Dinny McGinley (Donegal South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 4: To ask the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs if he has satisfied himself that his Department is doing enough to facilitate the development of the community and voluntary sector as an independent voice in the community; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5999/05]

Brian O'Shea (Waterford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 5: To ask the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs the reason the Community Workers Co-operative, of the ten national anti-poverty networks which have been funded under the national anti-poverty networks programme since 1993, has been told that it will have its funding withdrawn; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5858/05]

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

I propose to take Questions Nos. 4 and 5 together.

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 the Department from that agency late in 2003. The Department sought work plans for 2004 from each of the ten anti-poverty networks funded under the White Paper and, pending review, agreed in the circumstances to extend funding for 2004 on a one-year contract basis.

As I stated on the Adjournment debate on this issue last month, the Department was established by Government in June 2002 with a mandate to produce a more co-ordinated engagement by the State with communities throughout the country as they pursue their own development. In establishing the Department, it is clear that the Government was placing a focus on communities, particularly those that are 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 such as unemployment, disability or lone parenting.

The Department's commitment in the context of the 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 a 5% increase over the figure for 2004 for the networks concerned. However, as I indicated in my reply to Question No. 216 and related questions on this issue on 1 February 2005, in the context of focusing the Department's resources on disadvantaged communities, continued funding of the Community Workers Co-operative could not be justified.

Additional information not given on the floor of the House.

There is in existence a well-developed structure providing supports to the sector. For example, the Department will spend €2.3 million in 2005 on six regional support agencies in support of the community support projects. In addition, it funds 38 partnership companies to the tune of €45.7 million, 185 community development projects to the tune of €20.1 million and 32 community partnerships. Moreover, under the White Paper on a framework for supporting voluntary activity, 66 networks and federations, including the national anti-poverty networks, are supported to the tune of €4.2 million.

The Community Workers Co-operative differs from the other groups funded under the national anti-poverty networks in that they mainly deal with specific target groups. Other anti-poverty networks that will continue to receive funding have a specific focus on matters such as Travellers, unemployment, refugees and rural disadvantage. The Community Workers Co-operative is the voice of community workers rather than disadvantaged communities and its functions overlap with those of other networks. As such, it fails to meet a number of the key criteria suggested by the White Paper on supporting voluntary activity. These criteria include a membership base that ensures the voice of disadvantaged marginalised groups will find expression in relevant national fora, and individual networks should be genuinely representative and avoid unnecessary overlaps vis-À-vis each other.

No other factors, as suggested by some Deputies, were involved in my decision. As I stated previously, funding of the Community Workers Co-operative to June 2005 in the amount of €358,413 under the PEACE programme for the Towards Achieving Social Change project is not affected by this decision.

On the development of the community and voluntary sector, the details of my reply to Question No. 187 on 16 February 2005 confirm my commitment to and support for the community and voluntary sector generally. That reply gave details of €7 million in funding to the sector in addition to the range of indirect supports provided through area partnerships, LEADER companies, community partnerships, community support projects and local drugs task forces.

Brian O'Shea (Waterford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Minister of State's withdrawal of funding from the Community Workers Co-operative is regarded as vindictive in some quarters. The co-operative organises the community platform, which is made up 25 organisations that deal with poverty and equality issues. The organisation did not give its support to Sustaining Progress. Many people see a sinister side to this decision. The CWC is an independent voice that criticises Government policies if it feels they are not serving their intended purposes. Will the Minister of State assure me that this is not a vindictive action and an attempt to silence an organisation that is critical?

The Minister of State referred to the ten networks, nine of which wrote to him asking that the funding be restored to the CWC. Every organisation dealing with poverty and exclusion has done likewise. This decision is inexplicable to most people in the sector and is deeply regretted. I appeal to the Minister of State to reconsider his decision and listen to the people who value this organisation which recently held regional seminars on those issues at which money is directed. The decision does not make sense. I want an assurance that there is nothing sinister or vindictive in it.

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

I assure the Deputy there is nothing vindictive or sinister in this decision. It was taken because the Department decided to focus its resources chiefly on the communities suffering disadvantage and isolation. We do not take decisions lightly, for good or bad. The other nine networks deal with specific groups: refugees, the unemployed, lone parents, people living in rural isolation, Travellers etc. They are in a different category from the CWC.

We want to aim the resources at the groups which reach communities and deal directly with people. The CWC is the voice of those working in the communities rather than the communities themselves. The decision was taken to give the resources to those most affected in the communities and for no other reason.

Brian O'Shea (Waterford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

For the Minister of State to say that the CWC is for workers is to misunderstand the nature of the organisation. It has 800 members. The Minister of State describes an organisation akin to a trade union. People in the sector are members of their respective trade unions but the CWC helps groups to co-ordinate or improve their focus.

Is the Minister of State impressed by the level of support for the CWC? Is he prepared to state his reasons for withdrawing the money and to reconsider it with an open mind, as he has conceded that mistakes can be made?

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

The Deputy may be right that some people see the CWC as being akin to a trade union, and maybe it is doing good work as trade unions do——

Brian O'Shea (Waterford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I said the opposite. I said that was the perception on the Minister of State's side.

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

A great deal of correspondence has been received which makes more or less the same point the Deputy did. We did not, however, decide lightly on this and I am not likely to reconsider it. We examined this issue fully before making a decision. The decision was made to concentrate resources on those most in need.

The other nine networks are very different from the CWC because each has a specific focus and deals with particular groups suffering disadvantage and isolation. The CWC has a different work plan. We could perhaps have made this decision a year ago when we took over the scheme because the White Paper stated that we should reassess and reconsider the issue after the three-year period. We did not have sufficient time to do so last year so we carried on the funding for one more year to give us time to examine the matter. Having closely examined the issue we have decided that the funds should be allocated to those most in need. Nine out of ten networks were funded but the one to which the Deputy referred has not.