Dáil Éireann Debate, Wednesday - 10 November 2004
214 Mr. O’Shea asked the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs his proposals to allow for inflation and additional costs arising from national wage agreements when allocating funding to the community partnerships; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [28265/04]
Amharc ar fhreagra215 Mr. O’Shea asked the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs his proposals to restore the 19.07% reduction in funding from his Department to community partnership in the years 2002 to 2004; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [28266/04]
Amharc ar fhreagra216 Mr. O’Shea asked the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs his proposals to provide adequate resources and to introduce multi-annual funding into the community partnership sector; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [28267/04]
Amharc ar fhreagra217 Mr. O’Shea asked the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs his proposals for the extension of the local development social inclusion programme in view of the fact that disadvantage is a pervasive issue; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [28268/04]
Amharc ar fhreagra218 Mr. O’Shea asked the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs his views on the community partnerships as a primary channel for tackling disadvantage in the future; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [28269/04]
Amharc ar fhreagraI propose to take Questions Nos. 214, 215, 216, 217 and 218 together.
The local development social inclusion programme is managed by Area Development Management Ltd., ADM, on behalf of my Department. Following the appraisal of the plans submitted by the groups, funding for programme and administration costs is allocated to community partnerships by ADM, in the context of funding available from my Department each year. As the Deputy will be aware, Government Departments operate on the basis of funds voted annually by the Dáil. It is therefore not possible to enter into multi-annual budgeting arrangements.
While there was a reduction in the funding available for this programme in the last two years, it should be noted that the community partnerships did not experience the full extent of these reductions. In 2003, the community partnerships experienced budget reductions of between 4% and 6%. Allocations for community partnerships for 2004 compared with 2003 were reduced on average by 5%. I wish to again acknowledge the work being done by community partnerships in addressing disadvantage in their areas. There are no formal plans to extend the remit of the programme at this time.
