Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)

I thank the Deputy for raising this issue. He made a good case. I will outline what we set out to do. I will not stick to the script because it has been circulated and Deputies can read it for themselves. Sometimes this House becomes a script-reading game where we do not engage with the issues raised.

The partnerships were originally established in selected areas under an EU programme. When I arrived in the Department they were of all shapes and sizes and had duplication. I remember once being asked to go to Howth which is not a thousand miles from Deputy Broughan's constituency. I was sceptical because I knew Sutton and Howth well. However, Howth village had quite an amount of deprivation but the partnership did not cover it. It was brought to my attention that extraordinarily, the Beara Peninsula and Sheep's Head Peninsula were not covered by partnership.

If one considers this rationally one sees we have community development projects which focus on small areas and special groups. However, people are at a disadvantage virtually everywhere in the country. I believed a community development company should cover every citizen who needs a service. This means it would not be intensively active in well-developed areas. However, irrespective of where an individual is he or she would be entitled to a service.

It is a reasonable proposition that if the State wants to deliver items such as the community services programme and the rural social scheme it should be structurally recognised that they be delivered through existing partnerships rather than by new and an increased number of corporate structures. This would strengthen the role of partnerships within communities. As I wanted contiguous borders and one company with a high standing in each area, I wanted amalgamation between Leader companies in rural areas while in urban areas it was more important to extend coverage. The point was often made that a board was chosen unfairly. I stated I did not care who was on the boards but I wanted selecting them to be fair and transparent and then let them get on with the job. These were my guiding principles.

As the Government rolls out new community programmes of universal application in a city or a rural area we should use existing machinery. This was the basis for what we did. We then got into the nitty-gritty where problems always arise. Some people wanted me to be extremely prescriptive while others did not. We had long debates and Departments such as the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government were involved. Some wanted small boards and others wanted large boards. I wanted to be as flexible as possible. However, we had to lay down a few basic principles.

It was laid down that every board had to have public representatives and we chose councillors. I will return to the issue involving Deputies. It was also laid down that statutory agencies and the county manager had to be represented because the local authority is key. Social partners, namely, employers, trade unions and farming organisations in rural areas, also had to be represented and the community and voluntary sector had to be well-represented. It had to be split between geographic representation and representation of special interests such as disabilities, Travellers and lone parents. If we included everything and let everyone have what they wanted the board would have had 40 or 50 members but this was the next issue.

A great deal of discussion and debate took place. Eventually, I stated a certain number of statutory agencies would have to be represented but I would not predetermine them and the boards could choose them. Local elected people had to be included but companies were not keen on this as they had not had them in the past. After extensive negotiations, I went to Government but further issues were raised. I held a meeting with Comhairle LEADER na hÉireann, PLANET, which is the network, and my office's community partnership network. I told the attendees they had several months to discuss these boards, on which the Northside Partnership was well-represented, and asked them what they wanted me to change. They asked for additional representatives from local, community and voluntary interests and sought to be allowed to nominate the chairperson. In anticipation of those requests, I received governmental agreement that morning. That is all they wanted, so I signed off on the matter. I am more than willing to debate this at committee but we have to move on with the job.

As someone who has defended the right of Deputies to be local representatives as well as legislators, I have sympathy with Deputy Broughan's point regarding the Dáil. I am open to bringing forward protocols to address the issue so that Deputies are not cut out from information or participation in the boards. I may be wrong, but I understand Deputies are open to election as community representatives. I will reflect on the point raised by the Deputy. It was always my intention to devise a means by which Deputies could be involved in the process or, as has happened in the case of some partnerships in the past, avoid being cut out despite having voted money to the groups.

We are channelling more than €200 million annually through these structures. I have to ensure strong financial control because my Secretary General and I answer to this House for the money. Rather than oppressive financial controls, I want to establish a system that can stand up to the rigours of good accountancy, which has been a concern in the past.

See this speech in context