Lucinda Creighton (Dublin South East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am pleased to have an opportunity to raise this very serious and important matter in regard to the expenditure of public moneys. The Minister of State will be aware that the Dublin Inner City Partnership was established in 1991, one of 12 development companies under the programme for economic and social progress at the time. The aim of this partnership was to fund community groups and to fund projects in disadvantaged areas, including those most affected by abject poverty in the State.

Significant funding of millions of euro was made available and administered by the Dublin Inner City Partnership over an extended period. Pobal administered the funds to the Dublin Inner City Partnership through a local development social inclusion programme under the ambit of the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs, through the millennium partnership fund under the Department of Education and Science, and through the immigration and integration fund under the auspices of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. Effectively, a middleman was created between the Government funding the schemes and the communities to which these funds were to be channelled for their benefit.

What is a matter of grave concern to me and to my constituents, many of whom have been involved in the community and voluntary sector over an extended period, is that initially no reports were conducted into how these moneys were being administered until an audit was conducted in March 2008. It seemed clear from the subsequent events that questions were raised by this audit and, therefore, another audit was conducted in December 2009. What is bizarre about these audits is that they have not been published and have not been made available either to public representatives or to the communities which were to receive the funds. The audits have been made completely secret by Pobal, which is extraordinary and, in my view, unacceptable.

This degree of secrecy does not instil confidence. What I have read in the media and what has been claimed by various national newspapers is that the second report discovered that senior management in the Dublin Inner City Partnership were paying themselves significant amounts above and beyond what was approved by Pobal. One manager in the partnership is alleged to have received over €10,000 more than was approved by Pobal, the financial administrator over €5,000 more and the regeneration officer over €5,000 more. Subsequent to these details becoming public, one Dublin city councillor resigned from the board but, unfortunately, two other councillors did not. What is interesting is that one political party, Sinn Féin, has come out and condemned the decision by Pobal to completely withdraw funding from the Dublin Inner City Partnership from the end of this month. That condemnation is somewhat extraordinary as I believe the withdrawal of funding was the correct course of action.

I would like to highlight a number of issues. The first is the lack of accountability. These are public moneys - taxpayers' money - which have been spent and administered in a very questionable fashion with no accountability. I call on the Government to ensure that the audits of the Dublin Inner City Partnership which were conducted by Pobal will be made available, which is only right in the interests of transparency. It strikes me as more than bizarre given that, following the type of squandering of public moneys we have seen in other organisations such as FÁS and other Government quangos, there has been some degree of accountability in recent times. Due to a media and political furore, some opening up and transparency has ultimately been seen in these bodies but there has been none in regard to Pobal and the Dublin Inner City Partnership.

It is essential that a number of developments happen for the future. First, we must ensure the funds continue to be made available to these groups and that this is not used as an excuse to stop funding very valuable and important community groups. Second, we must ensure any new body which replaces the Dublin Inner City Partnership is an exercise in genuine local democracy and genuine community involvement rather than having the same old individuals popping into positions of authority in regard to the administration of these funds. I genuinely do not believe this will be acceptable to the communities involved.

Martin Mansergh (Tipperary South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank Deputy Creighton for raising this issue.

In 2009, Dublin Inner City Partnership, DICP as it is referred to, was allocated some €1.1 million under the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs Local Development Social Inclusion Programme, LDSIP, to implement measures tackling social and economic exclusion in Dublin's inner city. That funding was provided through Pobal, which managed the programme on behalf of the Department. It might be noted that DICP had been in receipt of LDSIP funding over many years and was also in receipt of FÁS funding to provide the local employment service in the area.

In January 2010, the LDSIP and community development programme, CDP, were superseded by the new local and community development programme, LCDP. Under the new programme an allocation of €1,074,855 was made to DICP by Pobal, which also manages the new programme on behalf of the Department. On the 18 January, €107,485 was issued to DICP as a first payment from this allocation. DICP would also have FÁS funding for 2010. As part of its programme management role, Pobal has a remit to manage Government funds in a transparent and prudent manner, to provide guidance and support on organisational management and governance and to conduct independent audits of beneficiaries based on risk analysis.

After funding allocations for 2010 had been settled, Pobal was completing a follow-up audit on foot of a previous audit completed in March 2008 which audit had given rise to major concerns about weaknesses in financial controls and procedures, non-compliance with programme accountability requirements and payments of salaries in excess of approved scales. Following that audit, the company had been given an opportunity by Pobal to address those issues and had committed in writing to so doing by 31 March 2009. However, the follow-up audit to which I have referred revealed that DICP had not addressed the issues despite the commitments made.

On 1 April 2010, the board of Pobal decided to cease its contract with DICP in light of the concerns about weaknesses in financial controls and procedures, non-compliance with programme accountability requirements, payments of salaries in excess of approved scales and the failure on the part of the company to address those issues. The Department, given its duty to protect public funds, strongly supported the Pobal decision to cease the contract and believed that Pobal had no alternative but to do so. DICP was given an opportunity to appeal the Pobal decision and has done so. It is expected the appeal process will be completed before end-May 2010.

It is the objective of the Minister, Deputy Carey - the Department and Pobal have taken steps to ensure this - to ensure the decision to cease the DICP contract will have no adverse impacts on services provided in the inner city area. Heretofore, the main role of DICP in the context of the LDSIP and LCDP programmes was as a provider of funds from allocations made by Pobal to community and other groups providing services in the inner city area. Pobal has met with all of the groups concerned and has finalised arrangements to manage directly the funding of their work. There will be no interruption or reductions in funding and the groups have been assured this funding will continue until a long-term resolution is found to the management of the new programme in the area.

Pobal has also been in discussions with FÁS on ensuring the non-disruptive continuation of local employment service, LES, and centres' operations in the area. I apologise to Deputy Creighton for the alphabet soup contained in the reply.