Pádraig Mac Lochlainn (Donegal North East, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The committee is sitting in its capacity as the joint sub-committee on public petitions. I remind everybody to switch off their mobile telephones, BlackBerry and other devices. The proceedings are broadcast live and we do not wish to have them interrupted.

I welcome Ms Deirdre McCarthy who submitted a petition to the committee entitled, "Tendering of the Social Inclusion and Community Activation Programme", which is petition No. 24 of 2014, and her colleague Ms Sian Muldowney. Thank you for forwarding the presentation and accompanying documentation. The members of the committee are keen to hear your views on social inclusion and community development programmes, after which there will be a questions and answers session.

Before commencing, I must inform you that by virtue of section 17(2)(l) of the Defamation Act 2009, you are protected by absolute privilege in respect of the evidence you are to give this committee. If you are directed by the committee to cease giving evidence in relation to a particular matter and you continue to so do, you are entitled thereafter only to a qualified privilege in respect of your evidence. You are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given and you are asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, you should not criticise or make charges against any person(s) or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable.

I invite Ms McCarthy to make her presentation.

Ms Deirdre McCarthy:

I thank the committee for giving us its time and inviting us to discuss the issue. I also thank Ms Anita Gibbons for the time she has given us on the petition.

We will go through some of the headline points from the presentation we provided to the members because it is quite long, but we hope that members will take the time to read it in more detail.

I am conscious of the fact that it is not exactly a snappy title and that there are complicated themes within the documentation, so we might not hit all points as clearly as we hope to. My name is Deirdre McCarthy and I work for a community group in the inner city called Community Technical Aid, and I am accompanied by Ms Sian Muldowney who works for another community group called Inner City Organisations Network. Both groups are members of a wider Dublin inner city community co-operative established late last year following on from the Community Alliance. We have joined with 15 grassroots inner city organisations who are working together to look at wider issues like this and work in solidarity. Ms Muldowney will go through some of the details on the social inclusion and community activation programme, specifically tendering.

Ms Sian Muldowney:

The social inclusion and community activation programme, SICAP, is the successor programme to the local and community development programme, LCDP. The LCDP provided significant, and in many circumstances core, funding for projects funded through the community co-operative. It was announced by the Department at the beginning of 2014 that SICAP would be put out for competitive tender as part of public procurement under EU law. This is the first time a social inclusion programme has been subject to a public procurement process rather than the traditional grant approach in Ireland. The tender process has taken place over two stages. Expressions of interest were sought in July 2014 and successful applicants were invited to tender. The deadline for that tender was 19 December 2014 with a decision expected on or around 18 February 2015.

I will refer to some of our experiences as part of this process but only in general terms as it is still ongoing and I do not want to be seen to be trying to influence the outcome in any way. Ultimately, It is our contention that the competitive tendering of SICAP and other programmes with a social benefit is not in the best interests of citizens for three main reasons. It will undermine and potentially eradicate community development and local community projects; it will result in a deterioration of services, particularly to the disadvantaged; and it does not adhere to the spirit of the EU directives and the European debate. We are concerned that the best placed organisations for developing and delivering social inclusion work may not be best placed at winning tenders. Our expertise lies in the delivery of relevant and responsive services and we may not be as adept as some private companies in commercial tendering. Some of these companies have entire units dedicated to developing contracts of this kind. There is also an assumption that using competitive tendering will automatically deliver the best value for money. This is not necessarily the case. When assessing value for money on programmes like this, it is necessary to look at a range of non-financial and social capital benefits that community-led organisations can offer. Community-led groups do not make a profit for shareholders. Our aim is to provide services and supports to the communities where we work.

Tendering processes are complex, often benefit larger organisations and potentially advantage private sector operators. This is due to the often large-scale nature of contracts awarded and the fact that tenders may be required to fund cashflow to a much greater extent than under grant-based services. Some organisations are unable to make applications due to the restrictions and complexities that apply. Community-led organisations often cannot meet those criteria and can therefore be excluded from even participating in the competitive tender before it starts. For example, in stage one of SICAP, applicants must meet certain financial and resource requirements which exclude many groups. For the purposes of SICAP, the country was divided into lots according to local authority areas. In the Dublin lot, it was necessary to have a turnover of between €1.25 million and €1.5 million which automatically excluded a vast number of groups. The groups in the co-operative would not have been able to apply for SICAP individually. The short timeframe for applying to stage one also hindered the development of partnerships and consortium bids that smaller organisations need. We had an advantage in the inner city because we have a long history of working together and we were able to come together quite quickly to form the co-operative and therefore tender. However, this was not the case with other groups such as Travellers' groups, women's groups and projects in the islands. They were not able to fit into the structure being presented to them. The process was administratively heavy and time-consuming. We were trying to submit a tender for SICAP but at the same time in respect of these smaller organisations, some of which have only two or three staff, we are trying to meet our obligations to deliver the services and meet our obligations to our funders. All of this is happening at a time when we are being asked to cut back on administrative budgets and resources.

We utilise a range of approaches to meet the needs of the most disadvantaged. These are methods that generally do not exist in the private or public sector, namely, the ability to provide responsive and tailored services that use a person-centred approach. We are innovative in service design and delivery, flexible in our approach and able to respond to new and emerging needs. An example of this relates to head shops. It was the community that first identified the danger around head shops and that was able to organise and bring the issue to our public representatives. There is a strong value for money focus in what we do as we continue to strive to deliver services, despite the vast reduction in funding we have received. We involve our users and beneficiaries in service design and control of services. Underpinning all of this are an ethos and a commitment to social justice, equality, tackling exclusion and empowerment. If disadvantaged communities do not receive services that are delivered in this way, they will ultimately lose out.

Inevitably in completing a tender, work is tailored to meet the criteria of the tender, but these criteria are not necessarily developed with the community's needs in mind as it was not involved in developing them. SICAP contains no reference to homelessness despite it being a significant issue in our communities and an issue of which members of the committee are aware. Further down the road, in conjunction with the local community development committees, we could add the homeless as a target group. We are looking at the end of this year and the beginning of 2016, so in the interim, our hands are tied and there is nothing we can do on this matter.

The Department will argue that we were consulted about SICAP. In respect of that consultation, we were invited to a two-hour meeting in the Department where somebody actually read the programme to us. We then had about 20 minutes in smaller discussion groups and a brief question and answer session. Following that, we were invited to complete a questionnaire with questions on the programme. I need to point out that we were being asked to comment on a programme that was already written. At no point were we engaged in the actual development of that programme.

It is our contention that it is not good public policy to put social inclusion programmes out to public tender as these services are for the public benefit and not for private profit. Ms McCarthy will talk about the new EU directives.

Ms Deirdre McCarthy:

I am not a legal expert. If anyone has had a look at an EU directive, they can see that it is 200 pages of fairly complex documentation. We have done a bit of research on it and, at times, we feel that you are bamboozled by this information and are almost afraid to challenge it because you do not know exactly what you are talking about. At the same time, we are aware that there has been an extensive debate at European level which has argued that social services that benefit the public good such as social inclusion programmes were not to be put through tender processes. This has been the tenor of the debate at European level over recent years. The free market economy they are aiming for is not inclusive of that type of social service provision. The Council of Ministers of the European Union adopted three new directives on procurement in February 2014 which must come into Irish law by April 2016. The directives provide for a range of clauses and features relating to how public tendering for services like social inclusion programmes is to be handled.

I know the committee received a response from the Department on some of the issues we raised in our petition. The Department said that it had got legal advice from the Attorney General and it had to do this in respect of the directive which is currently the law. The Department is right in that this directive is law. However, that directive applies when the choice to go to public tender has been made. It does not make you go to public tender. The fact that the Department chose to go to tender means that those directive rules apply, but the Department did not have to go to tender.

Our argument is that the point is twofold - to tender or not to tender. We would argue that social inclusion programmes should not be put out to public tender. If it is felt that they must be put out to tender, they should go on the basis of the new directives which allow for particular clauses to be put in place to ensure the protection of good quality social inclusion programmes for citizens. Although those directives are not currently law, there is no reason they cannot be transposed into law earlier than the deadline of April 2016. There is an argument that this current programme was put out to tender when the Department knew the new directives were there because they were published in February 2014. The first call came later. Is it really good practice to operate on the basis of a legal situation that is going to change in 14 months time? I would argue that this is not the case.

The current directive has existed since 2004. During that time there has been a range of social inclusion programmes, none of which has gone out to public tender, including the one we are currently operating, the local community development programme. It seems an unusual decision that this one was chosen. As I am sure everyone is aware, the Leader programme is not being put out to public tender, and there are a lot of similarities between it and the social inclusion and community activation programme, SICAP.

Now that we have managed to get the committee to listen to us, we are asking it to support the principle that social inclusion programmes remain funded through a grant-based system and not put out to tender, as allowed for in the new directives. We ask that it be allowed to exclude these programmes. That would be adhering both to the spirit of the EU debate and to the law. We are also asking that the committee seek for the tendering of SICAP to be halted until such a time as the new directives can be transposed into Irish law, and for the committee to recommend that they be transposed as soon as possible. We are asking the committee to ask the Department to explain its decision on putting SICAP out to tender. When we ask about this we keep being told it was the Attorney General's advice and the Department cannot give us that advice. We are concerned that the advice relates to the specifics of tendering as opposed to the decision to go to tendering.

There have been examples throughout Europe of social inclusion projects, or projects aimed at dealing with those most disadvantaged in the labour market, that have gone to public tender. Overall, the results have been disastrous and more expensive. In the UK, there has been a lot of research and reports - we provided documentation on one of them - about how work-related programmes had the least benefit for those furthest away from the labour market, and how it was no cheaper for the State to provide them in that way.

I thank the committee members for their time and for listening to us.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am aware of some of the groups in my own area of the south inner city. I have also had discussions with some groups in Ballyfermot and elsewhere, and this week we are hoping to meet with people from the Canals Partnership, who have expressed severe concern about the future of their community programmes and what they are delivering. They cannot plan as they do not know if the structure of the community programmes they run will be in place after April. That is one of the concerns right across the city.

Ms McCarthy mentioned Dutch, Australian and English examples. The Government has gone ahead and done the same here, it just has not been rolled out. I did a bit of research on JobPath and it is scary what private companies get up to when the incentive is profit rather than social inclusion or community gain.

I had written down a question, which Ms McCarthy answered in her presentation, about the logic behind the Department proceeding with something that is going to be out of date. That is the question for us here. The Department answered quite well by saying it is the Attorney General. We do not get the Attorney General's advice either. We can ask but it is not usually shared with us.

I do not have a large number of questions because the presentation outlines all of the failings of approaching these issues on a for-profit basis. Some of this is coming for several generations at this stage. The EU has had a change of attitude in terms of a move towards privatisation with everything being delivered by the private sector rather than the public sector. I was involved in a community development project going back before the LCDPs took full charge and shut down all the local CDPs bar the one I am still on. Is the current situation seen as a consequence of that time? I remember back then some people were saying it was the start of increasing centralisation of funding and some people resisted. Is this a culmination of that earlier change, or is it additional to it?

Ms Deirdre McCarthy:

Going to public procurement was a bolt out of the blue for most organisations. It first came to our attention in February of last year. The material about alignment has been on and off the cards for over ten years and there have been different approaches to it. Some of them are about centralising and pulling smaller, community-based organisations into the bigger structures but the procurement issue was somewhat left-field - it certainly was for me. A lot of groups were shocked it had happened.

There have been a lot of changes going back from when the CDPs and the local development social inclusion programmes, LDSIPs, were merged. The two programmes were merged into the local community development programme, which is another example of the absence of consistency. They actually call SICAP the follow-on from the local community development programme, so why could it be grant-based and this one not be, when they are under the same legislative framework?

Pádraig Mac Lochlainn (Donegal North East, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In Donegal there was a very strong lobby from the community sector opposing this, and I made the point that the community sector is so strong. In Donegal alone, there are hundreds and hundreds of organisations that were being affected by this. Even in terms of bottom-up development and participative democracy, it was a major issue. I conveyed to them that they have considerable influence based on the scale of the membership.

Ms McCarthy's organisation would have made representations to the previous Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government, Commissioner Phil Hogan, and then to the current Minister, Deputy Alan Kelly. Where is that at? Some local authorities apparently agreed not to tender but perhaps I am wrong about that----

Ms Deirdre McCarthy:

I think they have all had to.

Pádraig Mac Lochlainn (Donegal North East, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

At a certain point, certainly in Donegal, it was my understanding that there was an assurance that the local authorities would not do this, but rather would make sure those who were delivering the services would continue to do so. Maybe that was wishful thinking.

Ms Sian Muldowney:

Twice in the Dáil, the Minister, Deputy Kelly has committed to meeting with the Dublin Inner City Community Co-operative, and that meeting still has not taken place. We have been lobbying for it. Some of the local community development committees throughout the country have taken a stance on funding cuts as a consequence of the programme. The Dublin Local Community Development Committee has written to the Minister about the funding cut in Dublin. We have been lobbying our public representatives throughout the inner city which is, I think, how Deputy Ó Snodaigh knows about many of the groups but we have had very little traction from the Department on it. The letter the committee received reflects a lot of what we have had in response to the issue. The bottom line is that there was advice from the Attorney General and there does not seem to be any shifting on that. As Ms McCarthy pointed out in her presentation, we would argue that they had already made a decision to go to tender. That decision had to have been made and that is why they sought advice on it. We are anxious to know where that decision was made and why.

Ms Deirdre McCarthy:

In areas where there was some discussion, the Department acknowledged the notion of reserved status - that essentially the contracts can be reserved for particular providers. The advice, which is correct, was that it cannot be. Under the current rules, going out for public tender means that cannot be done, just as you cannot have your cake and eat it. If the choice is to go down the public procurement route, somebody cannot then whisper on the side that it will be delivered, even though this has happened over the years despite the fact that it is not supposed to be done.

Under the new directive, if transposed, there is space for having reserved contract status or for developing partnerships between provider and tenderers. The new directive allows for that, but my understanding is that the current one does not.

Pádraig Mac Lochlainn (Donegal North East, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There is a difficulty because the advice from the Attorney General is privileged and the Government does not have to make us aware of it. It can say it has been advised. That is the same for every government.

In terms of the European Commission our committee may seek to bring in representatives of the Commission to give us their assessment of these directives and to respond to the points the witnesses have made. Have the witnesses had any communication with, or feedback from, the Commission?

Ms Deirdre McCarthy:

No, we have not. We learned of the later directive which repeals the current directive. Let us say one is called 18 and the next one is 24. We learnt of their existence last year and did some work on trying to understand the situation. The Wheel and others have done some work, which we provided because there was a call for submissions from the Office of Public Procurement. We are not experts in this area and have not gone to the European Commission.

Ms Sian Muldowney:

We are considering using a similar mechanism at the petitions committee in Europe, but that is a long process.

Pádraig Mac Lochlainn (Donegal North East, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Our committee will certainly correspond with the Commission and may look to bring in representatives or even a Commissioner if need be.

Susan O'Keeffe (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the witnesses for a very clear presentation. They and others in the sector have lobbied very actively. That is hardly surprising given that this came as a bolt out of the blue. Nobody saw it coming and therefore nobody knew how to react. There is a shock element in being suddenly railroaded in a new direction. What do the witnesses think about why they were asked to tender or why the tendering process was introduced?

Ms Deirdre McCarthy:

We had a discussion about this before we came in. I think it was a political decision to undermine the community sector. Many community projects are very small. It is not that we do not have the skill to do the work. We absolutely have the skill to do community development work, but we do not necessarily have the skill to handle these enormous tendering documents, although we have done and that is why we have come together.

Ms Sian Muldowney:

I think a process started in the early 2000s around cohesion. Slowly but surely since then it has been chipping away. There were Cohesion I and II and alignment. We have dealt with them, taken them all on board, adapted to everything that has come our way and have continued to deliver services, but it is coming to breaking point. I do not know how we will continue under the new programme and these mechanisms.

Ms Deirdre McCarthy:

If one looks back at the community development programme, the programmes have changed and community development, which was the major component of the programmes, is being squeezed out. That component is less than 10% to 15% under the local community development programme. The social inclusion and community activation programme is better because the component is a third of the programme, which is an increase. We have dealt with all these changes in structure and management. Obviously we have to be accountable and we adhere absolutely to those rules but we feel that this is not only a change in structure that is awkward and difficult to manage, it could fundamentally destroy the community sector.

Ms Sian Muldowney:

In terms of transparency and accountability, we account for every single cent that comes through our door. We stand over the fact that the services we provide are value for money.

Susan O'Keeffe (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have heard others in the sector make that argument. Why would Government want to squeeze the sector?

Ms Deirdre McCarthy:

The Senator might need to ask Government that.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It will tell the witnesses honestly.

Ms Deirdre McCarthy:

Much of the time community projects are advocating about the absence of service provision in disadvantaged communities and that absence exists because of a lack of good quality policy-making or good quality delivery of services. We highlight that and that is sometimes problematic for people.

Ms Sian Muldowney:

We fill a gap in services that the State has not been able to provide and sometimes we are loud about it.

Susan O'Keeffe (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In its letter the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government states in response to question 8:

The programmes [sic] three high level goals are reflective of its aim. The priority will be to focus on ensuring that the needs of the most disadvantaged communities are protected, that ancillary costs are minimised and that disadvantaged communities will benefit from a more focused programme and better integrated actions.

If the Department were present, that is what it would say. It is not the destruction of the witnesses’ work. What do the witnesses say to that?

Ms Sian Muldowney:

I would argue that this programme focuses more on targets than on outcomes and processes which are of equal value in community development work. I would also argue that we work with the hardest to reach in society, the ones who are furthest removed from the labour market, who are not as easily quantifiable when ticking boxes about how to engage them. One of the main problems with the programme I mentioned earlier is that the communities were not consulted about what was needed. It serves a purpose but not for what exactly is needed in areas of real disadvantage. I am talking about the inner city because that is where I have experience.

Susan O'Keeffe (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It largely applies across the sector, but of course Ms McCarthy can speak only from her own experience. The Department states that it will protect and is going to deliver to the most disadvantaged. It is a piece of paper but it is a declaration of intent. Does this declaration of intent have no value?

Ms Deirdre McCarthy:

It would certainly have a value but there are issues that arise about previous declarations under the local community development programme where, for example, one of the target groups is Travellers and in the previous review, less than 1% of the resources of the programme benefited the Traveller population. Unless that is constantly monitored or the communities that are supposed to be the target groups are given a voice to raise their heads and say what is happening, we will not know. Unless there is advocacy and communities actively participate in the process, there will be no voice to say “I am among the most disadvantaged and this has not hit me”.

One of the actions we are supposed to take is employment supports and there is nothing to stop a company setting up outside Trinity College on graduation day and providing employment supports to people who walk out the door, buttoning down all its targets because it got 75 people into employment. Nobody is coming along to check whether those 75 people were disadvantaged. I would be fairly certain that if they have just graduated from Trinity they are less likely to be. It is a claim and it is a positive approach to take but it would need to be constantly independently monitored and the communities themselves need to be at the core to ensure that is happening.

Ms Sian Muldowney:

There also needs to be a degree of flexibility in the programme which does not exist.

Susan O'Keeffe (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The witnesses said that they would like to remain funded through the grant system. Some people would argue that is at the core of the problem. People who get grants have a grant mentality and ought to move to a different mentality. I have heard very clearly the witnesses’ criticisms of the tender system, but is there some grain of truth in the argument about the grant mentality? I know that the witnesses argue that their modus operandiand ethos are utterly different from the normal tender process. People latch on to that and say they just want the grant.

Ms Sian Muldowney:

Does the grant mentality mean applying for it for the sake of having it?

Susan O'Keeffe (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes, the grant mentality means that people never drive at greater efficiency. The witnesses argue that they have done so and I do not doubt that. There is something about that whole grant mentality structure and I wonder whether tendering was brought in to try to find an alternative way around this, albeit that the tendering system has many flaws and the witnesses have highlighted some of them. Has that argument not come up?

Ms Deirdre McCarthy:

Until ten or 15 years ago one could possibly have argued that was more the case, but in recent years we have been very heavily reviewed, as we should be, and monitored. We have to apply regularly for a new work programme each year. It is not an automatic follow-on. It is not a case of here is your money at the start of the year and away you go. We have to do a plan and we get feedback on the plan. A lot of work goes into ensuring it is not just an automatic roll-over and we are involved in that process regularly. There may have been situations where that was the case but it is certainly not anymore. In terms of efficiencies, no more than a lot of others, we have been slashed to the point that I am running training on Wednesday mornings for a group coming in and I do not provide a cup of tea. I do not have money for tea. Our budgets have been completely slashed. We are responsive and we are required to comply regularly with the requirements and programmes.

Ms Sian Muldowney:

The level of bureaucracy involved in applying for a grant is not quite so relevant anymore. We came back to work after Christmas and we had to have quarterly reports in finance on monitoring our workload in by 15 January, in addition to a plan for the next quarter on how we would meet our targets and also what work we would do. In another two weeks we have to have our annual report in for 2014. Just applying for grants is not something we do any more.

Susan O'Keeffe (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Approximately what is the budget for the total group?

Ms Sian Muldowney:

It is €1.3 million for the Dublin Inner City Community Co-operative Society Limited.

Susan O'Keeffe (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does each and every member have to go through that process for its portion of the €1.3 million? Are there 15 copies of plans and reviews?

Ms Sian Muldowney:

Yes.

Noel Harrington (Cork South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the witnesses for their presentation. It would be appropriate to bring in some departmental officials and perhaps someone from the European Commission. Reference was made to the fact that the European debate has moved away from tendering for social inclusion projects. It might be interesting to get the opinion of someone in the Commission who could flesh out the picture and state the intention behind the 2014 directive on public procurement which will be transposed in 2016. The Department could then elaborate on how it intends to interpret the directive and how it could deliver the programmes to which the witnesses referred more efficiently.

Pádraig Mac Lochlainn (Donegal North East, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Deputy is absolutely correct. The secretariat has summarised the key points to the Department for response. Initially, we can do a similar exercise with the Commission. That will be an interim measure. We will also invite a senior official from the Department to speak to us and also a senior representative of the European Commission. If it is agreed, we will bring both to a session as soon as we can? Agreed.

Susan O'Keeffe (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes. Given that one of the key points that is made about the lack of capacity in tendering is that one cannot capture social capital, is there any point in having a little extra information or asking someone, even if it is very briefly, to clarify the matter?

Pádraig Mac Lochlainn (Donegal North East, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Who does the Senator propose we invite?

Susan O'Keeffe (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am sorry not to be able to propose somebody but I am sure it will be evident to someone else who would be useful, specifically in the area of tendering, which is at the core of what has changed. That might throw some light on the reasons it might have happened and the failures of it that have been outlined. It might be of assistance to the committee. I am not talking about a long session but rather a short presentation with some short questions.

Pádraig Mac Lochlainn (Donegal North East, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Senator’s wishes have been recorded and we will see what we can do.

Noel Harrington (Cork South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This was a very interesting presentation. I do not have many questions. I am more familiar with some of the programmes in west Cork. Reference was also made to the islands, which seem to be a difficult area to deal with in terms of planning. The point has been made to me for some time about duplication of effort, for example, where groups might be doing more or less the same or overlapping work or that there could be a more efficient use of resources to deliver to clients or communities. The duplication could be with other groups, for example, or with other State agencies or institutions doing similar work. There is a lack of integration. I have heard the point made in a rural context. Some of the challenges in my area might be very different from those in inner city Dublin but the work in both areas is to deal with people very much at the margins who are the most disadvantaged and the least able to access services. Is there some validity in the point?

Ms Sian Muldowney:

I will speak to the point on the inner city as it is what I know. The Dublin Inner City Community Co-operative Society Limited has 15 member organisations. One of the striking things when we were developing the tender for SICAP was the range of work that was being done across the city. I would argue very strongly that there is not duplication because we work together collaboratively. We support and enhance each other's work. The disadvantage in the inner city is so concentrated that it is quite different from other areas throughout the country. One could walk out one’s door and visibly see how bad things have become, in particular in recent years. There are massive levels of poverty and disadvantage. I would strongly say there needs to be more of us, not fewer.

Ms Deirdre McCarthy:

I might add that it is a point that has been made to us at times but the level of resources involved is not significant. I accept that €1.3 million sounds like a lot but it really is not when one looks at the level of disadvantage. It is equivalent to the budget of a small secondary school, and that is for the city.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is that for the entire co-operative?

Ms Deirdre McCarthy:

Yes, it is for the co-operative area, which is the inner city area. I know that sometimes people are frustrated, for example, if you are running an education programme for disadvantaged adults and you have not made enormous successes at the end of it. The argument that must be put is that the level of disadvantage they have experienced is not going to be resolved by one training course. It is going to be resolved by a huge amount of input over time. That takes more time and resources. At times, what can look like overlap sometimes is not. There may be two groups working with one family or individual but that is because they need supports in different areas.

Susan O'Keeffe (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I wish to make a point of clarification.

Pádraig Mac Lochlainn (Donegal North East, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Senator O’Keeffe can make a point of clarification but she should be brief as Deputy Boyd Barrett has waited a long time to contribute.

Susan O'Keeffe (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Ms Muldowney referred to 15 members. The tender would allow for the money to be distributed to the 15 and they would not all have to do all the work. In terms of the 15 reports they are all writing and the 15 reviews, is the point of the tender not that only one is made?

Ms Sian Muldowney:

In terms of SICAP there is one report because it is the community co-operative that has tendered for it.

Susan O'Keeffe (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is that not an outcome that would save money?

Ms Sian Muldowney:

All 15 projects still have to report individually to the co-operatives.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is 15 chapters done by 15 different groups.

Ms Sian Muldowney:

Absolutely, yes.

Susan O'Keeffe (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It was just a thought, that resources could be saved.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

To be honest, the witnesses convinced me of their case even before they came in. I am curious about the rationale behind this because it is just bizarre, absurd and shocking as far as I can see. It is bad enough wanting to privatise water and housing let alone privatise community and voluntary services that provide services to approximately 2 million people a year, according to one of the reports. Community and voluntary groups that get a pittance provide services to 2 million of the most disadvantaged and vulnerable people in the country and now they want to privatise it. That is just beyond any sort of belief. I am trying to get my head around it because I am not easily shocked about the privatisation agenda but I was pretty shocked when I heard that.

My reaction was to ask how they were planning to make money out of it. I can see how they might try to make money out of it and whatever else they want to sell off and privatise, but who is going to benefit?

I agree with the argument that communities and services will suffer. The entire idea of community and voluntary work will suffer, if it is not eliminated completely. I still do not fully understand the agenda behind it. On the face of it, it strikes me as privatisation and neoliberalism gone completely bonkers. The only commercial interests that I can think of that will benefit are private companies linked with an agenda of dragooning people into labour activation schemes. The mindset is that all of these schemes are a waste of time and run by hippy left-wingers who should be replaced by people who can get tough with disadvantaged communities by dragging them into labour activation schemes. There is no understanding that the schemes support people with serious problems who need the support of caring human beings. Do the delegates think there is a deeper logic to these proposals? Perhaps they might speak about the experience in the United Kingdom where this has already happened to some extent. If I fully understand what they said, we are even more gung-ho in this bizarre neoliberal privatisation experiment than the European Union. Normally the Union pushes us in that direction, but in this case it is pulling back from privatising these services, whereas the Government is pushing forward. Is that the case?

Ms Deirdre McCarthy:

It certainly seems to be the case. The legal environment is the same today as it has been in the ten years since the current directive was put in place. The new directives allow for social inclusion programmes to be handled in a different way. They are also very clear in stating programmes under the value of €750,000 should not be put out to public tender. These programmes can be constructed in such a way as to keep them under the value of €750,000. I will take the fifth amendment on the Deputy's question as to why this is happening.

Ms Sian Muldowney:

I will not. The clue is in the title - social inclusion community activation programme.

Ms Deirdre McCarthy:

Active citizens.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Will the delegates speak about the experience in England where problems have emerged with this approach?

Ms Deirdre McCarthy:

One of the criticisms that emerge across the board is that creaming can occur. Private sector firms deal with the low hanging fruit, in other words, those closest to the labour market. Under the earlier schemes, more money was provided in respect of those who were further away from the labour market in acknowledgement of the fact that such individuals required additional supports. The private companies have clearly worked out a ratio for the level of support per euro, but they were still more expensive. They worked with those closest to employment. For example, the aforementioned Trinity graduates are likely to secure employment and thus the company is more likely to receive the fee.

Ms Sian Muldowney:

The programmes in the United Kingdom make their money based on how long people stay in employment. It, therefore, makes sense for them to focus on those who are already at the gates of the labour market. Only 48,000 people have found employment through these programmes in the United Kingdom. The Australian or Dutch Government has decided not to continue down this path because it is not working.

Ms Deirdre McCarthy:

One of the criticisms of the programmes is that they secure jobs that are below individuals' skill levels. They can then be ticked off as having a job. However, they do not respond to the needs of the individual.

Ms Sian Muldowney:

In regard to the Australian or Dutch Government, it is not that it has ceased the programme but that it has ceased asking companies to compete on price because this was creating incentives that served the contractor, rather than the unemployed individual.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The 15 organisations represented by the co-operative receive €1.3 million between them.

Ms Deirdre McCarthy:

That was in 2014.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I ask the delegates to elaborate on what the organisations do. It is a tiny amount of money when divided between 15 organisations which probably act as the glue holding together some of the most disadvantaged communities in this city by providing an opportunity for people to re-engage with society. They appear to offer incredibly good value for money, but I imagine they are massively under resourced. Perhaps it might be useful to hear about the services they provide in oder that we understand what is at stake.

Ms Sian Muldowney:

We work across the north and south inner city to provide a range of services, including after-school programmes, employment supports, jobseeker assistance, adult education services, breakfast clubs, drug addiction services and senior citizen supports. We also work with tenants in local authority flat complexes and manage community employment, Tús and job initiative schemes. We look after community buildings and community spaces and provide crèches, early childhood education services, supports for migrants in new communities, youth services and community training centres. These are just the 15 projects organised within the co-operative.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

With how many people do they deal on an annual basis?

Ms Sian Muldowney:

Approximately 7,000 or perhaps more.

Ms Deirdre McCarthy:

The community development programme was established to provide core funding to develop other services around it. For many of our organisations, this funding is the core and other funding is attached to it. Without this funding, the rest will also collapse. For example, child care services might be provided through a different service provision, but it is managed and resourced under this programme. Therefore, the knock-on effect will extend beyond the programme. Some of these organisations have been in existence for many years. A long history of expertise and community is embedded in them.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Most of the organisations were established by people who had a particular concern for these communities and issues.

Ms Sian Muldowney:

They continue to be run by people who live and volunteer in the community.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

They may now be taken over by commercial interests with absolutely no connection with the people or their community.

Ms Sian Muldowney:

They will not even be taken over; they will be gone. The commercial entities can work separately from them. They will not need to build a relationship with existing infrastructure.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The official response from the Government is that this is a legal matter related to EU directives, but the delegates have presented evidence supporting their claim that such is not the case. At no point has anybody in the Government come forward to say there is a political rationale behind the proposal.

Ms Sian Muldowney:

No.

Ms Deirdre McCarthy:

Since it was announced last February, the argument has been that the Government has to do it because it is the legal position.

Ms Sian Muldowney:

It is claimed that it is being done on advice from the Attorney General. We received no more information than this, despite having tabled numerous parliamentary questions on it.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Our job is to smoke out the contradiction.

Ms Deirdre McCarthy:

I am concerned that the committee will be given the same reply. However, there are huge inconsistencies in this position. For example, why is it the position for SICAP but not for Leader or the current programmes, given that they are based on the same legislative framework?

Pádraig Mac Lochlainn (Donegal North East, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I recall senior people in the European Commission referring to the Irish model as a template for community participation. That is one of the strongest points for me. I must declare an interest in that I was elected as a community director to the Inishowen partnership in Donegal in 1996. From the get go, the model involved directly elected people from the community and a bottom-up approach. The model across Ireland is something we have been very proud of and it was held up as a template but it is now being destroyed using the very people who held it up as a template. It is the words of the witnesses, who are on the front line, that the work they have done could potentially be destroyed. That is very alarming.

We will ask the Department and the European Commission to respond but we will send on a transcript of the discussion. They can look at it, respond to the points and when they come before us we can have an engaging session.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Perhaps the witnesses can confirm that the change to SICAP involves a substantial cut to the funding for community programmes despite the fact we were told there would be no cuts. It is up to €2 million in total and, in Dublin, up to €700,000 across all of the partnership groups. Perhaps the witnesses can elaborate on whether this is true. Local Deputies attended the Cherry Orchard Equine Centre in Ballyfermot to train young people in horseriding skills, looking after horses and stabling skills. Different groups have different sources of funding and this has come out of the blue. They say they will lose all of their current funding from one stream because, in the past, they used the money for administration purposes. Under the rules of SICAP they cannot submit an application if they are using more than 25% of the morning money for funding administration. They cannot apply for money for this year. They will have to negotiate with all of the other funders, juggle money around and move the administration costs. It was easy to decide that certain money would cover the administration costs and other money would cover the rest of the programme. If people get money from the HSE, they cannot decide to change it and put it in somewhere else because of the evaluation and monitoring. In the recent past, every grant must be spent exactly as it is described. Ten or 15 years ago, there was more constructive moving of funds within projects to help develop programmes. Once people did that, they then applied for interim funding and mainstream funding. This seems to be more rigid. When I had discussions with this group, some of it went over my head even though I am on the Local Community and Development Programme, LCDP, and I have been involved in taskforces. There were a lot of acronyms but there was no logic behind it.

Is the cut I mentioned viewed as a cost saving measure? Do some people view it as such? Then it will come on top of a whole range of cuts that Brian Harvey showed, in his detailed report, that the community sectors had been cut to the bone above all sectors in society. Even if funding for the group was standing still without SICAP, would it substantially cut the community programmes?

Representatives of the Canal Communities Partnership, who will hopefully meet local Deputies on Friday, were concerned about the loss of expertise. In the Bluebell area, the witnesses probably know Mr. Tommy Coombes, who is a dynamo. Every community should have someone like him - a person who runs around organising everything. Ms Rita Fagan is also well known by many. Their concern is that they may not get their jobs under the new arrangement but they are also concerned that, even if they get the jobs, it will be substantially different. For example, Tommy will work in Bluebell one day and will be sent to the other end of the partnership area the next day. Some of the tenders in Dublin can apply to two partnership areas.

The witnesses mentioned that they do not have a partnership area at the moment but in my constituency the Rathmines Pembroke partnership area covers Crumlin, Drimnagh and Walkinstown. The original partnership collapsed. If that area was amalgamated with the witnesses' partnership area or with Ballyfermot, it would be a huge area, with almost half the city covered by one structure. There will be a loss of identity if it proceeds like that.

Ms Sian Muldowney:

With regard to funding, I cannot think of the figures off the top of my head but the SICAP budget took a cut within the budget. Dublin has received a disproportionate cut compared to the rest of the country and the inner city has received a disproportionate cut compared to Dublin. We took a 38% cut in funding from March to December. In addition, in December we were informed that our first-quarter funding was cut by an additional 6.5%. It comes back to smaller organisations. If we win the tender and the funding remains at 38%, the vast majority of projects in the co-operative will have to close their doors. We will not be able to keep going. It is a catch-22 situation about how to proceed.

The administrative issue is a massive problem. It comes back to why tendering is bad for small groups. There used to be some leeway within the LCDP to allow people to spend a certain percentage of funding on administrative work. The way the new programme works, one is either in administration or not. I am a co-ordinator of a local community project and I do a lot of development work but I am also responsible for the administration. Under the new programme, I can no longer do both but must be either one or the other. That will have a massive consequence on small programmes because we do everything. That is how we keep the doors open. We wash, we clean, we paint, we run development work and we do administration. Within the co-operative, we are nowhere near 25% for most organisations. We did not receive enough in funding to be able to have a major administrative budget.

The Deputy referred to a loss of expertise. I know Mr. Tommy Coombes and Ms Rita Fagan, who are excellent voices for their communities. It refers to the non-financial value we referred to earlier. Decades of experience and knowledge has built up within communities and all of that will be lost. It is a unique way of being able to work and to know what works within communities. The approach that one size fits all does not work. What works in inner-city Dublin will not work in west Cork. There are different ways of doing things and private companies will not care about adapting their work in that way. That is not what they are about.

Ms Deirdre McCarthy:

With regard to the administrative point, we are crucified by the way they wanted us to do it previously. The LCDP programme was set up for that purpose where we were the glue and the core that held together this other work. We had a disproportionately high administrative function and cost because we are managing other things that had disproportionately low administrative functions. Years later, the dialogue is that we spent too much on administration. Maybe so, if one only looks at that alone but that is not true and it is not the case.

As Ms Sian Muldowney pointed out, under the social inclusion and community activation programme, SICAP, we are not allowed to be both, but as we are a small organisation of course we are both. We do have 12 workers, one who does administration and 11 who do everything else. We have two or three people who do everything, but we are not allowed to do both. That was the history and then we were told not to do it that way.

Noel Harrington (Cork South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What company, framework or corporate entity would tender against the delegates' organisation?

Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I believe four tendered for the JobPath programme.

Ms Sian Muldowney:

Seetec is one of the companies that won the contract for the JobPath programme.

Noel Harrington (Cork South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What is its structure?

Ms Sian Muldowney:

It runs some of the work programmes in the United Kingdom. My understanding is that it was successful in securing the contract for the JobPath programme in Ireland. It is that type of company we are looking at.

Noel Harrington (Cork South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We might get more information on those.

Susan O'Keeffe (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is like those service companies that come in and do all kinds of miscellaneous jobs in the world.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

G4S is one of the biggest companies in the world. It did not get the contract but it was engaged in discussions with the Department with all those who tendered for the contract for JobPath. It is one of the companies in England that delivers the equivalent service of trying to place people. One would question why such a security company is engaged in this. There is also a huge level of abuse by such companies in England, Australia and other countries where they fiddle the figures. We saw the debacle around the Olympics where G4S was supposed to provide security. Most of the people who were taken on were paid low wages and given zero hour contracts and all that type of abuse. In terms of the replication of that in Ireland - we do not know about that yet because while the contract has been granted the full service plan has not been delivered - there are concerns about it, but that is the drift throughout Europe. Such mulitnationals that do not have anything to do with social provision can take on these contracts at a loss because they are so large, but there is a different purpose behind it.

Pádraig Mac Lochlainn (Donegal North East, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I call Senator O'Keeffe.

Susan O'Keeffe (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is the loss of a vocational element. The delegates mentioned that they had what was described as a consultation with the Department but, in effect, it was a meeting in which they were read a document. When they came away from that meeting I imagine they were concerned about the level, or lack, of consultation. Did they write or telephone to say that what took place was not what could be described as a consultation? I am just wondering what happened.

Ms Deirdre McCarthy:

On the day of the meeting, which was the week of Easter, they had given us a link to fill in - a survey monkey type thing - to give our feedback and it was supposed to be back within three or four days, but it was the Easter bank holiday. The feedback from the people in the room was somewhat hostile to the set-up and we were given more time. It was very clearly articulated on that day by the participants that this was not a positive process. In the workshop sessions we were told that we were not allowed to discuss tendering. It was like a giant elephant in the room in that we were there to discuss the programme but we were not allowed to discuss it. I am not sure if we wrote to them specifically but I am absolutely positive that on the day they got very clear feedback that not only us but all the participants were really unhappy with how-----

Ms Sian Muldowney:

We would have certainly expressed our unhappiness informally through our contacts in Pobal who work with us.

Ms Deirdre McCarthy:

The change that came out of this was that the programme used to be called the social inclusion activation programme and now it is called the social inclusion community activation programme.

Susan O'Keeffe (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Effectively, a formal request was not sent back asking if the delegates could do that again or if they do could do more of it. It was just what happened on the day.

Ms Sian Muldowney:

No, not from us. There may have been one from others.

Susan O'Keeffe (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Sure.

Ms Deirdre McCarthy:

Interestingly, a small point is that SICAP had not been signed off on when the tendering process started. It is unusual to be asked to tender for something-----

Susan O'Keeffe (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

-----that does not exist.

Ms Deirdre McCarthy:

-----that has not been finalised. That was an usual situation.

Susan O'Keeffe (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Sure.

Pádraig Mac Lochlainn (Donegal North East, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

A few points come to mind, having spoken to the clerk to the committee. We will seek from the Department, if it is attainable, the feedback from the surveys. We want to get the feedback they received to get a flavour of the issues. Another aspect is the advice that was sought from the Attorney General. We will ask the Department the wording of the advice and what advice it was seeking because that will instruct us. Although, obviously, we will not get the advice that was given, we will ask what advice they sought.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

One is not precluded from getting the advice. There is no harm in asking for it.

Pádraig Mac Lochlainn (Donegal North East, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is a fair point. We will ask for the advice, although it is likely it will be withheld.

Susan O'Keeffe (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The delegates said that when they arrived at that consultation they were presented with a programme.

Ms Deirdre McCarthy:

The social inclusion activation programme was-----

Susan O'Keeffe (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I think Ms McCarthy said it was read to them.

Ms Deirdre McCarthy:

It was read to us from the podium.

Susan O'Keeffe (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Would it be useful to ask for a copy of that programme as it was prior to any engagement to see what was being laid out at that point?

Pádraig Mac Lochlainn (Donegal North East, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Senator is asking that we request the draft programme that was given to the delegates.

Susan O'Keeffe (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Correct.

Pádraig Mac Lochlainn (Donegal North East, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We also want to get the survey feedback they received to it.

Susan O'Keeffe (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Also, as the Chairman said, we want to know what questions were put to the Attorney General on foot of those documents.

Pádraig Mac Lochlainn (Donegal North East, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes, we want to know what advice was given.

Ms Sian Muldowney:

I have a question regarding the transposing of a directive into EU law. Is there a specific Department that is responsible for that, or is it the Department that is covered by that directive?

Pádraig Mac Lochlainn (Donegal North East, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Each Department would seek the advice of the Attorney General where it considers what is required is not clear; it is each Department's responsibility. Is that okay?

Ms Sian Muldowney:

Yes.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

They do not always transpose them by the set date.

Susan O'Keeffe (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Routinely, yes, and that would be true of all countries.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

A date was mentioned but the delegates should not expect it to be in place by that date, it could be several years later before that happens. They usually try to comply with the dates.

Ms Deirdre McCarthy:

How those directives are transposed will have an enormous impact on programmes such as this one into the future. It is one of the aspects that would concern us beyond SICAP. How those directives are handled and the decisions about why certain things go to tender will have a fundamental impact. They can be transposed in ways that are more responsive to the needs of disadvantaged communities, or less so.

Pádraig Mac Lochlainn (Donegal North East, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We will send the transcript of the delegates' evidence and the question and answer session to the European Commission. We will draw to its attention the implications of this directive, as part of the background to this, and request a response from it.

I thank Ms McCarthy and Ms Muldowney. We appreciate their attendance. It is an example of the importance of the petition system. It is a new system for this Dáil where citizens can come in and bring their issues to the heart of the Parliament and we can follow up on those and make recommendations.

Ms Deirdre McCarthy:

We thank the members for their time.