Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)

Go raibh maith agat, a Leas-Chathaoirligh, as do dhea ghuí. Senator Bannon makes a compelling case. However, the decision in this case does not rest with my Department although it is the funding agency in such matters.

There are two Leader programmes in the current round of structural funding, the Leader+ community initiative and the area based rural development programme, a sub-measure of the regional operational programmes. Funding for these programmes is provided by the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs. These programmes aim to help rural dwellers to think about the potential of their area in the longer term. They also aim to encourage the implementation of integrated, high-quality, original strategies for sustainable development. Such strategies are designed to encourage experimentation with new ways of enhancing the natural and cultural heritage, reinforcing the economic environment in order to contribute to job creation, and improving the organisational abilities of communities.

Senator Bannon is correct that I am very committed to these issues. As he is aware, a matching scheme operates under the CLÁR programme whereby if the local Leader company approves a community grant for a building, the Department automatically doubles that grant. We must be clear about one matter, however. There is always a significant demand for bottom-up development and localised decision-making. However, as soon as this is facilitated and a decision is deemed unsatisfactory, everybody wants the centre to get involved again. Decision-making should be either local or not local. If it is local, it should be left as such.

The entire basis of the Leader programme, at both the European and national level, is that decision-making is undertaken at a local level in accordance with detailed guidelines issued by my Department. These guidelines set out the aims of the programmes, how the Leader companies should operate at a local level and the obligations of those companies with regard to issues such as the Data Protection Act 1988, the Freedom of Information Act, the Prompt Payment of Accounts Act 1997 and the provision of a bilingual service. We lay out guidelines and good practice but the decision on any application is made locally.

In County Longford, the programmes are delivered by Longford Community Resources Limited. It has a budget for the period 2000-06 of €3,211,000 for Leader programmes. This is made up of approximately €2.5 million for Leader+ and €770,640 for the area-based rural development initiative. The decision making process is autonomous of the Department and I do not interfere with it. At times, the advice of the Department is sought as to whether a scheme comes within the guidelines of a programme. That is a technical issue and not a decision making issue.

My Department clarified the position with Longford Community Resources Limited with regard to this project. The board of the company considered the application for funding for a feasibility study from Ballymacormack Community Centre at its meeting on 24 June 2004 and decided that the application should be rejected as there are a number of community centres within a four mile radius and some displacement of existing services needed to be considered. I understand Senator Bannon appealed the decision on behalf of the applicants on 28 October and the manager of Longford Community Resources Limited wrote to the Senator on 2 November, confirming the decision of the board and the reasons therefor. It was pointed out that under the operation of the Leader+ programme a grant is prohibited if it distorts competitiveness and usage of other similar localfacilities.

Leader operates on a decision making basis at a local level and I am satisfied that Longford Community Resources Limited took its decision on this application after giving it due consideration. I also understand that the question of whether the application was within the rules was not referred to my Department. The local company made the decision on the various issues involved and I must respect the localism of decisions on the Leader programme. As Minister of State and as Minister with responsibility for rural development, I have been very careful not to interfere with the programmes of the local Leader companies. The programme was intended to be autonomous. If it is intended to be a bottom-up programme, it must be so.

I suggest that the local group continue its contacts with the Leader company. Unless the Department is requested to give an adjudication on a technical issue it does not have a role in the matter.