Seán Crowe (Dublin South West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Community Workers' Co-operative is a membership organisation of groups and individuals, which work on the ground to tackle poverty, inequality and promote social inclusion. Some 30% of its 800 members are unwaged and approximately one third are from organisations and projects. They are not a representative organisation for community workers. For 24 years it has been an important, if sometimes a critical voice of Government policies on anti-poverty and equality issues. The most recent assessment of its work carried out by Combat Poverty Agency at the end of 2003 acknowledged the quality of its work and its focus on poverty and exclusion. The quality of its work and its commitment to addressing poverty is recognised locally, nationally and internationally. The Migrant Rights Centre for Ireland said the Community Workers' Co-operative is the one organisation that has consistently provided a space for people committed to social inclusion on justice to take action and influence policy. It has brought together organisations and individuals at grassroots, regional and national level to organise and develop the analysis necessary to engage in a meaningful way with the Irish decision-making process. The European anti-poverty network based in Brussels stated that the Community Workers' Co-operative is an important part of the community and voluntary sector in Ireland and is also well known with anti-poverty NGOs who are active at European level. The withdrawal of its core funding is a matter of grave concern and will weaken the voice of those experiencing poverty, exclusion and inequality in Irish society and in Irish policy making. Of the ten anti-poverty networks, only the funding of the Community Workers' Co-operative was axed and the other nine have come out in support of the Community Workers' Co-operative saying it has played a central role in the development of community work in Ireland for more than 20 years, initiating much of the new thinking in community work and supporting hundreds of local community organisations fighting poverty.

At local level the Community Workers' Co-operative plays a central role in supporting the participation of the community sector in local partnership. At national level it provides a voice for hundreds of groups fighting poverty, which are not otherwise represented. It also provides a co-ordination and support role for the rest of the anti-poverty networks at national level. All ten anti-poverty networks work with their respective membership on the ground supporting their work. The last assessment of the Community Workers' Co-operative acknowledged that it is unique in that its work goes way beyond its membership and supports hundreds if not thousands of other groups working against poverty. The provision of quality information, policy analysis, strategy guides, resources and training are invaluable to thousands of local groups struggling to work against poverty.

These groups are outraged at the negative impact closure of the community workers' co-operative will have on their work. I have pages of statements from community workers praising the work of the community workers co-operative and describing the vital role it plays. The decision by the Minister of State, Deputy Noel Ahern, to axe this funding has been described by one group as a sinister move to silence an effective critical voice. The Minister of State has referred to the overlap with the work of other organisations but has failed to give a single example of this as none exist.

Such work is not done by any other organisation. Any organisation mentioned by the Minister of State is a member of the CWC and relies on it for much of its work output. The funding of €150,000 per year is not much but it is a significant amount to the CWC. This is core funding and its withdrawal may mean the demise of the community workers' co-operative. The process by which this decision was made must be questioned and there was no consultation with the organisation. Were evaluation and assessment reports of other networks considered in the decision? It seems not, as the CWC has consistently performed well, particularly in respect of anti-poverty focus. Were others renowned for their work in the field of anti-poverty work consulted? I do not know, but as witnessed by statements such as that by Helen Johnson of the Combat Poverty Agency or from the European Anti-Poverty network, it does not seem so.

It appears there is political vetting of community work. The Government does not appear to like what this organisation says or its ability to bring together diverse groups who have experience of poverty to work collectively, such as the co-ordination of the community platform, which is a network of 25 national anti-poverty and equality organisations. The withdrawal of funding to this group is inexplicable. I ask the Minister to reconsider the withdrawal of this vital funding.

Noel Ahern (Dublin North West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Funding of anti-poverty networks arises from the White Paper on a framework for supporting voluntary activity and was originally administered by the Combat Poverty Agency on a three year contract basis.

This function transferred to my Department from that agency late in 2003. My Department sought work plans for 2004 from each of the ten national anti-poverty networks funded under the White Paper and, pending review, there was little option at that stage but to agree to extend funding for 2004 on a one year contract basis.

The Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs was established by Government in June 2002 with a mandate to produce a more co-ordinated engagement by the State with communities around the country as they pursue their own development. In establishing my Department, it is clear that the Government was placing a focus on communities, particularly those vulnerable or under threat. In such cases, the provision of support to enable communities to identify and address problems in their own areas is seen as the best way forward. Those communities may be in rural or inner-city settings, grappling with difficulties caused by a range of factors, including declining population, unemployment, language issues, social disadvantage or drug misuse. While most such communities or groups of communities can be defined in terms of geographic location, others will be defined on the basis of a common focus on a particular issue.

The Department's commitment in the context of the National Anti-Poverty Networks is to focus on concentrating available resources on support for communities experiencing disadvantage, exclusion and isolation. In line with this commitment, I decided to continue funding for nine anti-poverty networks in the amount of €1.35 million for 2005. This represents an increase of 5% over 2004 for the networks concerned. However, in the context of focusing my Department's resources on disadvantaged communities, continued funding of the CWC could not be justified.

There is in existence a well-developed structure providing supports to the sector. My Department will spend €2.3 million in 2005 on six regional support agencies providing support and advice to the community support projects. In addition, my Department funds 38 partnership companies for €45.7 million, 185 community development projects and 32 community partnerships. Under the White Paper on a framework for supporting voluntary activity, 70 networks and federations are supported to the tune of €4.2 million.

The CWC differs from the other groups funded under the national anti-poverty networks in that those other groups, in the main, deal with specific target groups. The other nine anti-poverty networks, which will continue to receive funding have a specific focus on Travellers, unemployment, refugees, rural poverty, lone parents, older people and disabled people. The CWC is the voice of community workers rather than of disadvantaged communities. It overlaps with the function of other networks and as such fails to meet a number of the key criteria suggested by the White Paper on supporting voluntary activity.

I cannot accept the implication in the motion before the House that the range of excellent people working in communities experiencing disadvantage and isolation cannot develop informed positions and articulate valuable opinions on a range of issues without the intervention of the CWC. To take such a view would be to deny the individual and collective wisdom that has been accumulated by people working directly in local and community development work over many years. The purpose of this decision is to support this activity as comprehensively and efficiently as possible. The key point is that the groups being funded are supporting disadvantaged communities. I do not regard the CWC as being in that category.