Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)

I am puzzled by the question. The Deputy has clearly received representations and heard various stories to the effect that the Leader programme is taking over partnerships or vice versa. I often wonder who is looking after whose interests.

Until now there have been four elements to the boards of all these bodies. Often, as the Deputy quite rightly said, the same people serve on two or three of the boards, running from one meeting to another. Local community representation is sometimes divided between those elected on an area basis and those representing, for example, the Traveller community or people with a disability. The second group normally represented on these boards comprise public representatives, in other words local councillors. The third group is the State agencies. The voluntary sector often wants the State agencies to attend board meetings because it is the one opportunity they get at local level to call on State agencies to co-operate and account for their actions. The final elements of the boards at the moment are the social partners, such as trade unions or, in rural areas, a representative from the IFA. I have no intention of changing that structure and I made that clear at the meeting we had in the Davenport Hotel a few months ago. Nobody in the sector has suggested that I should do so. I do not know which one of the four groups one would leave out.

I am concerned about a number of issues. First, there needs to be a reasonable balance. In other words, local representation should form a reasonable proportion of each group. Second, we have all heard people call for the selection of community representation, to be open and transparent. I do not care who is on the boards. I care that everybody in the area sees the process as fair, open and transparent. I will examine that issue during the year.

There appear to be major arguments between boards. In a small number of cases people seem to think they have to jockey for position for next year. However, all these boards were due to come to an end at the end of 2006 so, in the case of community representation, all would be up for re-election at the end of the year anyway. Nobody could presume they would retain their positions on the boards so I am puzzled by it. This policy is designed to bring about a cohesive structure that applies nationwide and ensures that the citizen can avail of a wide range of services in a one-stop shop.

See this speech in context