Michael Ring (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 116: To ask the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs his views on the concerns raised as to the level of value for money that has been delivered by schemes and bodies operating under the remit of his Department; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [34096/09]

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

The achievement of value for money for each of the schemes and programmes it delivers and funds from its Vote is a priority for my Department. Similarly, ensuring systems are in place to secure value for money across the bodies that are funded from my Department is also a key priority.

Against this background, my Department has put in place a range of financial monitoring, performance measurement and systems review mechanisms. These include the regular carrying out of independent audits, value for money, VFM, reviews, programme evaluations and the measurement of programme and scheme outputs against targets set in the annual output statement. The findings arising from each of these review and evaluation systems are monitored by my Department and acted upon.

I should also advise the Deputy that a programme of direct project verification and evaluation is carried out by my Department's dedicated inspection services and where value for money issues arise, these are followed up.

As the Deputy will be aware, I am committed to meeting on a regular basis the many people, groups and communities across the country that my Department serves. Where issues or concerns are raised with me on value for money issues regarding schemes and programmes delivered by my Department, or in the context of bodies funded from its Vote, I can assure the Deputy that any such issue or concern is followed up assiduously.

Michael Ring (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

This Department has probably come under the most scrutiny as a result of the report of an bord snip nua. An bord snip nua recommended abolishing the Department, discontinuing the RAPID programme, reductions in funding for community and voluntary support and phasing out the CLÁR programme. However, the most damning matter is that the Department of Finance raised fundamental questions to the Minister in written format on whether we are getting value for money from Údarás na Gaeltachta. Údarás na Gaeltachta could not provide information to the Department on how much it was costing per job, on its level of debt and on the amount of grants paid out.

I want to make my own commitment. I am committed to rural Ireland. I am committed to this Department. Fine Gael is committed to rural Ireland, but we are also committed to getting value for money. If the Department of Finance is worried about us not getting value to money, I want to know what the Minister has done since he received the letter from that Department querying his Department on value for money, and what precautions he has put in place. Has the Minister contacted Údarás na Gaeltachta to see whether it can give the Department the information on staffing and on the cost per job? What has he done since that letter was sent to him from the Department of Finance?

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

Information on staffing at Údarás na Gaeltachta is readily available to my Department, which monitors the organisation on an ongoing basis. Údarás has a good record in job creation; for example, 1,269 new jobs were created in Údarás-assisted companies in 2008, while full-time employment in Údarás-supported enterprises was 8,193.

One of the issues that arises is that of the cost per job, which is sometimes queried. I have made criticisms in this regard in the past, and I understand Forfás has now moved away from the cost-per-job measure and is employing a more complicated and thorough way of considering value for money. I recently met representatives of the board of Údarás to discuss this issue. My view was that in considering the cost per job we must also consider the sustainability of the job. Thus, if we spend money on an industry that goes on for 30 or 40 years, the cost per job, taking into account the years of operation and the repayment to the State in taxes and so on, cannot be compared to that of a company that lasts for five years. Therefore, I stressed to the representatives of Údarás that they must consider the sustainability of the jobs created, the risk element, and the benefit to the Irish language. The latter consideration applies to Údarás more than to any other State agency. I would put a higher premium, for example, on jobs created by Údarás that not only sustain viable employment in the Gaeltacht but also sustain the language in the area. That is the whole justification for having a separate agency in the Gaeltacht.

Michael Ring (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Taoiseach recently said while speaking to a radio station or TG4 — I am not sure which — that he would retain the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs. Has the Minister spoken personally to the Taoiseach about this, and has he assured the Minister the Department will be left intact in light of the McCarthy report?

Has the Minister monitored the schemes he set up — some of which are very good — to see whether we are getting value for money? If not, will he put something in place to monitor them? I want to see real jobs for real people in rural Ireland.

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

As the Deputy knows, I always look out for value for money. The Deputy mentioned schemes I was particularly associated with setting up, of which I will take three examples. The rural social scheme, which costs €7,000 more per year than keeping the same person on unemployment benefit or farm assist, is incredibly good value for money in terms of the amount of work done. The report I launched recently at the National Ploughing Championships will testify that the payback from the scheme is a large multiple of the amount of money we put in. In addition, when one considers the social benefit of providing these people with employment and preventing them from living a lonely life without any outside activity other than farming, one must conclude the scheme is a success.

Because of the CLÁR programme, there are houses in rural Ireland that have water from group schemes; we were willing to provide a top-up to prevent people in rural Ireland from paying inflated costs for water, and that was justified. I have been very strict with local authorities, as the Deputy knows. In his own county I refused to pay because the local authority did the work first and then applied for the grant. Anybody who tells me it is not a worthy social objective to give high-quality piped water to the houses of rural Ireland does not understand the problem.

The local improvement scheme for roads project has also been good value, although I have questioned the prices given by local authorities and so on. We do our best to monitor these matters, but I believe it is value for money. If we move on to rural recreation-----

Michael Ring (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Has the Minister spoken to the Taoiseach about keeping the Department?

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

The issue of the configuration of Departments is, as I have said time and again, solely one for the Taoiseach. I heard what he said on TG4 and I leave that utterly to his discretion.