Paul Gogarty (Dublin Mid West, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 43: To ask the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs the timeframe for the delivery of the road improvements recently announced under the local improvement scheme in County Cork; and the way he will ensure that there will not be a repeat in delays in the delivery of improvements as previously encountered under the scheme. [42919/06]

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

In 2006, for every €2 spent by local authorities on local improvements schemes, LIS, in CLÁR areas on non-public roads, my Department is providing an additional €1 from CLÁR funding for works on further LIS roads within the CLÁR areas. This, in effect, will increase investment on LIS roads in these areas by 50%. The projects are selected by the local authorities.

I allocated €653,013 to Cork County Council to carry out works on 20 roads in CLÁR areas in County Cork in 2006. The Deputy will appreciate, however, that my Department has no input into the selection, or the timeframe for delivery, of these projects which is a matter for the local authority.

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

I thank the Minister for his answer. Does his Department subsequently seek such information? It is important in allocating the funding that there is an awareness of public accountability on how and where it was spent. For instance, how much road improvement does €653,000 buy in County Cork and where in County Cork was the work eventually done by the county council? If that information is not being sought it is a serious deficiency. I speak also as a member of the Committee of Public Accounts. Even though the sums are small, the point of the scheme is that the small allocation can have a greater effect because it is being better targeted, but we still must know where and how it is targeted.

Can further information be got on how access has been improved in these areas because the difficulty reported is that these are roads that access facilities such as cemeteries and old routes to remote beaches, and improving them also improves access to these communities by visitors, resulting in an economic benefit. I ask this question not only for accounting of the money spent but for an analysis on behalf of the Department of the economic impact of that money because it is important to know how successful is such a programme.

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

Deputy Boyle misunderstands fundamentally one aspect of CLÁR, that is, that CLÁR provides money to accelerate existing programmes and does not make up new rules for the main schemes. The people who lay down the rules for LIS are the officials of the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. They give lumps of money to local authorities to carry out LIS and give directions on how projects should be selected. We operate the exact same rules — we cannot operate to any other rules. In the final analysis, it is up to the local authority, which is a public body in its own right, and the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government to ensure that this represents value for money.

The selection of the roads is a matter for the county council but it does so according to the guidelines of the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. They are the exact same guidelines that apply when the same county council is undertaking LIS road works with money provided by the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, and my understanding is that the reporting arrangements would be the same.

In our case, we get a list of roads and the amount of money to be spent on each road. The method of calculating the cost and the amount of roads done are the exact same ones used by that local authority in spending the money of the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, and the exact same criteria is applied.

Téann muid ó thaobh amháin go taobh eile. We go from one extreme to the other. We can spend all our time doing economic assessments, but there are certain things in this life one does because they need doing. I do not care, within reason, what it costs where there is a widow living in a house on an impassable road. Although there is economic analysis, at the end of the day one either makes up one's mind that one will repair the road. What happens if the economic appraisal advises not to repair the road? I do not think any of us would leave the widow in that situation.

It is important that criteria are laid down for schemes. I firmly believe in ensuring value for money and a high standard of work from local authorities. While, no doubt, the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government ensures this is done, the one great brake on irresponsible LIS spending is that the local people must make a contribution, of 10% in some cases and 15% in others cases. Local people would not spend 10% of the cost of repairing a road which is not of major benefit to them and, therefore, the scheme is inherently sound in value for money terms.

For those of us who live in rural parts of the country, the amounts of money involved are tiny compared to the benefit to be got from scéim na mbóithre áise and the LIS. As a rural Deputy, the generality of these schemes represent fantastic value for money and they are a small part of public infrastructure towards which there is a direct local contribution. I know of no other roads towards which one is obliged to make a direct local contribution.

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

I think the Minister misunderstood me. I am asking not that analysis be done prior to projects, but that a general analysis be done subsequently to ensure the money is creating maximum impact. I am making the opposite argument, that because the sums and the projects are so small, often the hap'orth of tar — the additional money — needed to meet many of these basic human needs the Minister highlighted is not provided due to the lack of proper analysis. I am asking that the Department put in place mechanisms to ensure that the small-scale projects do not fail as a result.

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

We are back again at the beginning of the story. On the issue of undertaking an overall analysis of value for money, there are ongoing value for money audits in all Departments and, I presume, in local authorities. Therefore, it is a for the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government to carry out a value for money audit on the scheme. The Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government is the begetter of the scheme, controls its conditions and is responsible for its rules.

If the Deputy wants to know whether a value for money audit on this scheme has been undertaken, he should table a question to the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. That is not my Department's role. I do not make the rules of the scheme and I am not responsible for the overall policy issues.

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

The Minister is responsible for spending his Department's money. The whole point of Question Time is that we are here to ask the Minister questions about how he spends his Department's money and determine if it is spent properly.

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

No. Constitutionally, Ministers are collectively responsible for all Departments. The idea of running Government as if it were a series of parallel independent republics is not only stupid, but it is fundamentally unconstitutional. The collective nature of Government is fundamental to the Constitution.

As regards the specific issue, the role rests with the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. Why would I duplicate the work of a ministerial colleague when this is a single Government? It would make no sense.