Jack Wall (Kildare South, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 22: To ask the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs if the board of management structure for community development programmes is to be retained; if he has postponed any decision as a result of the recent correspondence from the Chairman of the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Arts, Sport, Tourism, Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs; if, as a result, he plans to meet with the representative group, Community Platform, on behalf of the CDPs; if further representations will be considered before a final decision is made; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [47194/09]

John Curran (Dublin Mid West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

As I outlined previously to the Dáil and Seanad, my Department has seen the need to redesign its community development and social inclusion programmes, particularly the local development social inclusion programme, LDSIP, and the community development programme, CDP, drawing on best international practice, and to support their ongoing evaluation. The LDSIP and the CDP are my Department's two main social inclusion and community development programmes. They both have a community development element and are delivered through separate local delivery structures. These programmes come to an end on 31 December 2009 and will be superseded by a new integrated programme, the local and community development programme.

The Centre for Effective Services recently presented the outline of the new programme to me, which I accepted. The aim of the new programme is to tackle poverty and social exclusion through partnership and constructive engagement between the Government, its agencies and people in disadvantaged communities. The new programme will preserve elements of good practice from the existing CDPs, community development programmes, and LDSIPs, local development social inclusion programmes, but will ensure a greater focus on outputs and outcomes and their evaluation.

The new integrated programme is a major step forward and I am especially pleased that, notwithstanding severe budgetary constraints, the case made for the programme was accepted in determining allocations and that it was possible to secure significant funding for it for 2010. In that context, I am pleased to say that I have been able to ring-fence funding for continuing CDPs and to maintain funding for these at 2009 levels.

We have taken care in the design of the implementation process for the new programme and allowed enough time to ensure the objective of integrated service delivery can be achieved. Once CDPs sign up to the new programme, the first tranche of 2010 funding will be provided. This allows for service continuity from day one. The existing CDP management structure, through the voluntary boards, will remain in place for 2010 and CDPs have been so informed, in writing.

As part of the implementation process, the key stakeholders will be asked to work together at local level from early next year to develop proposals for how the programme is to be delivered during 2010. My Department and Pobal will provide a range of supports to ensure the process is successful. At the same time, all stakeholders will be working together to put in place a plan to ensure integrated service delivery and structures for the period after 2010. My Department and Pobal will also be supporting that process and working with all key stakeholders.

We have set out a model for integrated service delivery and structures at a local level which would involve, among other things, the re-constitution of the voluntary boards from the end of 2010. The directors would continue to have a key role in that model. However, we have stated repeatedly that it is up to the CDPs and the local development companies to bring forward other models, if they have something better to offer. I have met CDPs, their networks and representatives throughout the country during the past year or more, as have my officials. We have made it clear that we will meet anyone who is prepared to work with us in a constructive way to ensure that the new programme is delivered to the benefit of the communities we all serve.

Jack Wall (Kildare South, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The statement from the Minister of State does not reflect what I have heard. The community platform has sought a delay in this process but I believe the Minister is bullying communities into submission. Such actions are a rebuff to the Joint Committee on Arts, Sport, Tourism, Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs which sent a letter by unanimous decision. That letter was not acted upon by the Minister. Often, there is discussion on community involvement and activities. Some boards have been called upon to sign up to integration with development companies of which they are not even aware. They have been informed that they will be notified at a later stage of the details of the relevant local development company. This is a disgrace, given the commitment that the boards of management have displayed in respect of the communities. Many boards of management initiated the community groups but they are now informed that they are surplus to requirements and that they will be put to one side.

I refer to the appeals mechanism. Any appeal mechanism involved in this area should be independent of the Department, as should any process to provide for natural justice. This is no reflection on the people in the Department but no one could seriously suggest there should be an appeals mechanism put in place constituted of members of the Minister's Department to consider its decisions? It does not stand up. Immediately there is a doubt raised by anyone who makes a case using such a mechanism. The 30 CDPs would be under considerable pressure and the first thing they would suggest is that they have no hope because the appeals mechanism has no independent identity. Even if the chairman of the appeals board were from outside the Department I could accept it. However, I cannot accept it because the appeals board is made up of three people from within the Department derived from whatever section.

We are all keen for this to work. The Minister of State will be aware better than most people that we have supported this measure in every shape and form, despite the financial implications and so on. I call on the Minister of State to bring everyone with us, to re-examine the boards of management and the appeals mechanism and not to insist that CDPs sign up to an unknown local development company to which they have no links to date. These are three measures which can be done to move this project forward.

John Curran (Dublin Mid West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I will try to respond to several of the points made. I refer to the appeals mechanism. The staff involved in the appeals are from completely different sections and have not hand, act or part in-----

Jack Wall (Kildare South, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It in no way reflects on-----

John Curran (Dublin Mid West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I make this point specifically. While any appeal need not be submitted until the middle of January, the CDPs unsuccessful in the review were not only informed that they were unsuccessful, but they were informed of the reasons. This will subsequently assist them during any appeal. We have also make a commitment to these CDPs to help them with finance and funding during the course of their appeal, such that their funding would not come to an end at the end of the current year. I make the point that we are now in a different situation financially. Previously, when we cut funding to CDPs one comment they all made was that if they were subjected to another cut, they would be out of business. The idea of having a radical examination and implementing a new, single programme is to ensure we address the concerns highlighted in the McCarthy report and elsewhere such that we produce tangible and measurable outcomes, clear programmes, that we avoid duplication and to avoid excessive bureaucracy. There are in excess of 230 different legal entities delivering community development in the country along with all the associated burdens of administration and compliance with company law. The focus must be on addressing the issues of key concern to disadvantaged people in our communities.

Deputy Wall is correct to raise this matter and it is a shame there are CDPs in the country which operate in a way such that they are oblivious to and unaware of what other partnership and local development companies are doing. I do not blame the CDPs and this is why I seek a single, integrated programme and the reason the Government has made this commitment.

I refer to the request to meet individual CDPs. I have given adequate time to tease out all the detail. Implementation will take place over the course of one year and this has been clearly spelt out. I refer to the community platform. My officials and I have made it clear that we are quite prepared to meet any group. I will stand corrected but to the best of my knowledge I have not received a request to meet the community platform. However, I am available to meet to address this matter in the coming year.

Jack Wall (Kildare South, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I did not seek to cast aspersions on the people the Minister of State selects for appeals. However, from years of experience in various societies and associations with which I have been involved, I am aware that the one thing such a process must have is an independent voice for any appeals mechanism. I state again that the one thing that must be done is to appoint a person independent from the Department. We are all aware this is possible and that there are many people throughout the country with expertise in community development at their fingertips. I call for such an appointment because it would help to resolve the difficulties. As long as the current set-up exists, some doubt will remain and I do not care what case the Minister of State makes, if there are three officials appointed from the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs to hear an appeal, the rug could be pulled from underneath them immediately. I call on the Minister to consider my suggestion.

I understand the Minister of State will appear before the Joint Committee on Arts, Sport, Tourism, Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs again in respect of this matter. I thank the Minister of State for his commitment to meet the community platform. If we are to progress this matter there is a need for such meetings. Everyone seeks to progress the matter and I will continue to argue until the matter winds up that the boards of management and those who created the initiative in many cases are being sidelined to the detriment of local communities. This will continue to be the case if the Minister of State does not change his position, which is a major error and mistake and amounts to a rebuff of their efforts. I call on the Minister of State to meet the community workers co-operative sooner rather than later to address their concerns. I also call on him to do something regarding the appeals mechanism. It would not be an excessively substantial measure but it would help the Minister of State to bring everyone on-side and he would certainly have me on-side with respect to the appeal mechanism if he responds to the request I have made.

John Curran (Dublin Mid West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I refer to the question of meeting various groups.

I wish to put that on the record because it is important. Both I and my officials, at different times and in different ways, do this.

To clarify one point, I did not select the staff within the Department who were to make the appeals.

Jack Wall (Kildare South, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Minister of State is missing the point.

John Curran (Dublin Mid West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I take the Deputy's point but I wish to clarify this for the record. It was not a question of the Minister coming in and saying, "You, you and you". It was senior management within the Department.