Michael Collins (Cork South West, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I welcome Mr. Leamy and Mr. Murphy. Having been involved in many boards and committees on a voluntary basis, I would have liked an opportunity to review the 23 programmes being rolled out by Pobal because I would be able to connect to many of them.

Some years ago, a new social inclusion programme was introduced which focused initially on farmers and fishermen. It subsequently changed, however, and in west Cork it became more focused on Roma and other sections of society that have nothing to do with my area. This was a serious blow because farmers and fishermen, especially those on low incomes, lost a great advisory service provided under the programme. While I do not know what form the new social inclusion programme will take and I do not seek to discredit anyone, there are no Roma in Goleen, Bandon or anywhere else in west Cork. I do not know why discussions on the ground did not filter back to the needs of the constituency I represent and, I presume, many more constituencies. I ask the witnesses to clarify that matter.

Pobal probably has some connections with the Leader programme, which is basically no longer available. With only two years left of the current programme, there has been little or no delivery to the community and voluntary sector. This is alarming to say the least and it will be a scramble to the line to have the available moneys disbursed to community and voluntary groups. These organisations, all of which are voluntary, receive a small amount of funding and deliver a large number of services. The people involved do not receive any payment for the many hours of work they do. They have been telephoning politicians trying to secure Leader funding as this used to be available to them. The number of hoops they must now jump through means many of them have decided to forget it.

The West Cork Development Partnership, an excellent group that previously delivered the Leader programme, was wiped off the face of the earth for no reason. We no longer have a programme in the area and I understand it is now delivered through the Aran Islands. This is mind-boggling and questions need to be answered because it will probably lead to an inquiry in a few years. While that issue may not have anything to do with the witnesses, there is no harm in letting them know how people on the ground feel.

Pobal delivers the community services programme. I am often asked the same question about the schemes operated under this programme, some of which were allowed to appoint managers. If a manager retires, can he or she seek redundancy from the community group in question? This is a serious concern for the community and voluntary sector because many of these groups are being asked this question by managers contemplating retirement. The programme has been in place for many years. Who would fund redundancy payments? Voluntary organisations are extremely worried that they may be expected to do so.

Payment for bank holidays and so forth is also a grey area. Many issues arise regarding section 39 funding, which I accept is not the business of Pobal. However, the bottom line with the community service programme is that Pobal provides funding to the voluntary organisations which must then administer the funding. This is a significant burden and things fall between the cracks. Some of the organisations are concerned that workers may be entitled to payment for bank holidays on which they do not work. They fear they may end up in serious trouble. In one case, a group was fined €4,000 by Pobal, which was a scandalous decision. The group in question bought a work unit which community service programme workers could work in. However, it was later told it should have rented the unit and Pobal would have paid the rent. The organisation did the honest thing by buying the work unit from its funding and applying a small charge on Pobal, which refused to pay it and asked for the money to be returned. This is brutal for a voluntary organisation.

We need to consider what is happening on the ground. When people see attractive programmes advertised, they may decide to bring them into their community on a voluntary basis. They are then subjected to audits. I was the chairman of one group where the treasurer nearly suffered a breakdown as a result of an audit that was carried out. The auditor was ruthless. I did not give a damn because the bottom line was that we were all volunteers. I was not a politician at the time. I told the auditor to stop being ruthless as we were all human beings and asked if there was an issue. He replied that there were no issues and everything was fine. It was as if he had to justify his day's work in west Cork or wherever else he visited. This is not good enough. When a group makes a human error, the auditor should sit down with the individuals involved and rectify the problems rather than fining the group because that could put it out of business. The treasurers and other volunteers doing great work in their communities may decide they can no longer cope and will not want to be involved in what appears to be professional work that is way over their heads.

I am not arguing that Pobal's work is all bad but I need to have these issues clarified. Where is the delivery in respect of farmers and fishermen? Is Pobal involved in delivering the rural social scheme? This fabulous scheme for low-income farmers and fishermen has become less attractive because payments have changed, which is a significant worry. We fought bravely and successfully when negotiating the programme for Government to have the numbers on the scheme increased. I notice, however, that the increase per capitain west Cork was among the lowest in the country, despite the area having large numbers of inshore fishermen and low-income farmers, primarily suckler farmers.

I would appreciate it if they might be able to answer some of those questions.