Dan Boyle (Cork South Central, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 65: To ask the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs if his attention has been drawn to the real concern among community partnership networks that the current cohesion process may bring about an erosion of capacity, knowledge and expertise in social inclusion work, in view of the fact that the resource of volunteering to the boards and sub-structures is currently under threat. [18229/06]

Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Arising from the review process I initiated in conjunction with my colleagues, the Ministers for Environment, Heritage and Local Government and Justice, Equality and Law Reform, in January 2004, the Government agreed a series of measures designed to improve delivery of services on the ground, arrangements under which community and local development initiatives are delivered and improve cohesion and focus across various measures. As a first step towards achieving better co-ordination of service delivery, cohesion funding of the order of €3,248,600 was provided to city and county development boards, CDBs, in 2004 to encourage local and community development agencies to advance improvements in links, cohesion and sharing resources.

The core objective of the 2005-06 round is the alignment of local, community and rural development organisations to achieve full area coverage. The major advantage of this approach is that the State will be able to deliver programmes such as the local development social inclusion programme and the rural social scheme through the new unified structures because they will have all-area cover. The intention is that, from 2007, there will be one structure delivering services in any given area and fewer structures overall in the country.

The extension of the Leader or partnership model of delivery, which is already proven in a number of cases, to all rural-based local development agencies will lead to better delivery of services. These agencies, when fully integrated, will deliver both rural and local development programmes, have personnel with expertise in a wider range of fields and be better positioned to formulate effective co-ordinated local and community development strategies.

The Government is fully committed to supporting participation in volunteering and recognises the valuable contribution made by volunteers on the boards of local, community and rural development agencies. Of the €4,836,927 awarded in respect of cohesion initiatives during 2005, some €1,463,400 was allocated to promote participation in volunteering at local level. A further €760,600 has been awarded for volunteering measures from the Cohesion Fund since the beginning of the year.

The procedures for the establishment of the boards of the new bodies will be addressed in the context of the cohesion process, with particular reference to ensuring that genuine community representation is achieved. It is in this context that I see the participation of volunteers best safeguarded, in a way that recognises and respects their contribution.

Dan Boyle (Cork South Central, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Absent from the Minister's response was an acceptance of the need to increase local democratic involvement and control of many of these bodies. The problem seems to have been addressed from the perspective of achieving better administration, which is no bad thing. The Minister is probably aware that many State officials double up on a number of similar boards. Voluntary groups have expressed the fear that streamlining structures will result in a diminution in the voluntary input. The Minister's response does not inspire any confidence that the case will be otherwise. Can the Minister revisit the criteria he and the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government have for the cohesion process? Can he accept the need for greater voluntary involvement, particularly in local decision making? If this requires a change in the bias from State official to volunteer involvement is the Minister prepared to consider that?

Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

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.