Oireachtas Joint and Select Committees
Tuesday, 22 November 2016
Joint Oireachtas Committee on Arts, Heritage, Regional, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs
Sustaining Viable Rural Communities: Discussion (Resumed)
10:00 am
Peadar Tóibín (Meath West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
We will discuss the topic what it takes to sustain a viable rural community with representatives of the Fingal Leader Partnership, Kildare Leader Partnership, Meath Leader Partnership and Monaghan Leader Partnership. Cuirim fíorfháilte roimh gach éinne anseo inniu chun an ábhar tábhachtach seo a phlé. I welcome the following witnesses to the meeting: Ms Phil Moore, chief executive officer, representing Fingal Leader Partnership; Mr. Justin Larkin, chief executive officer, and Mr. Chris Byrne, former chairman, representing Kildare Leader Partnership; Mr. Michael Ludlow, chief executive officer, representing Meath Leader Partnership; and Mr. Gabriel O'Connell, chief executive officer, and Ms Mary Mullen, chairperson, of Monaghan Integrated Development, representing Monaghan Leader Partnership. I thank the witnesses for their attendance.
This committee is involved in a very in-depth item of research. We propose to talk to the representatives of approximately 49 different organisations, ranging from businesses to enterprise developments to community groups and so forth, to get a good understanding from the experts in the field of what is necessary to achieve a sustainable rural society and economy. What we are seeking to get, in the main, are in-depth recommendations from the witnesses' experience that we can add to our report that we hope to publish in the new year.
Before we proceed, I wish to draw the witnesses' attention to the fact that by virtue of section 17(2)(l) of the Defamation Act 2009, witnesses are protected by absolute privilege in respect of the evidence they are to give to the committee. If, however, they are directed to cease giving evidence on a particular matter and continue to so do, they are entitled thereafter only to qualified privilege in respect of their evidence. They are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given and are asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they should not criticise or make charges against any person or an entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable. The opening statement and any other documents submitted may be published on the committee website after this meeting. 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 their official name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.
In today's meeting we are continuing with the programme regarding viable rural communities. We are dealing with stream one, which is maintaining an effective service and presence in rural communities, and we will complete our discussions on that aspect. We have also looked at different elements of it. We hope to have the report completed by the new year.
I call the representative of Fingal Leader Partnership to address the committee first.
Ms Phil Moore:
To give members some idea of the company profile, Fingal Leader Partnership, FLP, is a not-for-profit organisation with charitable status. The company was established in 2009 following the Government cohesion process which saw Rural Dublin LEADER Company Limited merge with Co-operation Fingal, which was a community partnership at the time. FLP has extensive experience and expertise in the delivery of the Leader programme across the Dublin rural sub-region, which encompasses the three local authority areas of South Dublin county, Dún Laoghaoire-Rathdown and Fingal. The company also delivers other programmes such as the Tús programme, the Jobs Club programme and the Care and Repair programme. Previously it would have delivered a substantial number of social inclusion-type programmes but currently that is the level of its involvement.
I have been working in community development since I entered employment. I completed a BSc honours degree in rural development and have worked on the rural Dublin Leader programme since 1997. I first started as a development officer and therefore I have extensive experience of working with the communities, small businesses and various other individuals in the crafts sector, niche food sector and so on. I am currently working as acting chief executive officer with the company as the recruitment process continues. I had a key role in the research and development of both the 2007-2013 programme strategy and the 2014-2020 strategy. As a development officer, I have cemented strong links with the communities and businesses of the rural areas and have achieved many excellent projects in both sectors. I also have a strong working relationship with the many key agencies and the local authorities which assist the rural areas in their efforts to achieve sustainability and address the many challenges these communities face.
In terms of the operational area, the rural area of Dublin comprises 410 sq. km, which is 42,000 ha, which is approximately 51% of the total area of the three relevant local authorities. However, the population in this area is 66,603, accounting for only 13% of the total population of the three local authority areas. Compared with the urban areas of these local authorities, this reflects a relatively less densely populated area.
The Dublin rural area is a peri-urban region, heavily influenced by the urban area within County Dublin, where the urban environment transitions into the rural environment. The physical landscapes are varied, with the Dublin Mountains to the south, arable pasture to the north and west, rivers and streams throughout, nearly 34 km of coastline to the north east, and interspersed with vibrant towns and villages. However, while this landscape remains predominantly rural, the relationships with the urban core are numerous and complex, influencing employment, demographics and household characteristics. Furthermore, population growth is resulting in urbanisation and the loss of rural and agriculture lands as parts of the county are ceded to residential requirements. For the residents of urban Dublin, its rural hinterland is an enviable location for recreation and amenity and an escape into nature. The peri-urban region is under expansionary residential and commercial pressures, resulting in rural towns and villages experiencing many challenges, not least the changing demographic in terms of population, with many diverse communities now residing in the Dublin rural area.
The effect of these pressures is a factor in the reduction in farm numbers and size between 1991 and 2010. The number of farms in County Dublin fell by 47.2% during this 19-year period, resulting in a 22.9% reduction in the area of land farmed. These changes and challenges are not unique to the Dublin rural area, but its proximity to Dublin city brings additional pressures which heighten the issues in the Dublin rural towns and villages.
In summary, the issues faced in the Dublin peri-urban area differ slightly from those experienced in the more traditional rural areas. They include the loss of rural identity; the loss of cultural heritage; the loss of open space; the threat to the rural landscape; the threat to the rural environment and biodiversity; large growth in population with poor or no matching service provision; a growing youth population requiring early intervention to prevent problems; and issues arising from increased in-migration of residents of diverse cultures without social interaction opportunities for old and new residents.
Peadar Tóibín (Meath West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Míle buíochas. I call on County Kildare Leader Partnership.
Marie Louise O'Donnell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Is that all from Fingal Leader Partnership?
Mr. Justin Larkin:
I will talk very briefly about County Kildare Leader Partnership, CKLP, and then move on to other topics. County Kildare Leader Partnership is a company limited by guarantee. It was incorporated on 30 November 2007. It has charitable status and is based in Naas, County Kildare. The structure of CKLP has evolved over the past two decades. It conforms with the requirements of all the funding bodies and agencies with which we work. CKLP currently operates under a voluntary board of directors. It was originally established in 2007 in accordance with the governance guidelines of October 2007 issued by the Department of Community, Equality and Gaeltacht Affairs. The board is responsible for deciding the strategic approach of the company, the formulation of policy and the implementation of a range of publicly funded programmes.
CKLP successfully delivered the rural development programme from 2007 to 2013 and currently has responsibility and the authority to deliver the social inclusion and community activation programme, SICAP, for the period 2014 to 2017. Under the rural development programme for the period 2007 to 2013, some 232 projects were supported with €8.2 million in Leader grant aid. Under SICAP 2015-2017, operated by CKLP on behalf of the Kildare LCDC, we have exceeded key targets in 2015 and thus far in 2016. For the calendar year 2015, some 1,081 individuals were engaged with on a one-to-one basis. The target was 1,035 and 60 community groups were assisted. The target was 54. The number of individuals of 15 years and upwards in receipt of employment support was 808. The target was 599.
In addition to these two key programmes, the company is also responsible for the administration of a number of other programmes linked to the main funding programmes. These include the rural social scheme. We currently have 22 participants and one supervisor providing supports to 28 community groups throughout the county. We have applied for ten additional positions as part of the recently announced expansion of the scheme by 500 places nationally. We deliver five local training initiatives, based in Naas, Rathangan and Athy, whereby we assist 70 unemployed people to develop new skills, enabling them to seek full-time employment.
We deliver two CE schemes, with 44 participants. The first is called the business development programme and it is based in Allenwood. It assists local unemployed people to develop business ideas with a view to self-employment. The second scheme, the addiction services scheme, works with individuals in recovery from drug and alcohol abuse and delivers services and work experience opportunities to community projects around the county.
We deliver the Tús programme as the implementation body for County Kildare. It is responsible for the employment of up to 300 unemployed people on placement with a range of community and voluntary groups, groups working with disadvantaged communities and local organisations that would not normally have access to employment schemes. We operate one of the largest Tús schemes in the country. It has supported significant improvement in the local environment and the upkeep of community facilities throughout the county.
CKLP, as a host organisation or host agency, supports the work of the South Western Regional Drugs & Alcohol Taskforce, serving Kildare and west Wicklow, in addition to Older Voices Kildare, supporting the employment of five staff members. That is a brief overview of CKLP.
I have been involved in rural development and Leader programmes since 1997. When I joined, the programme was called KELT. It was delivering the Leader 2 programme. It subsequently evolved into Leader+. The most recent programme is the rural development programme for the period 2007 to 2013.
I have provided a more detailed pack of information on County Kildare and some of relevant issues. I do not propose to go through all that right now. I would like to take a few minutes to talk about some of the issues we regard as relevant. We have prepared a document in consultation with Meath and Monaghan Leader partnerships. I will refer to three elements therein, namely, broadband, rural transport and renewable energy. I have provided to members a document entitled Submission to the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Arts, Heritage, Regional, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs on its Examination of the Issue of "What it Takes to Sustain a Viable Rural Community". We prepared it collectively based on the CEDRA report and its recommendations. We have identified a number of recommendations in the report that we believe are key, relevant and valid and which should be implemented. I will speak about those on broadband, transport and energy.
On broadband, there are two recommendations made in the CEDRA report. Recommendation 15 states:
In the context of the strategic role of broadband, particularly from an enterprise perspective public funding for the provision of next generation services to rural areas (minimum 30mbps) needs to be ring-fenced and should be delivered as soon as possible. Considering the widespread availability of speeds of 50mbps and higher in many rural areas, the priority must be the delivery of 30mbps minimum to all rural areas by the end of 2015.
Local development companies regard the lack of access to high-speed, low-cost broadband as a significant inhibiting factor in the development of viable rural communities. We note the CEDRA report recommends efforts should be made to provide the minimum speed by 2015. Currently, we are waiting for the roll-out of the national broadband plan, which is very much welcomed. We understand that programme is on target to start delivering in 2017. We hope to see next-generation broadband delivered in three to five years from then. Any delays in that process would further widen the divide between rural and urban areas. Broadband in rural areas is a real equaliser. The sooner it can be achieved, the better.
Recommendation 16 refers to the need for population centres of more than 1,500 to have the right investment and speeds of up to 100 mbps as soon as possible, not lower than 40 mbps. We welcome the roll-out of the MANS network to 94 of the larger urban centres and towns. They are receiving high-speed, low-cost broadband through the initiative. On the downside, the trend supports larger urban areas to the detriment of rural areas.
We welcome the mobile phone and broadband task force recently established by the Minister and we look forward to the identification of more immediate solutions to the provision of telecoms and broadband infrastructure in advance of the rolling out of the national broadband plan. Local development companies believe the new Leader programme should be given a more imaginative and expanded role in the matrix of State interventions to provide next-generation broadband access, particularly in supporting community-owned and community-led initiatives, such as the B4RN project in England. Currently under Leader, we are very much restricted to training and small-scale initiatives in regard to community development. We believe there is a more active role for Leader in the rural development programme in this area.
On rural transport, a CEDRA recommendation states:
The Commission supports the Government's initiative to improve and integrate the Rural Transport Programme (RTP) into the overall public transport system. The Commission recommends ongoing and comprehensive monitoring of the programme in order to ensure that it is meeting the transport needs of rural Ireland going forward.
The restructuring of the rural transport programme has taken place and there are now 18 transport co-ordination units delivering rural transport around the country. That has integrated rural transport into the wider public transport service. When preparing the new strategies for the new programme, rural transport arose as a key issue. No matter what community we went into, rural transport was a key issue, along with the need to provide more services.
Rural transport is key to trying to underpin the survival and maintenance of vibrant rural communities, particularly in accessing services that are increasingly being withdrawn from rural locations such as post offices, banking, medical services and Garda stations.
We welcome the additional allocation of €850,000 in the 2016 funding and an increase of €2.19 million for the rural transport programme in 2017. This represents a practical and strong statement of Government policy to support transport in rural areas.
Recommendations Nos. 33 and 34 in the CEDRA report relate to renewable energy. The commission identified that the most significant potential for renewable energy to contribute to rural economic development was through wind energy, marine energy and bioenergy. As LDCs, we welcome the Government's commitment to energy-related goals in the programme for Government. We particularly support the commitment to use the White Paper on Energy 2015 as a framework guide for policy between now and 2030. We welcome the introduction of the strategy to combat energy poverty 2016-2019. We look forward to the commitment to accelerate the updating of the regional planning guidelines for wind farms given wind energy is one of the three areas identified by CEDRA as being potentially vital for rural economies. All local development agencies have identified renewable energy and the green economy as key areas that they will invest in under the new Leader programme. LDCs are well positioned to facilitate the implementation of Government policy and to facilitate rural communities to participate more fully in the development of renewable energy projects that will derive community benefit.
Mr. Michael Ludlow:
Meath Partnership was first incorporated in 2006. We are similar to other LDCs. We run the Leader programme, SICAP, Tús and the rural social scheme, RSS, in County Meath. We employ 28 people on a permanent basis to which we can add 16 supervisors attached to Tús and the RSS. Participants on those schemes are also employees of the partnership and, therefore, we currently employ 265 people under Tús and 16 under the RSS. As with other LDCs, we are a registered charity and we operate under a voluntary board and so on.
We also specialise in European funding outside of normal funds such as the European Social Fund and Leader, which comes from the Government. It is an area I would like to comment on briefly in the context of the creative sector. We are currently involved in 21 projects across Europe, which are funded directly by the European Commission. Recently we were awarded a €500,000 contract to assist with the integration of migrants and the contribution of migrants to the rural economy. We have five partners in five other European countries in this and, therefore, we will share in the work on this research. However, it is more than research; it is also about putting the learning into practice on the ground. That is a speciality area for us.
The various programmes in County Meath have had significant success over the past five years. Through Leader and another programme we are involved in, we funded 66 construction projects, the total value of which was €13.8 million. Very often, it is important not just to consider the grant aid provided to beneficiaries but also the total sum invested by them. That is where people will recognise the impact on the local economy. While Meath is not County Clare or County Kerry, tourism is of significant importance. Festivals and major events are important to us. We have invested together with festival committees a total of €4.358 million. An independent analysis of that investment shows that the return to the rural economy was a little over €13 million. The impact of these programmes is significant.
We work through networks to a considerable extent. We have the innovation business network, in which there are 87 member companies. We engage with them collectively in addressing the needs of microenterprise. We are also responsible for running the artisan foods of Meath network, in which there are also 87 members. Our investment in the network over the past five years was €1.285 million. We run networks in tourism with grant aid under Leader totalling €2.8 million. We also run the later life network which looks after the needs of older people in society. It is the representative voice attaching to the Meath age friendly imitative, which is a nationwide initiative. The bottom up approach at local level is driven by our understanding of the Leader programme and it is very much put into practice through that type of engagement arrangement at a local level.
I will address three aspects of the question we were asked to present on. Most of our effort has gone into looking at this to give as much assistance as we can to the committee. CEDRA recommends that the food and beverage sector should be supported to facilitate product development and access to export markets. The commission says the value of speciality food was €615 million in 2012 with approximately 350 producers employing more than 3,000 people. CEDRA also cites UK studies showing at £1 spent on local food generates £2.50 for the local economy. Those figures are conservative in the context of the artisan and speciality food industry. There are 87 such companies in our county, 30 of which received grant aid under the previous Leader programme. We welcome the increasing support of the food sector with LEOs having become involved. The local authority has also shown greater interest in this space. Producers that have expanded over the past five to seven years from a standing start with Leader support are moving into other programmes to take further steps down the road. In that context, I refer to the Enterprise Ireland-LEO engagement with SuperValu and so on. The vast majority of support in that sector is for training, not for capital investment.
The central message in comparing information across LDCs is that the Leader programme alone invests as much and has a budget as large as individual LEOs. More attention should be paid to the capacity of the programme to work within the food sector when all the agencies come together around the table to work on the future.
To avoid duplication, we see our role as working with nascent entrepreneurs who are establishing or trying to establish in the food sector. At this point in time, there are 57 such entrepreneurs in County Meath. I expect the position is similar around the country. They must be supported to a level where they can engage to good effect with Enterprise Ireland and the SuperValus of this world and provided with additional supports to enable them move into the export arena should they wish to do so. The softening of the position of Enterprise Ireland in terms of its heretofore only assisting export-only companies is welcome. This will enable further growth of indigenous companies who do not necessarily meet the export criteria. We also welcome the change made by the Commission and adopted by the Irish Government to allow for assistance via the Leader programme to SMEs in the food sector. We were able to meet the requirements of the last programme in terms of helping companies to grow past the €2 million point, in terms of turnover, and the ten employee target, but once they reached that point we had to opt, leaving a gap in terms of assistance between that and a company employing 50 employees, which was then the recognised standard for SMEs. In other words, unless a company was a 50-employee, €10 million turnover company, it did not have access to Enterprise Ireland supports. We need to ensure these gaps are closed-off.
In regard to the alignment process in bringing together the best of what is available to drive rural development, which I am sure the committee is familiar with, a massive amount of work has yet to arrive on the agenda of the local community development committees. The focus of local community development committees at this point is on the social inclusion programme and the Leader programme. The hoped for integrated approach has not yet arrived. We did expect that there would be an interdepartmental committee established as part of the alignment process and that the agencies funded by Departments, in terms of the programmes for which they would be responsible, would sit around the table of the local community development committees so that funding decisions would be based on a much broader knowledge of what is available, but that has yet to happen. It is hoped that it will happen.
The creative industries area was also examined by the Commission for the Economic Development of Rural Areas, CEDRA, in considerable detail. We had input into that process. We gathered further information which suggests that across the EU, 2.6% of EU GDP is represented by the creative sector. A lot of work has been done, commencing with the Amsterdam declaration in 2010, which has fed into European policy in terms of CCIs. Significant funding is available in this area. A pathway for the development of the creative sector has been developed, commencing with the Amsterdam declaration. The successful pathway to generating more income and greater output from the creative sector at a rural level has been sufficiently researched and it now needs to be funded properly. The Commission provides funding in this area but Ireland is not drawing down the funds. For example, under the culture programme, in respect of which €400 million is provided by the EU, the drawdown by Ireland was only €200,000. Under the FP7 - research and development programme - in respect of which €57 billion is available, there were only two successful Irish applications for relatively small amounts. This is very much the case across many of the EU funding programmes.
Local development companies are familiar with networking and sourcing the most appropriate funds. They also have the capacity to apply for funds. Currently, staff in local development companies are tied to individual programmes and so there is a lack of opportunity to seek other funding to complement mainstream programme funding. For example, in terms of SICAP, in the past additional funding could be applied for by local development companies to support that programme and that would be counted as a success whether it was European funding or otherwise but this is no longer the case. Likewise with Leader, because every moment of our time must be accounted for, if we spend any time making applications for other programmes, there is nobody to pay for that work. It is important that part as of the structure going forward, whether attached to the local community development committees or, as we would wish, attached to the local development company, space and funds would be provided to enable expertise around the making of applications and draw down from the European programmes. We specialise in this area. In one year there were only two successful applications to one programme, one by Waterford Institute of Technology and the other by Meath Leader Partnership. The next lowest application was in respect of Italy, which made 29 applications. Ireland has been a member of the EU since 1971 but it has not yet learned how to access these funds. This issue needs to be addressed. The local development companies have the expertise to chase down this funding. Given that role and funding for the specialist human resource required in that regard, we would be successful in it.
The tourism sector is critical to County Meath. The strategy----
Peadar Tóibín (Meath West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I am sorry to interrupt Mr. Ludlow but there is only ten minutes provided for each opening statement as we must ensure there is time available to tease out issues via a questions and answers session. I thank him for his presentation and now invite Ms Gabriel O'Connell to make his submission.
Mr. Gabriel O'Connell:
By way of background, County Monaghan Partnership was established in 1996 and evolved in 2008, as part of the cohesion process at that time, into Monaghan Integrated Development. We deliver broadly similar programmes to other groups but the two main programmes we deliver are Leader and SICAP. Unusually for a rural group, we also deliver the local employment service on behalf of the Department of Social Protection, which we find integrates well with our local development company model. We also deliver jobs clubs, Tús, the rural social scheme and a volunteer centre and, being in a Border county, we also assist with the delivery of the PEACE programme. We deal with anything that fits within the local development and social inclusion remit.
The importance of integration in terms of service delivery, particularly in a rural county like Monaghan, which is 70% rural, cannot be over-stated. In 2014, we worked with 3,655 clients. We assisted over 1,500 people into further education and training.
We assisted 505 people into mainstream jobs and 488 into community employment schemes. On small enterprise, I refer mainly to people who are unemployed and who want to start their own businesses or "necessity entrepreneurs", as we call them. We assisted 89 new enterprise start-ups and worked with 162 existing enterprises to help them become sustainable. That is a total of 251 that we worked with. We also do quite a bit of animation work with community groups with 159 groups being supported during the year. That gives the committee an idea. It is about that kind of networking on the ground - pulling groups together, helping small groups look at the possibility of applying for funding and tapping into other funding schemes.
In terms of individuals, linking them to training programmes and jobs is a critical part of what we do. In that context - and before I go into the main part of the presentation - the figure at the very end, figure 1, is something we have put together by way of trying to provide a conceptual view of what we think our local development company does. It is the graphic at the very end of the presentation. Successful rural development must be a mix of these things. We stimulate rural enterprise through our Leader programme and through the back-to-work enterprise allowance scheme run under SICAP. We work with community and voluntary groups and run a volunteer centre to stimulate active citizenship and involvement in community development. We link people into further education training and lifelong learning. County Monaghan has a history of significant levels of early school leaving and getting those people back to lifelong learning is an important part of development. There is then job placement and the work we do on behalf of the Department of Social Protection. Well over 50% of our budget is from programmes delivered on behalf of that Department, a significant part of which is our local employment service which fits in very well with the local development company model. On the graphic, members will see some of the deliverables.
I was asked to discuss the CEDRA recommendations Nos. 1 to 6 and 11 to 13. Recommendations Nos. 1 to 6 are referred to as "foundation recommendations" and these are the ones it is felt must be got right in rural development if the approach is going to work and if the rest of the recommendations are to succeed. Recommendation No. 1 is about preparing a clear and committed rural economic development policy statement. Naturally enough, one starts with a statement. CEDRA's rationale around that cites the complexity of rural policy. It has been written about quite a bit and, since the foundation of the State, the issue of rural areas and equalising development across the country has been a talking point. Local development companies broadly welcome this recommendation, particularly the need for a clear policy statement on an integrated approach to rural economic development. We stress the importance of an integrated approach. We very much agree that there needs to be a policy statement on this and will mention later the new Department and the integrated working group at national level and the importance of that.
Development companies such as ours deliver a broad range of economic and social initiatives. The mix of both is important. Working on the ground with unemployed people and others, we see the importance of doing the mix of social and economic. One does not work without the other and both are necessary in a rural context. However, we find that the funding Departments with which we deal tend to take a single programme view so that when one reports one's outcomes and figures at the end of the year, one reports them on SICAP, Leader and the local employment service, respectively. The Departments do not see the totality of the figures. In fact, some of the figures I have mentioned would probably surprise some of the individual Departments that fund specific measures. As such, the much-discussed interdepartmental working group is really important to get a grip on things so that integration is seen at national level and local level. The core competences of local development companies doing this mix of initiatives that get people into jobs, include them, tackle social exclusion and address unemployment are really important and must be recognised more as a strong policy instrument. A one-stop-shop approach is one way to look at that along with, more formally, looking at local development companies as policy instruments on the ground in terms of delivering more of these programmes.
Recommendation No. 2 relates and refers to the establishment of the policy delivery and co-ordination mechanism, the creation of the ministerial function and the high-level implementation committee, to which I have referred. We very much welcome the new ministerial function. I am delighted to say that the relevant Minister is from our constituency. However, the rural ministerial portfolio may not be ideally configured. We would like to see the function cover SICAP as well as the Leader programme, particularly in light of the fact that they are the two core programmes delivered by rural development companies. Again, the portfolio brief needs to be at a manageable scale. We have some concerns regarding the co-ordination structures, the LCDCs, that have been set up at local level. There was an expectation that a lot of the public money going into community projects would go through the LCDCs but we have not seen that to date. The only moneys going through the LCDCs to date have been from the Leader programme and SICAP. If that forum is to achieve its overall aim and objectives, a lot of the other funding streams must go through there as well so that they can fully consider the co-ordination of all public funds going into rural areas.
Recommendation No. 4 states that the Government and relevant stakeholders should be required to maximise the potential available funding mechanisms to support economic development in rural areas. This is critical. CEDRA's rationale on this relates to the integrated approach and it refers to the importance of maximising the funding into Leader. In fact, it made a recommendation on retaining Leader funding at 10% of the RDP. That has not happened and, in fact, it has ended up at 7% of the RDP. The Exchequer co-funding was set at 38% unlike the rest of the RDP, which is 46%. We think there will be scope to address that imbalance going forward because many Leader companies have suffered significant funding losses. That would be very welcome in rural areas in terms of job creation, etc. A huge opportunity has been missed in the context of the European Social Fund and the partnership application to the EU in that there was no application for the community-led local development, CLLD, method to utilise all the funds - including ERDF, ESF and EAFRD - in an integrated way. Each member state had the opportunity when making its partnership application to Europe to use the CLLD method for community funding. In the Irish case, it was excluded and left purely to the Leader method. There is definitely scope for more integration. The door is still open and it could still be considered. Indeed, our national representative body, the Irish Local Development Network, ILDN, made strong representations for the CLLD method to be applied by member states and a good number of member states have it applied successfully.
I have a general comment to make on the other funding streams going into rural development currently, namely, the rural economic development zones, REDZ, and the towns and villages scheme. We spent a lot of time in rural areas developing a Leader strategy and we put significant effort into public consultation to ask communities what they wanted. That is the Leader method. Shortly after that, we saw significant other funds coming in through REDZ, the towns and villages scheme, etc.
They do not go through the same type of scrutiny, they do not get the same amount of time to consult with local communities, if there is any consultation at all, and they are being delivered in isolation from the Leader programme. At a previous meeting, one of our colleagues referred to possible duplication. Under Leader we have a team for funding towns and villages but a separate new town and village team is coming, with no interlink or collaboration. There is scope for greater use of the delivery mechanism. None of the funding streams is going through the local community development committees as far as we know. If the local community development committee is to be the real co-ordinator of these programmes at local level, all of these funding streams must go through it. There needs to be greater use of implementing bodies such as the local development companies which have the expertise to deliver it.
Peadar Tóibín (Meath West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Gabhaim buíochas le na finnéithe. Bhí an cur i láthair sin an-shuimiúil ar fad. From my perspective, the funding element of the Leader programme is very important. From this, the function of the organisations and the development of the many groups and individuals with which they operate happen in a positive fashion. I understand the total budget for this Leader programme is approximately €250 million, which is a sizeable chunk of money in anybody's understanding. From the committee's perspective, oversight is very important and we need to be confident the money is being spent in a useful fashion. As Teachtaí Dála and Seanadóirí we have a responsibility to the citizens and our constituents to ask pertinent questions to ensure oversight is clear and transparent. My first question is to Meath Leader Partnership. This relates to an ongoing controversy. Is there a confidentiality agreement or a non-disclosure agreement between Meath Leader Partnership and any State or European agency?
Peadar Tóibín (Meath West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
My understanding of the process is that funding is a massively important issue, and transparency in the spending of this funding is very important to Teachtaí Dála. We have a responsibility to make sure on behalf of citizens that we know the money is being spent correctly. Therefore, if there is an issue such as a confidentiality agreement or a non-disclosure agreement with one of the partnerships, it makes our oversight opaque. It makes it impossible for us to understand exactly what is happening in the Leader organisations. This is why I have asked the question.
Mr. Michael Ludlow:
I understand the question but my answer does not change. We sought the protection of the High Court in a particular situation. The outcome of this is a legal matter and other legal matters may yet need to be addressed. We are not in a position to comment today on matters of this nature.
Peadar Tóibín (Meath West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Is any money owed to EU or State agencies by Meath Leader Partnership?
Peadar Tóibín (Meath West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Can Mr. Ludlow imagine the frustration we have as representatives of the people in this scenario? When we go to our constituents they empower us with a democratic mandate to ensure moneys from the State and the EU which are channelled through the organisations of the State are properly accounted for, but we have a blockage here to a certain extent. I understand the Minister in question, Deputy Heather Humphreys, has said there is a Garda investigation into Meath Leader Partnership. Is there an investigation into Meath Leader Partnership by the Garda?
Peadar Tóibín (Meath West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Ms Mullen does not think it is important for Teachtaí Dála to understand where the spending of the money goes.
Peadar Tóibín (Meath West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
This is the question-----
Peadar Tóibín (Meath West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I understand that, and there will be plenty of questions with regard to those issues. My questioning will take approximately ten minutes and then other committee members will have their own questions. I have only two more questions to ask in this particular vein and I will then let other people in to discuss it.
The question is pertinent to the spending of State money. It is very important for me as a local Deputy to understand this. I understand the controversy with regard to Meath Leader Partnership was regarding moneys being spent on companies that were either staffed or owned by relations of Meath Leader Partnership. Is this still the process that is happening in Meath Leader Partnership or has it changed?
Peadar Tóibín (Meath West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
So it is not happening.
Peadar Tóibín (Meath West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
To be honest, we have listened to half an hour of presentations and we will have at least another hour of discussion. If it is necessary to have further discussion I will make time available. I have no problem in that regard, with the help of the witnesses, and I know they have commitments today. I know other Teachtaí Dála have specific questions to ask, but these are important questions which I would like to ask and have the opportunity to ask. I ask the witnesses to bear with us and allow the questions to be asked. I have questions for Kildare Leader Partnership also.
Is Meath Leader Partnership involved in fundraising in any regard from local organisations in Meath, in an effort to cover costs it may have incurred which are covered by a confidentiality agreement?
Mr. Michael Ludlow:
No, absolutely not. I have mentioned various activities the company is involved in, including our success in drawing down significant funds for the benefit of the county from the European Commission. In our conversation with benefactors to the company and the corporate sector, they have an understanding as to what they support. If we make an application for very substantial European programmes, such as the one I mentioned, the minimum cost of making the application will be approximately €5,000 to €7,000. Therefore, we seek corporate support to fund these applications because we are not for profit charitable organisations and funding must arise somewhere.
In general, the Chairman would find rural industries, in particular in the agricultural sector, are tremendously supportive of anything that would be for the good of the county or the rural economy. This is essentially how we have utilised funding of this nature. Equally, the committee should remember when Leader was first introduced in 1995, despite the fact a company might have been awarded a Leader programme grant unless it could prove it could raise a given sum of money to assist the operation of the company in investing it could not access the Leader moneys.
So in County Meath, that sum in 1995 was £100,000. There is an historic aspect to the ongoing support that is there from the rural and agri-economy in County Meath towards assisting the delivery of Leader programmes or other programmes of support to the community.
Peadar Tóibín (Meath West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Could the other witnesses tells us whether there are major differences between Leader programmes are delivered county to county? Are there differentials with regard to the type of services that are being delivered? Are some Leader programmes far richer in terms of the amount of services they provide? If that is the case, is there a space for greater national co-ordination of different Leader programmes? In other words, if one Leader programme was not availing of or drawing down services or funds, help could be provided to it.
The statement that LEOs are roughly getting the same amount or less funding was very interesting. In my experience, there can be confusion and overlap between LEOs and partnerships. Is this the case currently or is it very clearly defined? Do citizens know that they should go to a partnership for some and LEO for the others?
Ms Phil Moore:
Fingal Leader Partnership delivers across the local authority regions. We are involved with three LEOs and three local authorities so we work with a diverse number of people. When somebody comes in to see us for a grant application or support in any way, we talk to them about the sectoral agreement between the LEOs and us. If we feel that the first port of call for that project is the LEO office, we refer them there immediately with a letter saying that we are referring them. Very often, the support the LEO can offer is not what the client needs at that particular time. They need capital investment. We can give them capital investment while the LEO can give them other types of support. Sometimes, it is not in the best interests of the client but the rule states that we must refer them across to the LEO office with whom we work closely to provide the client with the best deal and support available.
Mr. Gabriel O'Connell:
The new Leader programme has three different themes. The first is economic, enterprise and development. The second is social inclusion while the third is the rural environment. There are a number of sub-themes within those themes. The Leader model is a standard one with regard to what is delivered. Budgets vary across areas but the model will be quite standard. With the local community development strategies approved in each county, the LEOs and everybody else know what the potential funding is. It is up to everybody to work together to maximise the money coming into each county. That works quite well. What the Department has encouraged is local agreements with LEOs through the local community development committees, LCDCs, to make sure this happens.
Mr. Justin Larkin:
It is important to look at Leader and where it came from. The idea behind Leader was always about looking at a local area and responding to its needs. While Kildare shares similarities with Meath and Monaghan, there are aspects of and issues in the county that are unique to us. There will be similarities with regard to the programme in general but there can often be differences because local issues differ. The benefit of Leader has always been the flexibility to do that and allow a local development company to respond to local need. We would have particular concerns in County Kildare about how the funding for the new programme was distributed. Typically, in terms of Leader+ and the last rural development programme, you presented your case through your area. Needs were identified for the area and how they were to be addressed. Based on the quality of that information and approach, an allocation was awarded. County Kildare was among the top five allocations in respect of Leader+. Under the last rural development programme, we were in the top ten.
However, it was decided to use a different approach in respect of the current programme and allocations were predetermined. County Kildare ended up getting 50% less funding for the new Leader programme but we still have the same issues that need to be addressed. Unfortunately, the mechanism used to allocate funding did not benefit the county. It is important to say that the county is often perceived as a rich county that has no issues but the reality is that 10% of the population of the county live in either disadvantaged or very disadvantaged small areas. That is spread across the county. It is not just locations in rural areas like Athy or the south and north west of the county. It also applies to Naas, Maynooth, Celbridge and Leixlip. In preparing our strategy as a local development company, we have tried to devise unique responses to those unique issues.
Peadar Tóibín (Meath West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
With regard to funding, is it ever the case that Kildare Leader Partnership does not get to spend all the funding it has? Has anybody here sent back funding and why?
Mr. Justin Larkin:
We have never sent back funding. We would always have an excess of applications for funding. In respect of accountability regarding funding, as local development companies, we must operate on the basis of a very robust and stringent monitoring system. The Department's inspectors can come into our companies at any stage and look at any file, regardless of whether it relates to administration, funding or projects. In respect of the Department's internal audit, its inspectors can call on our companies and review the files. The programme monitors appointed by the EU also come into our companies and look at the information and files. The European Court of Auditors also calls to our companies and looks at files to ensure that we are spending the money we are supposed to spend. The monitoring of our companies and how we spend public funds is quite robust and multi-layered so no Deputy should have any concerns in that regard.
Peadar Tóibín (Meath West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Does Ms Mullen wish to comment?
Martin Heydon (Kildare South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
In respect of Mr. Ludlow's point about the massive EU funds that are available, I accept his point that Meath Leader Partnership does not have a mechanism now to be able to spend time as part of its daily work to apply for them. Could he outline the funds he is talking about? Is no other arm or agency of the State applying for these funds? Mr. Ludlow says we are missing out these nationally. Do Departments not have a responsibility to apply for these funds as well? He mentioned the relaxation of the export criteria for Enterprise Ireland. How does he see this manifesting itself in practice?
I welcome all those presenting today and thank them for their presentations. As a Deputy for Kildare South, I have a particular interest in the Kildare Leader Partnership presentation. I concur with what Mr. Larkin said about the impact of the reduced funding under this programme, how disappointing it is and how it restricts what we able to do in Kildare. Mr. Larkin has touched on the perception of affluence in our county. Sometimes, we are referred to as "K4" instead of "D4". This is a huge challenge in our county. We have a few big headline employers like Intel, Pfizer and Kerry Group, and we are delighted to have them, but we have pockets of serious deprivation, many of which are in my constituency. If the deprivation scale was the reason for doling out this State funding, I do not see how there can be any justification for a county with 220,000 people getting a lower allocation than County Leitrim, which has about 35,000 people. This is what we are talking about in terms of funding.
It is stark and it will have to be addressed in the mid-term review. That is not to take anything away from Leitrim.
The divide between population based in urban and rural areas is quite stark. The committee is trying to remain focused on practical recommendations on what it takes to sustain a viable rural community. From the briefings, there is a good focus on CEDRA, the Commission for the Economic Development of Rural Areas. Do the delegations agree that it is the blueprint and it is just a matter of implementing it or are we missing something else which needs to be part of the plan?
Up to 40% of Kildare's population travelling outside of the county for work is not sustainable unless we accept we are happy to be a commuter county. I do not believe anybody would be. What do we need to do to maintain jobs in rural areas, whether it is Kildare, Monaghan, Meath or Fingal? I know issues such as broadband, renewable energy and rural transport are factors.
We cannot presume that keeping people in rural areas will automatically save all the services. An Post and the Irish Postmasters Union attended the committee last week. We have to educate people on the need to use local services to maintain them. Have the delegations views on the role Leader could play in that regard?
The formation of the local community development committees, LCDCs, came in under the reform of local government. The roles of the local authorities and Leader groups are intertwined, probably more so than ever. There is a network of local authority services across the country. We have taken water services and some planning functions from them. Local authorities have an important role to play. They need to be reformed and are doing more with less. How do the Leader companies see the integration with the local authorities? How can Leader companies and local authorities operate better together?
Mr. Chris Byrne:
I am one of these fools who has been 20 years a volunteer without any salary or pay. I have been self-employed for all of those 20 years. What I have done has come out of my and my family's pocket. I am based in a rural community. We have three businesses operating from a 30-acre plot of land and are ten miles from the nearest town. Accordingly, I am well acquainted with the challenges of rural development. One might think I am from Kerry, west Cork or somewhere else when in fact I am an hour from Dublin.
Before the recession, our company had 64 employees. We now have eight. The devastation of that in our locality, our parish and community is huge. What does an employer in a rural area suffer as a consequence of being isolated? In any of the rural development programmes put forward, there has never been an initiative that has focused on rural microenterprise or the entrepreneur setting up in a rural area. The value of family businesses in a rural community is being understated completely. The loss of that value is going to fall out. I have ten grandchildren, ranging in ages from one to 13. I doubt whether any of them will be employed in any rural capacity in any rural town in 30 years from now. This is because we have failed to address the longer-term connectivity of policies. Everything is based on one programme and the rules around it. There is no joined-up thinking between different programmes. I have been chairman of a rural development company for 12 years, so I have a good understanding of the rules and how they operate. The fact that there is not any joined-up thinking between the different programmes is a significant failure.
There has never been any tax concession to rural employers. Concessions are given to inner city or financial centre employers. If I have to go to get a bag of nails at my local hardware store, it will cost €4. The time and the travel is a 12-mile round trip. My competitors based in a peri-urban area can walk into a village and get a bag of nails. Do I move my business to there or do I find some mechanism for operating in a rural community?
There is no easy way to access finance for small businesses, particularly in rural areas. I know initiatives were put in place before. However, if we are looking at how we are going to sustain a rural economy, we have to address those issues. The banking sector has failed miserably to address this. Rural development is in decline because a way of life in the countryside is in decline. Our structures are geared towards urban centres and centralising control and power.
At the risk of using locker-room conversation-----
Marie Louise O'Donnell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Fire away.
Mr. Chris Byrne:
-----which featured prominently in a recent election, Kildare was shafted. It is as blunt as that. We have one of the largest growing populations in the country, yet 40% of every working adult has to leave our county for work.
I do not believe the issues are unique to Kildare. However, having spent all my adult working life in Kildare, providing local employment in a rural way, there needs to be joined-up thinking between the programmes and a realisation that rural development is about people in the community, not about local authorities usurping - a phrase I used in my report for which I make no apology - the influence of local development companies. It appears to me that there is a grab for funding and programmes, taking it away from the bottom-up approach in which local development companies are involved. I have no axe to grind with anybody and I have no political party. I have voted for every one of them in my time. I am no longer involved in rural development. I had 20 years and, under the ministerial order we have to rotate, so I am gone. The way it is going is about process, funding, control and power, not about rural development.
Ms Mary Mullen:
I am another of these fools to whom Mr. Chris Byrne referred. I am a community representative and chairperson of Monaghan Integrated Development. I come from a small rural community in Monaghan.
The reform of local government highlighted the importance of the local co-ordination of rural development initiatives. It acknowledged the importance of maintaining the expertise, skills and local knowledge of local development boards. However, we have had a host of other funding pots, such as CLÁR, town and village renewal schemes and rural economic development zones, REDZ, but our rural development companies have not been asked to implement these programmes. It would make more sense to have an integrated approach to the delivery of these.
Over the past two years, we have seen the removal of many county councillors and State sector representatives from our boards. Many chief officers of the councils have interpreted correspondence they received from the Department as an opportunity to stop appointing public representatives and local authority members to positions on local development company boards.
The failure to fill these positions is probably leaving our public representatives more distant than ever from rural development. Many members are questioning their future on these voluntary boards. They are expected to manage the governance of programmes, the plans for which they no longer have a role in developing. They have a responsibility under employment law for employing the programme staff.
We now have penalties for failing to reach targets under the social inclusion and community activation programme, SICAP. Local development companies were never meant to be commercial entities. Where are we expected to find money to pay financial penalties if they are imposed? We are not commercial entities and never have been. The most important thing in helping to sustain viable rural communities is to give the people living in these rural communities an input into planning the future of their own communities. No one is more qualified than they are to say what is good for their communities. While they need the help of other agencies, they must be given the power to make decisions about their own community.
I will cite an example from my local community. We are situated on the Border with Tyrone and Fermanagh. In troubled times, we were completely cut off. We had one way into the community and one way out of it. We saw our community totally decimated. We got support from IFI, INTERREG and other programmes. We have built a community-owned hotel. Between part-time and full-time workers we have a staff of about 30. With the aid of Leader funding we have developed all-weather playing pitches. We are providing facilities for the people of our rural community, which is as rural as one could get in a rural county. That is because the people were given the help to do what needed to be done. It was a completely bottom-up approach and not top-down, which is what is happening in many programmes now.
Marie Louise O'Donnell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
What the witnesses had to say is very interesting. I believe they have the touch of politics because they are on the ground. Certainly in the Seanad, we tend to live in a bit of a bubble. What the witnesses have to say is disturbing and alarming, but also tremendous. At least they are being part of a massive change and I hope the Government is open to taking their advice.
Who is running the best Leader programme in Ireland? I do not mean the best county by county. What Leader programme is being run brilliantly? While it does not necessarily have to be from their own county, what Leader programme are the witnesses very proud of? What Leader programme is extraordinary, different, creative, imaginative, working financially or whatever? Which one would the witnesses most like to emulate?
This committee also deals with the arts, which Mr. Ludlow mentioned earlier. Have the arts and creativity played any part in Leader programmes and, if so, what was that? I rightly heard mention of rural transport, rural regeneration, energy and mobile phones. However, mobile phones will not save us. Ms Moore's document makes much mention about people being the message.
Deputy Heydon asked about funding already. Mr. Ludlow referred to creative funding that we are not drawing down. Does he mean creativity within the sciences and technology or does it also incorporate the arts? Why are we not doing that? I ask him to go over that again. I also ask him to expand on the need to pay €5,000 to make an application and having to look for that €5,000 from some corporate organisation. How big an application would warrant €5,000? I believe someone who ran for the Presidency of this country once had a job doing applications for the lottery. Am I right on that? Why should it cost €5,000?
With his experience, will Mr. Byrne tell me where the power lies? If he could shift it, what would he shift and where would he put it? Why does he feel Kildare County Council was shafted?
We talk about educating citizens to use local services, as the Deputy said, but we contradict that when we locate a Tesco at the top of the town and an Aldi at the bottom of the town and charge people to park. We need to re-educate ourselves in a thousand different ways.
I ask all the witnesses to tell me about their older communities in Monaghan, Kildare and Meath. In what way does Leader make their lives more sustainable? There is not enough concentration on the elders and far too much concentration on the young. I know that is on the record, but it is just me being a bit dramatic. I thank the witnesses for attending.
Mr. Michael Ludlow:
I thank the Senator and also thank Deputy Heydon. I am talking about programmes such as the FP7 programme, the 7th Framework Research and Technological Development Programme, funded by the EU. There was a total of €50 billion in that. I mentioned that there were only two successful Irish applications up to the end of 2013, which is when we conducted the research on this.
Many other programmes, including Leonardo, fall under the Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency, EACEA. In answer to Deputy Heydon's question, it is not the responsibility of any Department to apply for this funding. It is not even that a Department would be eligible to apply. The European Commission broadly supports the bottom-up process. It could be a collective grouping of local authorities that make a successful application, as happened in the north west, or it could be a grouping of local bodies in Meath.
Most of the projects in which we have been involved have run through the EACEA at European level. As many of them involve high-level European research, the European Commission will pose a question. As it is addressing policy in 2020 or 2025, it will want the best possible European team brought around that table to discuss that issue and they will be given two years to address that question. In addressing that question applicants have to invest in their own locality and bring the people together in that locality, decide how to address the question and get the input from, for example, the agencies and bodies in County Meath that are relevant, but alongside that they have to do some practical work in using that knowledge to drive the economy, social development or some other aspect of European policy forward at a local level. They are driving it forward at a local level in five different countries. They are not only researching the polity but are trialling a way forward that they will ultimately put forward to the Commission as a solution.
The Senator asked why it costs so much. It requires a European research officer researching all of this. It requires all these experts around the table at the outset putting this together. A high-level submission to a body of that nature would need to run to 200 pages. Unless an applicant is researched and spot on in addressing the Commission's question in a way that gives it the confidence that the applicant will produce something worthwhile, it will not get funded. That initial investment is critical. Those programmes ran up to the period ending in 2013, but 2013 is 2016 in Ireland. We are three years behind in the context of moving programmes forward.
There is a whole new range of programmes at this point of a similar nature available at European level with very significant funding. In the context of the creative sector, given the opportunity-----
Marie Louise O'Donnell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Through the Chair, when Mr. Ludlow says "creative", does he mean technologically creative-----
Marie Louise O'Donnell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Does he mean scientifically creative, artistically creative, linguistically creative? What does he mean?
Marie Louise O'Donnell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
We never hear about this.
Marie Louise O'Donnell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Why not?
Mr. Michael Ludlow:
They form part of our local development strategy. We have proposed a development plan for the sector in the Leader local development strategy. This strategy could help to bring these people together in the way the Amsterdam declaration and the Commission decided was best, that is, to consider a cluster development. It was found that when these different groupings or sectors are brought together, even more creative energy is generated. We have the specialist knowledge and know-how to generate enterprise and economic activity by working with a collective group of people of this nature. However, there is a missing element to this. We can bring all these people together, and we have the Leader funding and staff to do so, but there are major funds at European level which could be applied to in order to further this industry. However, we do not currently have the personnel to do so, unless, as I explained to the Chairman, we privately fund-raise and employ, perhaps on a part-time basis, the expertise. We can then make only a limited approach to the fund. Right across the spectrum, not just on these programmes, there are communities, enterprises and sectors which could benefit enormously from more collective support and from an individual being immersed in the community with the capacity to chase down these funds and drive the applications to the level required.
Marie Louise O'Donnell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
If Mr. Ludlow had a magic wand, would he employ-----
Marie Louise O'Donnell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
-----somebody outside Leader funding but paid by some other means-----
Marie Louise O'Donnell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
-----whose specific job would be to look for these tentacles extend them further?
Marie Louise O'Donnell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Is that what Mr. Ludlow is saying?
Mr. Justin Larkin:
On that point, I refer to what was said earlier. We were set up as not-for-profit organisations to operate on a non-commercial basis. However, because of the way in which initiatives are developed and devised and the way programmes are presented to us, if board members are to act and trade responsibly, they must think in commercial terms. They must think how to generate reserves, for want of a better word, that will enable the company to do things that provide a commercial basis for itself. The programmes we deliver are subject to penalties, and unless we have other resources identified to support and pay those penalties, this could be a significant problem for local companies.
Peadar Tóibín (Meath West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
Does Senator O'Donnell have any other specific questions?
Marie Louise O'Donnell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I would like the question I just asked answered.
Mr. Chris Byrne:
I will not delay. I will make one observation on the older community and how Leader has helped it. I was at a wedding recently at which I spoke to the former head of the Presentation Sisters, Sr. Frances Crowe. She told me that the Presentation Sisters have a number of convents in rural areas around the country that they cannot get the Government or the local authority to take possession of. I will give the committee an example of one-----
Marie Louise O'Donnell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I know what Mr. Byrne is going to say. He is going to tell me about McAuley Place in Naas.
Marie Louise O'Donnell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I have spoken about it on platforms and written about it. I know exactly what Mr. Byrne is going to say. Does he think McAuley Place is a great example?
Marie Louise O'Donnell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
McAuley Place is in the middle of a town.
Marie Louise O'Donnell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
People come to Sr. Crowe every day from Australia, Canada and New Zealand and ask her how she did this.
Mr. Chris Byrne:
Yes, they come to visit McAuley Place as a model.
Regarding how Kildare is shafted, I will not delay on this. Kildare was not given the opportunity to submit a business plan as to what its needs were and what the local community consultation process indicated was required. The allocation of money was given before plans were asked for. The reason we were shafted was that somebody carved up the pie and decided that Kildare would not get any of it. If we were allowed to rely on our business plan, I am confident we would have got one of the highest allocations in the country because Kildare deserved it.
Mr. Gabriel O'Connell:
I will respond to a few queries about older people and the arts. In Monaghan we have provided a lot of funding for festivals through the Leader programme to try to bring the festivals together. We have many small festivals trying to buy IT and communication equipment and barriers. We effectively got them to pool together and start buying this material collectively, and they now move it around as they need it. These are practical measures.
The Commission for the Economic Development of Rural Areas, CEDRA, has spoken about the social economy. Forfás did a major report a number of years ago on the potential of social enterprise in Ireland and concluded that there was a potential to create 25,000 jobs in rural areas by 2020 which would have a particular impact on unskilled or semi-skilled workers and occupations that may have been displaced in the farming sector, etc., and a significant impact on social inclusion, health care, etc. While some funding is available through Leader and the social inclusion and community activation programme, SICAP, for these areas, and we welcome that, there is need for a stronger framework from Government to support social enterprise. Social enterprise can be very useful in the creative arts.
To come back to Deputy Heydon's point on practical policy approaches, one of the big issues we find in a rural county such as Monaghan is graduate retention rates. We have the second lowest graduate retention rate in the country. We send very well-educated people to Dublin, Armagh and Dundalk for further education. We have a very good education facility in Cavan-Monaghan delivered by DCU. However, we find that when young people leave the county, we do not get them back, and in the context of sustainable rural communities, the more depopulated a county gets, the harder it is to maintain service levels. Regarding graduate retention, getting back to Mr. Byrne's point, we are asking if some stimulus could be provided to smaller SMEs that would incentivise them to hire young graduates. There is a method in America called intrapreneurship which places a young qualified graduate with a particular skill set into a small business that maybe needs to grow but is stuck. It gives that person the scope to use his or her expertise and skills, whether marketing or IT or whatever, and helps the small business grow and the young person create a job for himself or herself and maybe for other people. This would not cost an awful lot. Something along these lines was done by InterTradeIreland a number of years ago. Graduate retention is a significant issue because the loss of our best and brightest young people from rural Ireland leaves an imbalance.
Michael Collins (Cork South West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I thank the Meath, Kildare, Fingal and Monaghan partnerships for being with us today. In fairness, it is difficult to be questioned on numerous issues, but at least they showed up. We have asked the Minister for rural affairs to come before the committee for the past five weeks. She has failed to show up and has refused to turn up to answer questions on the Leader programme. This in itself tells me that the programme is in a bit of a shambles and that she is afraid to face the rural affairs committee, her very own committee.
I listened to what Mr. Byrne had to say. It was refreshing to hear such honesty. I have heard words today such as "control", "power", "politics", "fool" and "shafted". I come from west Cork, which was solidly shafted. West Cork Development Partnership appeared before us about three weeks ago.
Since that, it has been shafted, with seven members of staff involved. It is a scandalous situation. The people in that partnership have delivered honestly to the people in west Cork for 25 years, and they have been booted out. We have invited the Minister to appear before the committee and explain herself but she failed to do that, so that tells me there is an issue.
I have a few questions, but I realise the witnesses cannot answer all of them. Over the years, west Cork and other places have seen that many of the funds appear to go to less populated and more wealthy areas than areas where there is serious rural deprivation. How is that and who comes up with it? Have the witnesses experience of that? Also, were any funds withdrawn from them in the last programme? In west Cork, €2.4 million was taken from the budget, even though it needed €5 million extra, and that funding was never spent. It is extraordinary that the powers-that-be withdrew €2.4 million and the money was never spent afterwards. West Cork desperately needed that funding at the time. Do the witnesses have funds at present for projects in their areas? When will the new programme be rolled out? Perhaps my questions should be directed to the Minister, but the witnesses might have an update on the position. In west Cork we certainly do not know what is happening or who is going to roll out the programme. It is a complete shambles. We are told that everything is on schedule, but how can that be when nobody knows what is happening.
The rural social scheme and Tús are hugely important in rural communities, as the witnesses well know. However, the JobPath scheme has come into play and has disrupted the Tús scheme in particular. Somebody might be identified for Tús but once they have been identified for JobPath, even though they do not have a job, they will not be allowed on the Tús scheme. That has caused a good deal of annoyance. I am aware of people in rural communities around Castletownbere and on the Mizen Peninsula who are on the roads thumbing lifts to places such as Bantry, 20 or 30 miles away, to try to keep in line with JobPath. They have no job and do not know why they are hitching lifts up and down. They might be offered a Tús scheme or an opportunity to go on a community employment or other scheme, but they cannot take it because JobPath appears to have overall governance. Is it causing the same problem for the witnesses?
On broadband and mobile telephone coverage, in fairness every community is in desperate need of better broadband. I was in Castletownbere yesterday where Eir was talking about rolling it out. I strongly believe there should be funding for communities to provide the roll out of broadband in their areas. If Eir or any other company has the main fibre optic cable along a main line but there are six or seven houses up a hill or elsewhere who cannot get it, they should be allowed to apply for funding under the Leader programme to bring the broadband to their community. There has been a failure in this country with broadband and mobile telephone coverage. It is an absolute failure at the highest level and there is no intention of turning it around. I raise this issue continuously because politicians got it in the neck on the doorsteps during the election campaign, and rightly so. If there was an election in the morning, I would get it in the neck even further because it has not improved. Mobile telephone coverage has collapsed in many communities. A merger was allowed between 02 and Three Ireland mobile telephone service providers. Where in the name of God did ComReg come into that? Masts are being lost in rural communities throughout the country and mobile telephone reception is being lost, but nobody is willing to take it on. Only the community can take it on. The witnesses know as well as me, as do people who speak honestly from the heart, that if we want proper broadband and a proper mobile telephone service it must be given back to the community, because the community will deliver it through the Leader programmes.
Mr. Michael Ludlow:
I can address one or two of those questions as well as a question raised earlier by Senator Marie-Louise O'Donnell. I believe the development of the food sector in my neck of the woods is based on west Cork companies' success with the fuchsia brand. We made plenty of visits to see how the industry was advanced in west Cork. It is a model we imported. That was a massive success.
The question about funding relates back to the management of the last programme. When making an application for funding at the start of the programme, all of us would have indicated the graph of investment or expenditure for the programme over a five year period. As I understand it, the Department of Finance provided the responsible Department with annualised funding which did not match that graph by any manner or means. That led to some excitement and almost panic that the Leader programme was not being successful, therefore, mid-stream the idea arose that those companies that appeared to be investing more rapidly than others should have open access to the funds of all the others. That is what happened. It was a very serious mistake. It led to the Leader programme being guillotined on 30 August 2013, after which no grant was made available to anybody. The money was not there at that point. Equally, no grant was available from the Leader programme in the past three years to anybody in the country.
It was a failure of communication and a failure to take account of the knowledge that was passed on from the local development companies, in terms of the investment as it happens. I will explain that briefly. Normally, one will start off very quickly with a carryover from the previous programme. Then there will be something of a dip. As one goes through the first year one will see a rise, in the second year there will be a less gradual rise and in the third year the programme will zoom because of all the animation work and activity being generated. There was a failure at programme management level to recognise what happens in year three of the five year programme, panic set in and west Cork lost €2.4 million as a result.
Mr. Justin Larkin:
I will comment on the Kildare perspective. We are very conscious of concerns about where funds are going, particularly in the new programme. We have identified communities who, for whatever reason, might not have been making applications for Leader funding. In those cases, there is often no solid or strong foundation of community people prepared, or in a position, to work and go through the process for take up. In Kildare, we are actively identifying communities to provide the supports they need to make an application not just for our funding but also for other funding programmes. One will always find groups that become used to, and very capable in, making applications-----
Mr. Justin Larkin:
-----so that can be an issue.
Kildare lost €1.2 million in the re-allocation of funding, in spite of advising the Department at the time of our project. Some of our projects took five years to come to fruition because we were working with communities on large scale capital investment. We had to tell some projects that we no longer had the funding for them because it had gone somewhere else.
With regard to how things will roll out in the current programme, we are in new territory as local development companies. We are now classified as implementing bodies or partners. We are no longer the local action group, LAG, in most cases. New processes had to be created to facilitate applications and there is now almost a two-tier system. One must have an expression of interest submitted before one can go to the application. We have to put that information through the local community development committee, LCDC, and then it goes to Pobal and then to the Department. Quite frankly, the time taken to get Leader funding will increase because of the processes we must go through now.
JobPath is having an impact on Tús, certainly in Kildare. We have been given a four week window now, which is welcome, but we could do with double that. If people are referred by the Department for Tús, we are doing our utmost within the four weeks to ensure we interview them, identify a placement for them and place them. However, that might happen in a third of the cases, so there is an impact. We must acknowledge that JobPath is Government policy. It is what the Government decided to do and we cannot be seen to be negative about it.
I agree absolutely with Deputy Michael Collins's comments on broadband and community involvement. There was a missed opportunity in the new programme on support for community involvement and investment in broadband infrastructure. It is my sense that some of the more rural communities, even under the national broadband plan, will have to wait until the very last moment to access speeds of 30 Mbps, while our European counterparts are already accessing speeds of 100 Mbps and 1 GB.
Mr. Chris Byrne:
Deputy Michael Collins spoke about broadband provision and community owned broadband services. There is a pilot scheme in the United Kingdom called B4RN under which the lines are owned by rural communities. The lines are provided and managed by rural communities and are an income stream which is a very important point if a community is trying to raise funds to leverage other funds. I agree 100% with Deputy Michael Collins on his point about local communities in isolated areas receiving Leader funding to help to establish broadband lines and then take ownership of them, instead of giving ownership to larger scale multinationals which will only feed the areas in which services are commercially viable for them, rightly because they are businesses.
Mr. Gabriel O'Connell:
On the last programme we lost €2 million. We had a pipeline of projects worth €2 million ready to go. One can imagine the impact it had on our local action group and community. It is no surprise that we are up and running under the Leader programme at this stage. Expressions of interest are starting to come in and we will not find ourselves in that situation again. The danger is, however, that it can be a case of being first across the line. It is a five year programme which has to be delivered prudently. We would not want to be in situation, anywhere, where local development companies or local action groups were rushing to spend money to make sure they spent their quota. I do not believe that would be in anybody's interests.
Reference was made to the impact of JobPath. We definitely find that there is an impact on Tús. As a local development company that runs a local employment service, we also find that there is an impact on it. Not every local development company runs a local employment service. I believe there are 28 in total. The staff are paid by the State and it is a standard contract every year. We see no rationale for JobPath as a commercial supplier in a county in which labour market programmes are pretty well catered for. Our local enterprise office is struggling to find enough clients to whom to deliver its services, as are Tús and the rural social scheme. There is a real need for another look at the matter. I do not know how far the relevant Department is tied into contracts with JobPath, but stock needs to be taken to assess the real need in bringing external commercial suppliers into that space.
The current Leader programme was referred to. The process is complicated. Potentially, there are about six to eight points in the process at which a project could be held up or stopped. We made a number of applications and administration claims. I believe we are into the third month and none of the applications has yet cleared the Department. The process will have to gear up and improve by the time we reach project claims. We cannot have communities and entrepreneurs waiting six, eight or nine months. At a previous committee meeting one of our colleagues who had carried out an exercise showed that the wait could be eight months. We can certainly see how it could definitely be eight months and that will grind down the process. We note that before the programme started the European Commission commented that it wanted to shorten the supply chain for the delivery of projects. In fact, Ireland has managed to at least double the length of the supply chain.
Ms Phil Moore:
In the Dublin rural region we lost €1.3 million on the last programme and it was exactly as Mr. Ludlow said; it was a case of levelling the spend and then paying down. As it did not appear we were working efficiently enough, this amount of money was stopped. In 2014 there was an embargo which had a huge impact on the manner in which projects were progressing and slowed everything down. At the time we lost the €1.3 million we had approximately €850,000 worth of projects that we were not able to advance. One, in particular, was a very high profile tourism project in the Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown region. We were very sad to lose it.
I will talk about the supports offered under the programme. We have substantially high numbers of seniors in the catchment areas across the three counties, with whom we work under the Age Action care and repair programme. We have also established a rural challenge programme, a four module training programme. We insert a facilitator with a body of individuals who are interested in supporting seniors at local level for recreational, educational and social interaction. We have established a number of very successful groups across the full catchment area in the three local regions. It is the same in the case of arts and heritage projects. We have delivered a number of high profile arts projects, one of which is the Fingal Food Festival. Initiated in pilot scheme form four years ago, it has gone from strength to strength. Arising from it, we have listed as an action in our strategy statement establishing rural Dublin food hub as part of the programme. The programme will be rolled out strategically to allow for a circumspective spend which will be targeted and aimed at achieving what is required and needed in communities. All of the actions reflect what we have learned in the consultation process.
We must roll out our programmes in the three local authority regions. We do this through public consultation and public information provision. We have organised 17 animation events across the Dún Laoghaire, Fingal and south Dublin region, the last of which was held on 17 November. From these we have gathered expressions of interest which we have submitted for review. There is in excess of €1 million allocated. We have also identified substantial projects to be advanced.
Fintan Warfield (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I thank every speaker for his or her contribution. The meeting has been very informative. I will not promise a structured narrative from the notes I have taken, but I have a few questions, the first of which Mr. Ludlow might address.
Recommendation No. 25 in the CEDRA report concerns the creative industries. To take up where Senator Marie-Louise O'Donnell left off, the first paragraph calls for an industry in which creative artists can live, work and excel to earn a living wage in this society and the rural economy. An integrated approach is mentioned in terms of the need for a coherent voice, particularly on collaboration, not only within the arts and creative industries but also on policy. The Departments of Health, Social Protection, Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, the Arts, Heritage, Regional, Rural and Gaelteacht Affairs and Education and Skills are all tied with the creative industries. I would be hugely supportive of an integrated approach for the creative industries and to policy. Is there greater scope for the local enterprise offices to support the creative SME sector?
With regard to the Amsterdam Declaration and the notion of cluster concepts, there was reference to 40 visual artists, 85 crafts people, 91 people involved in film enterprised and 105 in creative enterprises in County Meath. It strikes me that, as a starting point, the national cultural institutions which are mostly near here could be moved and regionalised as has happened in the United Kingdom in the case of the Tate Britain, the Tate St. Ives, the Tate Liverpool and the Tate Modern. Our national cultural institutions could be made structurally and digitally accessible - it is a great scandal that they are not - and regionalised as part of a cluster concept and tied with heritage sites, for example, the site at Newgrange. They could also be tied with work spaces for artists because there is a huge squeeze in urban areas to support artists to live in rural communities alongside national cultural and heritage institutions. The national cultural institutions are among the top ten most visited attractions by tourists.
These groups spend far more than other tourists. I would be interested in hearing the delegates' take on it. What is the effect on the indigenous creative industry when young people - recession or no - are attracted to London because the creative industry here cannot support them?
Mr. Michael Ludlow:
There is a lot in what the Senator says. From a Leader programme perspective, we consider our territory, for example, the development of County Meath. We have been supporting the sectors I have mentioned for some time and some are more amenable than others to collective activity. Artisan food producers, for example, would find common cause with each other more than artists might. Artists work in their own space and it is more difficult to collectivise their activities. There is one thing that can be done which we almost managed to do in the last programme and which I think we will do in this programme. Young artists coming out of college face a major challenge in equipping themselves to follow their careers. We could develop a collective facility with the heavy hardware needed, similar to the hubs created for the food sector. However, the Leader programme does not have the financial capacity to establish it because it would be a major investment. The local authority and the local enterprise office, LEO, are considering the establishment of a food hub between Navan and Kells which would be the shell of the facility, but the equipping of each work space within that structure would be to be undertaken. That is where the Leader programme would step in. We align with somebody who wants to occupy a production space and aid the specialised fit-out, while our colleagues in Enterprise Ireland or the LEOs invest in a different way. If we were to bring all of the creative people together in a collective, there would be the possibility of developing a plan they would be interested in following. We cannot impose anything. We start the conversation and the work towards the development of what they would like to see in place. The Leader programme will not put everything they wish for on the ground. I would like, as part of the Leader programme, to be able to allocate some Leader programme staff time to sourcing funding for a Leader programme-led project. That funding might come from another source or it might require time for consultation with Enterprise Ireland or other agencies in Ireland. That is not provided for, but there is tremendous potential. We know how to bring people together and operate the collective for the benefit of the individual. That is the route we see, but additional funding is necessary to address the need, but from where will it come? That is not a question lying out in the fog; it is one we will address.
Mr. Justin Larkin:
Our relationship with LEOs and local development companies has been mentioned. We do talk to the LEOs and identify local arrangements about who has the first call in particular types of project. That happens to varying degrees around the country. Under the new programme, it is proposed to have a national protocol to provide an overarching structure within which local agreements can be developed, but we are not sure where it is. Steps are taken to ensure there is as little duplication as possible at local level and that people know where to go in the case of certain types of project. The Leader programme is often referred to as a funder of last resort, but we cannot replicate other national funding streams. Because of this we are very often kept to one side. Unless we can identify some bespoke intervention that is not being funded under another major national programme, we are constrained. The interventions of Leader and local development companies must be integrated with other State interventions.
Marie Louise O'Donnell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
As the Minister has responsibility for the arts and community and rural affairs, has she communicated her vision for the Leader programme around the country or are the Leader groups given freedom to carry on in the way they have been?
Marie Louise O'Donnell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
The three Mr. O'Connell mentioned.
Mr. Gabriel O'Connell:
Yes. The only word of advice I can give is to make more use of the local development company delivery structures on the ground because in the restructuring there is a sense that some capacity is not being used or is being under-used. New ad hocfunding streams can cause problems for the Leader programme. As I said, the Leader programme is a funder of last resort. We have to check to see if there is EU or State funding available. If we have submitted a funding application for the provision of a playground, a Ceantair Laga Árd Riachtanais, CLÁR, programme has been introduced and we have been told it can fund playground projects, we cannot fund the applicant. The ad hocfunders that have come on stream in recent months can damage integration.
Peadar Tóibín (Meath West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
There seems to be duplication and an overlapping which needs to be streamlined. I thank the delegates for coming and assisting us in our consideration of this topic and their detailed and interesting presentations. The debate was robust at times, but it has been productive, which we appreciate. The content of the presentations will become part of our report which we hope to launch in January. Go raibh míle maith agaibh go leir.