Mr. Joe Saunders:

On the LEADER programme, we have seen incremental bureaucracy, by stealth or otherwise, over successive programmes. This has been a barrier to rapid roll out. It has caused problems not just for the local development companies but also, as mentioned, for the applicants. More and more we find we are assisting applicants to fill in their application forms and to get through the hoops they must jump through.

One positive on this is the notion of simplified cost options, SCO, which is a concept in place in other European countries. In planning for the next programme, we are engaged with the Department of Rural and Community Development, going through some scenario planning on models of SCO that should decrease bureaucracy for the next programme. We have put detailed proposals before the Department, and we have engaged in analysis on this, including the obstacles around some of the procurement processes and some of the administration hurdles. They do need to be simplified. At a general level we tend to subsume or take in EU regulations, maybe excessively or far too enthusiastically. Certainly, across the EU, the LEADER programme is reporting increased bureaucracy, but not in all areas or to the same extent we have experienced.

We have been working with the Department. The last programme initiated some basic reforms in that. We are hoping for a better system the next time also. Obviously, however, that is not all in our hands.

I accept 100% the point about pockets of disadvantage. Poverty is everywhere and sometimes it is hidden. We must remember that it morphs and changes also. In the previous iterations it may have been called something different, and in the early days of the social inclusion programmes one of the big indicators of poverty was the presence of local authority housing in an area. Today we know it is the housing assistance payment, which is prevalent everywhere. Consider two housing estates, one next to the other. One may be local authority housing and the other estate is HAP tenants. To all intents and purposes, the socioeconomic profile and the income levels of the people are the exact same. Those two estates in the two areas need to be treated the same in any kind of research or data presentation that will guide the programme. The programme's own research, upon which it relies, needs to keep up to date with the changing levels of poverty, and to identify poverty at local level. Our own companies and the staff in them are good at this. They are adept and experienced at knowing and recognising these areas and making the appropriate connections, but we need the programme design to take it into account also. I accept that point.

On community employment training, we would like to see the reinstatement of the training budget to the previous levels. There is also an issue with participants between the ages of 21 and 25, who must be working towards a Quality and Qualifications Ireland, QQI, qualification. In some cases, their needs are for more basic, person-centred and unaccredited training. This, however, is not counted in the system. We have made the case for this reform in pre-budget submissions for successive years, and we will continue to do so.