact they need. We are looking at that. That is a learning process at the moment. That is something that will help us determine what the Deputy is asking about whether the SICAP is actually providing the impact that is required. That is under the SICAP, however. From the perspective of all of the programmes together, I do not really have an answer to that question to be honest.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív

A measure that was commonly used previously was the Trutz Haase index.

Ms Deirdre Kelly

Yes, the deprivation indices.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív

I remember we had someone from Trutz Haase in the office, God rest him, and we were talking to him about the index. He told us they had this very complicated way of calculating it but he said that if we checked out Ticketmaster sales, we would get the same answer. I told him he was codding, and that rural communities would not need to buy tickets because if people are going to matches and things, nobody goes to Ticketmaster. He said that no, the answer would be the same. We tried a few places like islands and whatever and, fair enough, people were buying the tickets and, again, it nearly matched perfectly. It just showed social deprivation that one would not even think of. The people in the RAPID areas, as we would have known them, were not buying from Ticketmaster.

Ms Deirdre Kelly

Buying tickets.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív

Now, this is what I am wondering. The Trutz Haase test was a very good measure that went way beyond the actual way it was being done by asking people whether they had two coats, two pairs of shoes or a good overcoat or whatever it was. It seemed to be a very accurate measure. My question is, if I do it today and compare it with 20 years ago, will I find an improvement in these areas in the metrics or will I not? That is what I am talking about, because if not, we are failing. We are failing because the young people who are born into these communities are at a disadvantage when it comes to their own wellbeing into the future. Until we tackle that, we are failing. I am not sure what the total answer is to urban deprivation. People talk about rural deprivation. I have lived in a rural community for a long time. It is not the same thing, particularly for children. It is just not the same thing for children. If we look at third-level education, the more remote the areas, the higher numbers going to third level. That is just one measure. I am only picking that because it is an easy one to measure.

Does the Department do it against such broad indices? Are the programmes that are meant to be tackling deprivation actually succeeding on the wider scale? It is easy to say we had a success year with individuals. Are we having the group success we need to have as a society to give fair play and equal opportunities to every child who is born in this country?

Ms Deirdre Kelly

I know what the Deputy is saying. We now call the model he is talking about the resource allocation model. We are still using those indices to support work under SICAP. Pobal worked with Trutz Haase to develop those indices. It is currently planning to update them in line with the new census data. Small area population data do not come out until September, and they are required to update those indices. They will be updated at the end of this year, and I will take note of what the Deputy has suggested. It is interesting to compare the results from the previous update, which was a couple of censuses ago. This update will reflect the latest census. It will be an interesting exercise, and I will speak to Pobal about doing a compare-and-contrast exercise to see what the differences are.

An Cathaoirleach

In the context of the conversation we had at the start of the meeting, we ask Ms Kelly to explore if she is aware of another indicator inside or outside the Department. This may be a conversation the committee also needs to have with the Central Statistics Office, CSO, to see what data might be available as a more effective indicator of what is happening on the ground. This is the point we are trying to make. In themselves, figures and numbers do not benefit the committee as it seeks to ascertain what is happening. The objective behind this reporting mechanism is so we, as Members of the Oireachtas, have a better idea of what is happening. It may involve looking at a combination of data from the Departments of Education and Social Protection. It might not be within Ms Kelly's remit. We cannot access Ticketmaster data, but there may be equivalent data, in combination, that could act as an effective metric to know what is going on with this funding. We ask the Department to look at that. It may be an issue we need to take up with the CSO.

Mr. J.P. Mulherin

I will come back on the broader point about indicators. So far, as part of the public service performance report and as part of the Revised Estimates Volume, we have tried to provide indicators that link directly to the funding provided, so there is clear causality between specific amounts of funding and the output indicator or impact. I understand the need for broader indicators. It is something we need to reflect on. Those broader indicators will be influenced by lots of different expenditure across different Departments. Linking our expenditure to those outcomes might be something we need to reflect on.

We have been doing work with the Economic and Social Research Institute, ESRI, to try to develop broad indicators at a high level that look at the evolution of our aims in community development and rural development to come up with a suite of indicators to assess that over time. That work is ongoing. A report was produced in 2021, which looked at what was done internationally. The report found that not one size fits all. This is a complex area requiring all sorts of qualitative and quantitative analysis. They are in the process of refining a set of indicators. My team is engaging with them on that at the moment. That may throw up some useful indicators for the members of the committee. I cannot say whether that will be ready for this year, but it is in the pipeline. We are aware of the need to get the broader overview of the impact. That is not just the impact of what we do, but what is being done across government under programmes like Our Rural Future and the impact they are having.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív

There had been a recognition that as well as needing SICAP, areas of concentrated disadvantage had such concentrated problems that further action was needed across government but somewhere down the line - in 2011 or 2012 - the Department of Rural and Community Development decided to stop the programme that was specifically focused in those areas. I do not blame the Department because it was a purely political decision. The idea behind the programme in question - the RAPID programme, which was led by the Department but was across every Department - was that you picked out the really deprived communities, and would not budge an inch outside. All of the Departments were then put under the chairpersonship of the Department of Rural and Community Development and the Minister, and heads were banged together cross-departmentally. It was led by Mr. Mulherin's Department.

Here is what I am trying to get at. The big problem in government is that even though there is only one Government, the Departments act in silos. It is natural because of the way their budgets come, but it is a problem. This was an effort for one Department to lead in breaking the silo and smashing it. Somebody got the idea to smash the programme. If it is not working as we are doing it, then worthy as SICAP and the others are, some Department, which seems to be Mr. Mulherin's, has to go back to look at the metrics and say it is not working. He is right to point out we have all of these individual programmes. However, the point is that somebody has to lead it. There have to be concentrated support mechanisms for these areas of greatest deprivation, which are a blight on our country because of the way we leave people. When I say a blight on our country I mean it, because we just do not give people a fair crack of the whip.

An Cathaoirleach

The broader issue, as included in this year's public service performance report, is that the sustainable development goals do not depend on individual Departments. The one positive from the sustainable development goals is that they break down that silo mentality. That is in every government, and not just in the Government in this country. That silo aspect is across the world. As a committee, we want to see measures we feel are more effective. I take the Mr. Mulherin's point about spending, which is something I will come back to in my own contribution later, in terms of how we measure that. There has to be a different approach, based on an acknowledgement across government that we are looking at the delivery of sustainable development goals which do not depend on one Department. I do not know if Mr. Mulherin wants to make a comment.

Mr. J.P. Mulherin

Yes. As I have said, we are happy to work with the committee on those indicators. I will speak to the points made by Deputy Ó Cuív, specifically about RAPID. He knows more about RAPID than I ever will, so I will not go into too much detail. That programme was replaced by something else, which was the community enhancement programme. On top of that, the Department is working on specific and innovative programmes to try to address the types of things just mentioned. There is the empowering communities programme, which has picked those areas of highest deprivation and is bringing community development workers and the community development approach, to work with communities in specific disadvantaged areas with high levels of deprivation. A number of different ones across the country have been picked. There is also a community development programme working with particular cohorts of individuals along similar lines. The programme is working with three or four different Traveller communities across the country to address the particular challenges faced by that cohort.

I would say there is quite a lot happening under different programmes. Granted, they are different from what has been done before. We need to look continuously at what they are achieving and measure the impact. There are a number of things happening. There is also a social inclusion group working across government to try to bring the different pieces together, to look at what different programmes are achieving and try to do that in a coherent way.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív

If there is a cross-departmental group chaired by the Minister, it must be totally focused on these highly deprived areas and making sure they are all pulling their weight. I have come to admire self-help within communities. One thing struck me in the past.

I remember there was discussion about a certain very deprived community about which there was a lot of publicity, and the first thing was that they were going to empower the people. I said they should hang on and not treat the people as fools because they are as intelligent as you and I, they are as smart and worldly-wise as you and I, but they just did not get a chance. What RAPID tried to do was put the people living there in control. One of the essentials of RAPID was that the area implementation team, AIT, had people who had to live in the local authority estates of that particular RAPID area, not people coming in from outside, social workers and so on, who are all very worthy and much-needed, but for the first time it was trying to say that self-development is much more sustainable, so we would facilitate self-development.

I have seen both methods and, in my view, one reason, with limited resources, rural Ireland is relatively successful is that it is the community that does all of the big events from the inside. As to the idea of bringing in experts from outside, they would just laugh and say “We can do it.” We were trying to bring that model to people to encourage them, to let them know they were in control and give them the money, and to show them that their say-so was the ultimate thing in regard to spending the money. I do not know whether it was working because it did not last long enough but I have a suspicion that when we have the statistics, we will find out that what we have now is not working, even though we have a very buoyant economy which should be lifting all boats.

An Cathaoirleach

We will have further engagement with the Department on this. I call Deputy Ó Laoghaire.

Deputy Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire

I apologise that I am late and that I will have to leave shortly for a speaking slot in the Dáil Chamber. I have some observations. It is about pulling it all together. It sounds like things are planned and things are happening in terms of the Empowering Communities programme. I am not terribly familiar with the programme and I need to get familiar with it, but I will give what insight I can.

In my own community, Togher was designated a RAPID area and insofar as it worked, and to be fair to the Department, it is the case that we cannot tackle disadvantage by public realm works like playgrounds or by supporting community centres. They certainly help and they can play a very significant role, but this goes to education, employment and any amount of other things. Insofar as RAPID had an impact on my community, what it did was pull it all together. It created planning mechanisms that led to a number of things, for example, a new bus route and new football pitches, and it helped to co-ordinate a campaign for regaining DEIS status for the school. It was drawing it all together. To be fair to Cork City Council, it retains an element of the RAPID programme in terms of employing some community wardens for those areas even though the scheme does not exist nationally.

Progress has been made in my community. We can put that down to a number of things, for example, the funding supports that have been available to community associations, which were beneficial, and we were very lucky to have some very good community gardaí and a succession of excellent school principals, and there were a number of employment measures that went well locally as well. There are undoubtedly still challenges but I want to give that insight. It is that ability to pull things together. That has to happen at the highest level but also at local level, and maybe that Empowering Communities piece, which I need to read up on, can do some of that. What is important is that ability to plan for what a community needs from every Government Department, not just the Department of Rural and Community Development. That is the crucial element.

I have two questions before I go to speak on football on Private Members’ business.

An Cathaoirleach

It is soccer the Deputy is going to speak on.

Deputy Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire

I am a member of the GAA all my life and I usually depend on context for my contributions.

An Cathaoirleach

You left the goal open.

Deputy Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire

You know how it is: football is a grand game for a bad hurler.

I have two questions, although the first may not fall under the Department. I know there has been a long-standing commitment in terms of indemnity for landowners where people are enjoying the countryside, crossing farmland and so on. Will the Department give us an update on whether that is happening, if it comes under the remit of the Department?

Second, there is a piece around the Charities Regulator that I raised recently with the Minister. The work that community associations have to do now compared to 20 or 30 years ago is like night and day in terms of charities regulation, auditors and making sure everything is correct with regard to employment law, grievance procedures and so on. Not only does that take up a lot of time, which is challenging, although people are willing to do it, but there is a cost. People have to go to lawyers to get things checked, they have to procure services to help with a new constitution or new articles of association, and different things like that. Are there funding streams available from the Department, not just for new programmes and new employment, but to assist with regulatory costs, such as lawyers’ fees and risk assessments, or perhaps an association is behind a few years on its accounts? Is there funding available from the Department to help a community association that is under that kind of administrative and regulatory pressure?

Mr. J.P. Mulherin

I will come back first on the Empowering Communities programme. What we might do after the meeting is send on some information to the committee so it has a better feel for it. I have managed to find some additional information that might be useful for members. There are 14 small areas that are currently being funded under the programme. It is based on the Dublin North East Inner City model on a smaller scale and the idea is to use the learning from programmes like RAPID to empower communities and to work with communities to identify their own needs, specifically as Deputy Ó Cuív mentioned. It is taking the learning from RAPID and what is happening in Dublin's north inner city as part of this programme. It is being piloted in 14 areas and it will be monitored over the next two years to see what it delivers. We will certainly send on additional information to the committee in that regard.

With regard to indemnity for landowners, this one has been around for quite some time. The Department has made a fair amount of progress on this in the past couple of years on two different fronts. The indemnity was specifically identified as something that would assist those landowners in upland areas who do not have walks that are part of the walks scheme or that have been approved by Sport Ireland. If it is approved as a walk under Sport Ireland, insurance is provided to the landowner with regard to indemnity.

There are two mountain access project areas, one in Macgillycuddy's Reeks and one in Ben Sléibhe. The Department has provided as an interim solution an insurance policy for the landowners in those areas, certainly for Macgillycuddy's Reeks but also for Ben Sléibhe. That is a private insurance policy to indemnify the landowners in those areas. Rather than it being an indemnity from the State, it is an insurance policy that those landowners can avail of if an issue arises with people coming onto their land for recreational purposes. That is one thing we have been doing. I believe it was warmly welcomed by the communities, certainly in Macgillycuddy's Reeks and by the forum there as an interim solution to respond to those needs and to address an issue that has been around for a long time.

Second, there have been changes to the Occupiers’ Liability Act, although it is only in the past month the changes have been approved. As I do not have the details with me, I will not go into it, but it certainly changes the position of landowners in terms of recreational users coming onto their land. It puts the landowners in a much better position than they had been in previously, but I accept that even with stronger legislation, there is a concern among landowners that they will have to deal with litigation in some shape or form. It is something the Department continues to address. It has been discussed as part of an uplands sub-group of Comhairle na Tuaithe, which is the countryside council.

It has established a subgroup to look at all of these different issues around access to upland areas and this is something that has been thrashed out through that. It is an area where progress is being made but there is not a specific indemnity for landowners across the country.

Regarding the last point about assistance, I am not aware of specific funding for that specific purpose. Individuals are assigned to assist organisations with different challenges. The LEADER programme assists organisations with applications for funding. SICAP has community workers who work with organisations and individuals. There are resources for individuals but for that very specific purpose, I am not aware of direct funding to assist people in dealing with that type of regulatory burden. I am open to correction on this point.

Ms Deirdre Kelly

I would say the same. I am not aware of a specific funding programme.

Deputy Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire

That is worth looking at. The committee should talk to The Wheel and Pobal. I am familiar with this issue. I will declare an interest as I am a member of a board. I am certainly familiar with it from talking to community organisations. It is a challenge. It is not the space that it was once upon a time where a voluntary board just went away and did things. It is not like that anymore. The officials know that themselves.

I would appreciate if they could send me some correspondence on the stuff they outlined regarding the indemnity or the insurance cover and so on.

I looked up the empowering communities programme and it does look positive. I presume the €2 million is just to establish a budget line and begin the process but, obviously, a lot more than that would be required for it to be meaningful and effective. I expect and I hope that it is planned to expand it over the next few years.

Mr. J.P. Mulherin

On that last point, it is a pilot programme in those areas that are referenced to make sure that it works. The expectation is that if this is successful, it can be used as a model could be rolled out elsewhere.

Deputy Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire

The press release on the Department's website states that the 14 small areas are within certain local authorities but it does not outline the actual areas. I would be grateful if that information could be sent to me.

An Cathaoirleach

On that issue, in its pre-budget submission that will be published later this week, the committee has requested that an allocation of €2 million be set aside to assist voluntary and community organisations that may wish to come together to deal with the costs of doing that so that there would be one administrative element. The intention is not to impact on the delivery of services. In my community, Moore Community Council runs the community employment, CE, schemes for four parishes. The council covers all of the administration and the CE schemes operate in different areas. It is a very effective way of doing it, rather than having four different organisations trying to do annual reports, returns and administration. The committee has recommended, in the first instance, a budget line of €2 million to start this process and facilitate groups. The concept comes from an initiative developed in Belgium a number of years ago. All the women's organisations in Belgium are based in a single building in Brussels. The organisations still carry out the work that they do but they have one set of administration staff. It allows the groups to get on with their work, by being more focused on the delivery of services and complying with the legal requirements that exist. It also reduces the costs that Deputy Ó Laoghaire referred to.

When the Department receives the pre-budget submission from the committee, we ask that piloting something along those lines be considered, even if it were only in a small number of areas initially, to see how it could be developed.

Senator Paddy Burke

I have a question for Mr. Mulherin on the local authority community recreational officer post. What is the brief for this? Will it be a full-time local authority employee or a part-time job? There are four municipal districts in County Mayo, each of them with large towns and large geographical areas as well. Will it be one community recreational officer for the whole county or would there be a number of them?

Mr. J.P. Mulherin

I just want to clarify. Is the Deputy referring to the recreation officers funded by the local authorities rather than the ones that are that are funded by ourselves or is he referring the rural recreation officers?

Senator Paddy Burke

Yes, the ones that the Department funds. They are new positions. Is that correct?

Mr. J.P. Mulherin

A number of new positions have been announced over the past year or so. I think there were in 12 or 13 locations prior to this and they have been expanded in eight or nine more. It tends to be one per county at the moment. There has been one in Mayo for a number of years based in the South West Mayo Development Company. This initiative is delivered through local development companies rather than the local authorities. There have been requests from local development companies to expand the scheme and that is why the eight or nine additional ones that were announced in recent times have been added to the scheme. It is something we continue to keep under review and where additional demand arises, we are open to considering.

Our view of it is that we have done a fairly substantial expansion of the programme over the past year and a half. We just want to see that bear down in the coming years but it is certainly something that we are open to keeping under review. As part of the new outdoor recreational strategy, each county will be developing its own outdoor recreation plans. We will see what emerges in terms of needs at a local area and that may point to the need for additional officers in certain locations.

Senator Paddy Burke

They have a fairly wide brief in that case. Is that correct?

Mr. J.P. Mulherin

The position was initially established to try to encourage landowners to take part in the walks scheme. The Senator may not be familiar with the scheme but it pays farmers to maintain the section of walks that go through their land. The rural recreation officers were employed to deliver the scheme at a local level and to work with the farmers. The job involved bringing farmers on to the scheme, helping them to develop work plans as part of the scheme and ensuring that they received their payments every year. That was the officers' first port of call. In the counties where they have been added, there is capacity for new walks to be brought onto the scheme so they are now working with other landowners to identify new walks. It depends on the county, to a large extent. In some areas, they will have fewer walks than others. Rural recreation officers will have the capacity to get involved in other things related to rural recreation, so it is not a one-size-fits-all solution. Each local development company provides us with a work plan for the year that sets out what they are going to do. In those counties that have more walks and more farmers the officers will probably spend more of their time on the walk scheme than others that have fewer walks. It varies according to the area but the primary aim of the officers is to delivered the walk scheme at a local level by working with landowners to make sure that any issues they may have are addressed.

Senator Paddy Burke

The Department only funds the ones that are employed by IRDs, not the ones funded by the local authorities. Is that correct?

Mr. J.P. Mulherin

Yes, that is correct. I know the sports partnership is involved in some of that as well. I think the partnership has a wider remit in terms of engaging with individuals, organising events and trying to increase the opportunities for people to get involved in sports and recreation. The rural recreation officers may do some of that but the primary aim is to provide the infrastructure for people to be able to engage in outdoor recreation.

An Cathaoirleach

I have personal experience of the rural recreation officers in my own county and I think they are very effective.

Are these officers brought together to share best practice regularly because individually they have collected a great number of skills and some of the work is not simple. There is great benefit in actually bringing them together to share that understanding and knowledge. Does that happen?

Mr. J.P. Mulherin

Yes, it certainly does. There is a network of rural recreation officers, RROs who meet on a regular basis every two to three months, as far as I know. Even outside of the structures which we are putting in place for them, they is a great deal of engagement between individuals and of learning from each other. That is something that they are acutely aware of. It is a tough role when one gets into it and it requires a wide variety of skills from dealing with landowners to dealing with legal issues. There is a variety of skill sets which are required to try to deliver this effectively. I certainly know that these officers use each other as a support network for that purpose also.

An Cathaoirleach

I call Deputy Ó Cuív to speak now, please.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív

Returning to the mountain access scheme, is there an individual written agreement between each farmer and the Department, or some relevant agency, specifying what is agreed? In other words, first, dealing with the insurance, has every farmer received a copy of the insurance? Where I live, they certainly have not received it. This refers to the area that is covered, that is open. It is no good saying that the mountain is open. My understanding is that there was to be a defined area that would generally be above the line of the enclosed fields. This is about how the mountain may be accessed. Again, my understanding was that there was to be agreed access at a certain point and no other way in or out. Stiles were to be provided at the access points and that was part of the agreement.

Parking, as the Department officials will know, has been a very big bone of contention where people access hills and leave cars parked where tractors cannot get past and people cannot get to their houses, and so on. There was meant to be an app so that the hillwalker would know exactly where was open for walking and where was covered by the scheme and, of course, that every effort would be made through the RRO and all of the hillwalking and other organisations that are involved in Comhairle na Tuaithe in the walking side of the equation. There are people on both sides of the equation but Mountaineering Ireland and Keep Ireland Open are also there. This is to ensure that everybody would be compliant with Leave No Trace principles with respect to dogs, litter, fires and all the rest. There would also be an RRO locally if any of these requirements were infracted. Is that agreement in existence and is it signed with each landownerr? Where I live, there seems to be some disquiet about this and there were some recent issues which the officials may have heard about.

Mr. J.P. Mulherin

There are a number of issues there. To be clear, this is not a national indemnity scheme. This is an insurance policy which has been provided in the two mountain access project areas which are Binn Shléibhe -----

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív

Yes, I know, Mount Gable or Binn Shléibhe.

Mr. J.P. Mulherin

The Department has been working away to try to see how an indemnity scheme could be brought in but there are real challenges and legal issues with that. I can see the merit in it but when it comes to the practicalities from a legal perspective, it is not straightforward, hence the reason for the insurance policy and for the sub-group of Comhairle na Tuaithe continuing to look at these issues. We want to show good faith with these farmers and with these communities by introducing this insurance policy as an interim measure.

I will deal with the very specific questions but it is a little time since I looked at this; I am more familiar with the MacGillycuddy's Reeks than with the Deputy’s own area at Binn Shléibhe. On the MacGillycuddy's Reeks, my understanding at the time, through engagement with the MacGillycuddy's Reeks forum, was that individual landowners would be provided with details of the insurance policy and that that has happened.

The area covered is identified as part of the insurance policy. There is a map which shows which part of the mountain is covered. On access to the mountain in these areas, the Department has provided significant funding, particularly in the Macgillycuddy's Reeks, for things like stiles, as referred to by the Deputy and, indeed, for parking. Also, as part of the MacGillycuddy's Reeks project, we have provided funding to a part-time officer, like a rural recreation officer, but who is working specifically on the MacGillycuddy's Reeks and with the community there as part of that.

A fair amount of investment has been made not just in walks around the country but also in mountain areas. There is a pilot project in Croagh Patrick which has happened over the past number of years to try to fix the path up there. There has also been investment in Donegal. A number of things are happening to try to facilitate access to the uplands, to support farmers who are providing that access and there is still a way to go. We certainly have made a significant amount of progress over the past number of years.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív

The one part of the equation is that these landowners do not have anything saying what is going to be done by the Department and what the Department is asking for in return is to give access to the hill. That does not seem to have got down to the individual farmer. The Department may be talking to groups but it is not talking to the people who own this land outright, each one of them. They have a title to it and even if it is 50 owners in the one piece, they are all individual owners and there does not seem to have been direct contact with them on the agreement, asking if they agree to give access, on the dotted line, and that the Department will give all of these things, including insurance cover and so forth.

More important than the insurance cover is to say that the Department will fight all of the cases if anybody brings a challenge because that is the issue. The chances of anybody winning a challenge on a hill is virtually nil unless somebody was crazy. In any event, any area which would have anybody who is going to be that crazy should not be included in the mountain access scheme. The problem is the amount of effort, time and money that would be spent defending the case; that would be where the insurance policy looks to me to be good but the landholders do not have it. I managed to get it through a farming organisation but the farmers who own the land do not have it.

Mr. J.P. Mulherin

A number of things arise there. I will-----

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív

My apologies but can we talk about-----

Mr. J.P. Mulherin

-----go back and check with colleagues with regard to Binn Shléibhe.

An Cathaoirleach

Could I make a suggestion, please? Mr. Mulherin knows what is going on in the MacGillycuddy's Reeks and Deputy Ó Cuív is talking about another example so could I suggest that we might initially get a detailed briefing note on both of the mountains from the Department? If the committee then wants to revisit this issue, we can do so. I will take whatever further comment Mr. Mulherin may wish to make but rather than an over-and-back here on this matter, we all want to get to the one endpoint. This suggestion might be useful initially and if the committee then wishes to revisit the matter, we can do so. I call Mr. Mulherin to speak now.

Mr. J.P. Mulherin

That is a very sensible suggestion as this is a very complex area. It is worth noting that this is not a quid pro quo for these farmers for access to the mountain. There are all sorts of land rights issues which must be considered as part of that. We are dealing with the established group who are in turn dealing with the individual farmers.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív

What is this about an established group because this is news to me?

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív

This is something to support the farmers rather than saying to them that they must provide access to their land in return for us providing this insurance policy.

An Cathaoirleach

Perhaps the Department might provide the committee with the detail on the established groups as well in the briefing note.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív

And who established them.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív

Did the farmers establish these groups or who established them?

Mr. J.P. Mulherin

Groups are established at a local level but we will come back to the committee with the details.

An Cathaoirleach

We can then decide on how the committee wishes to proceed at that point once we have that information.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív

This is crucial because it was hoped when Comhairle na Tuaithe was set up that we might get a good working model where there was good agreement. There was such agreement. It was about providing access as long as everybody complied with all of these rules, etc. The land holders were then indemnified and would allow free access, specifically, to be publicised. This approach would then be extended quickly to virtually every hill one could get in to it. This happened and was started in 2007, 2008 or 2009 - I cannot remember exactly - but it is a long time ago, 15 years ago, and we are still stuck in the same few hills. Croagh Patrick is different because people go up a fixed path and it is like the walkway scheme. This was meant to be general open access where one could walk any part of the hill as long as the rules were followed. This also stopped wear on the hills because it spread the usage of the hill over a much greater area. Every weekend we have people parked between Maam and Maam Cross. That is great but they cross the hills all the way to Leenane.

That is fine. We need everybody to be happy about it, however, including the people who own the land. The big problem was the psychological difficulty whereby some people thought this land did not belong to anybody, but it does. It is as important to them as a field of corn is in County Kilkenny. It would be great if the committee could get an up-to-date briefing concerning where this endeavour stands and what the concept of it is now. We should put this on the work agenda for the autumn. I would appreciate it

An Cathaoirleach

Yes, absolutely.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív

I have one more question. The CLÁR programme is focused on population loss in the most rural areas and those areas where there has been the highest depopulation since 1926. Will the success of the rural development policies, including CLÁR, be measured against the census figures to see if, compared with the increase nationally, we are getting less population growth or continuing population decline in these areas? I refer to determining whether we have reversed this trend. If we have not, then we are failing because these areas are seriously underpopulated. Again, this matter relates to other Departments, including in the context of planning, etc., but a fair amount could be done by matching funds and ensuring that people have access to clean water, roads and all these basic things that need to be done in these rural areas. Will the Department be checking this metric in respect of the entire purpose for which the CLÁR programme was set up?

An Cathaoirleach

I call Mr. Mulherin.

Mr. J.P. Mulherin

For the CLÁR programme, we looked at some of the statistics from the last census. These showed the population had increased in a large proportion of those areas covered by the CLÁR programme. If we were to apply the same metrics to the programme now as when it was established, many of these areas would potentially no longer be included. There has certainly been a growth in the population in the areas in question. Whether this comes down to the CLÁR programme is a different matter. The census of the population has shown an increase across all the counties in Ireland. For the CLÁR areas, I suspect it will show a further increase in population in most locations.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív

I refer to the situation relative to the general increase in population. In other words, if there was a 5% increase in the population of CLÁR areas and the average national increase has been approximately 7% or 8%, then these areas are still falling behind in relative context. If the population in these areas is actually declining, then we have got a crisis. We should be putting up a massive red flag if this is the case.

Mr. J.P. Mulherin

The data looked at previously show that the population in these areas is not declining. The population is growing in the vast majority of them.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív

Would it be possible for us to get the maps?

Mr. J.P. Mulherin

I genuinely do not know what information is available but I will go back and look.

An Cathaoirleach

With all due respect, it might be more useful if we had this engagement with representatives from the Department or the CSO after the small area data become available in September. We will then have the most up-to-date information. At the moment, we are talking about the data from 2016, which are irrelevant today. This may be a topic that the committee might wish to put on its work programme. I refer to bringing in representatives of the CSO to provide us with a briefing, from the small area perspective, in the context of our rural areas and island communities and also on measuring some elements concerning disadvantage in urban areas. That organisation may be able to assist us in providing data in this regard.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív

These are obviously CSO data, but people previously doing interpreting for us at a granular level were from Maynooth University.

An Cathaoirleach

Yes.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív

There is no point, however, going back five years. We need to go back and take a period of ten or 15 years.

An Cathaoirleach

Absolutely, but what I am saying is that after September we have the data from last year to compare with the previous situation. The current starting point is 2016, which is not relevant today.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív

I agree with the Cathaoirleach on that point. My other point, though, is that if we went back to the period from 2006 to 2011, we would find that the population in most areas was rising. From 2011 to 2016, then, there was a decline and from 2016 to 2022, there was an increase nationally. We must, therefore, keep indexing these data over a longer period because we get ups and downs in the economy.

An Cathaoirleach

Absolutely, but we might refer back to the Department at that stage in this regard.

I wish to raise a couple of points. The first concerns the report we are considering. There is slow spending in respect of large capital projects. This has been acknowledged by the Department in the opening statement and the documentation provided. The committee plans to look at this matter in the autumn. One issue being raised with us is that community groups not only have to raise funding to meet the co-financing requirement, or in some cases, the local authorities, but they can also only draw down funds once the works are completed. For community organisations in particular, this causes a problem in the context of trying to get bridging finance.

The committee is going to look at this issue. We will have witnesses before us in October. I know the Department is also examining this aspect, so if it has any thoughts on what could help to improve the drawdown of funds, then we would be extremely interested in hearing from it in advance of our hearings. Ultimately, I do not think there is a public servant in the country who would not like to see a far more active drawing down of capital funding. We all want to see this happening. The last thing we want is to have a roll-over of these funds and it then being necessary to go back to the Department of Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform to get money. Everyone is at one in respect of this objective. If the Department, then, has any thoughts on this issue they could feed into the committee's consideration of it in terms of making recommendations to the Government and to the Department of Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform, then we would be very interested in hearing them.

The other matter of interest is the performance report itself. Regarding the various programmes, and especially programme A, under the rural regeneration and development fund, it has set targets for projects completed. This is a good type of target to have. It was explained why there was a failure in this regard and this is understandable under the circumstances. In terms of the town and village renewal scheme and the outdoor recreation initiative, however, the breakdown in this regard has been given in respect of the projects approved. The delivery of schemes is a far more effective metric from our perspective than the number of projects approved for funding. The projects approved for funding are probably of more interest to the Minister in terms of announcements. In the context of evaluating impact, however, the funds drawn down would be a more effective metric for us.

Another thing that would be useful, and I know the Department does this anyway, concerns case studies. No two projects are the same, but undertaking and making available a broad range of case studies looking at different aspects and how funding is used would be beneficial, not just from our perspective in examining how this money is impacting on the ground but also in respect of giving ideas to other communities as to how best they could undertake such initiatives. I say this because, thankfully, this funding has had a dramatic impact in communities right across the country. We are beginning to see the results now. There has been a long lead-in to this. Communities are now, though, considering how they can take the next steps. These case studies could be of benefit to them undertaking that work.

One weakness in programme A, in particular, is that we do not have a headline indicator in respect of island communities. The committee strongly feels that there needs to be a headline indicator for this area.

The single most effective headline would probably be access, that is, the number of people accessing and egressing the islands. Access in terms of infrastructure at piers, ferry services and air services could all be encompassed by a single metric of access. Something like that would be useful.

My final question relates to the Charities Regulator or Charities Regulatory Authority. We have had the Charities Regulatory Authority here before us. It is redoubling efforts to try to bring as many people under the regulatory system as possible. A useful metric for us as a committee would be not so much the number of organisations that are registered or that the Charities Regulator has received reports from but the number of new organisations that have registered and the number of new reports that have been received. We know there is a level of underproduction of reports and that there is a challenge in terms of the number of charities that are registered. There may be some that deregister or do not renew their registration but new registrations would be a good indicator for us as a committee.

I thank the witnesses again for their commitment to engage with the committee further on some of these metrics. We all have the one objective here. I do not know if Mr. Mulherin has any closing remarks he would like to make.

Mr. J.P. Mulherin

I will comment quickly on those few points and maybe work backwards. On the charities side, that seems reasonable to me. We will engage with the Charities Regulator on that point. With regard to the islands, the Cathaoirleach is right that there probably should be one in the report itself. There is a number of metrics in the REV related to islands and one specifically that deals with the number of people who use subsidised travel services. That is something we should maybe take from the REV and bring back to the-----

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív

That gives you one fact. It does not give you the real facts, as Mr. Mulherin found out the week before last. The other metric that is massive on islands is the number of sailings that cannot take place in the winter because of the weather. Obviously, if people are living on an island 365 days a year and that is where their permanent home is, which is what we want, they still need to be in and out all the time. Some of the islands are lovely in the summer and have massive numbers visiting them. When the swallows leave, however, so do the tourists. The people who live on them are left to struggle along. As a result, the metric of winter access and the number of sailings missed is key. That is where the problem in Roonagh, which I think the Cathaoirleach is aware of, jumps out at compared with say Cleggan or coming into Ros an Mhíl. It obviously needs to be replaced by a pier that is safe. Once you get that metric, you have your proof.

An Cathaoirleach

The metric Deputy Ó Cuív has suggested might be better than my one. In fairness, we both probably represent as many islands but he represents ones that are actually occupied while none of mine are. That might be a better metric to use. We need a metric of access to the islands. I am open to Deputy Ó Cuív's better understanding of the situation.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív

I am saying we should have both. We need the total access because that is the lifeblood with the tourists.

Mr. J.P. Mulherin

That is no problem. We will chat to our islands colleagues on that. They have good information on all of these things. We agree about the case studies. It is something we are very conscious of ourselves. We are getting very good case studies under all the different funds we deliver. We have quite a suite of them. We have published them before under the LEADER programme. It is something we are acutely aware of and we know we need to do more in terms of the nationally funded schemes. That is something we will be doing.

I note what the Cathaoirleach has said about the metrics for the town and village renewal scheme and ORIS. What we tried to do was give both. Some of the metrics showed what was approved and some what was delivered. We will take the point on board and consider that for the next report.

I thank the committee for the engagement. There are a number of things we need to follow up on and we will try to follow up on those as best we can over the next number of weeks. We are happy to engage as required on the indicators.

An Cathaoirleach

I thank the witnesses very much for their engagement and for the ongoing work of the Department. This committee is very anxious and very conscious of the need to engage with the Department on the issues related to it on an ongoing basis. It plays a critical role in urban communities, rural communities and island communities. It is important that the voice and view of the Department and the people it advocates for are clearly expressed here in the Oireachtas and directly to the Government. I thank the witnesses for their time.

I now propose that the committee goes into private session to consider other business. Is that agreed? Agreed.

The joint committee went into private session at 11.06 a.m. and adjourned at 11.32 a.m. until 9.30 a.m. on Wednesday, 20 September 2023.