Joe O'Reilly (Fine Gael)

On 25 November 2009 the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs gave the go-ahead to start winding down and closing 180 community projects. Twenty to 30 of those projects are already closed down, supposedly as part of a review procedure. I understand 11 are appealing to the Labour Relations Commission through their union.

The funding for community development programmes is ring-fenced for 2010 but the uncertainty sets in thereafter. The programmes accept that funding will pass through the county integrated structures and have no problem in that regard. They merely reasonably seek that it remain ring-fenced for them, as they fear this will become a blunt instrument otherwise. As matters stand, projects have two weeks until the end of March in which to devise the work plan that will mean that from the end of this year they will no longer own their own premises, any minivans for which they fund-raise or youth clubs they might build. This is mad and wrong and community groups are annoyed by it.

I will cite two community projects in County Cavan, namely, South West Cavan Community Development Project Limited and the Community Connections Community Development Project as examples of best practice. South West Cavan Community Development Project Limited has helped 64 community groups. It has helped them to draw down funding to acquire personal alarms for older people or help in the establishment of crèches and child care facilities. A recent notable case is the child care facility at Ballymachugh which is of a very high standard. The community development projects have provided facilities across all age groups and social classes, both in built-up areas within their remit and more isolated locations. One notable contribution is made by the Rural LIFT transport project which also is very strong in the area of west Cavan in which the Community Connections Community Development Project operates. It also has a newsletter and a number of good projects.

It is worth mentioning that community development projects are equally effective and necessary in inner-city Dublin and other inner-city areas. Consequently, this is not simply a rural affair but also affects urban areas in great need. It spans age groups and all scenarios.

Community development projects have already experienced two budget cuts which they have accepted in the context of the times in which we live. Consequently, my proposition does not pertain to additional moneys, nor does it constitute a whinge about the loss of existing moneys which can be argued a separate occasion. The projects seek the security of knowing that money will be ring-fenced for them in the future. Consequently, they do not seek extra funding and accept the cuts laid out for them. An important point is that they have no problem with the money passing through the integrated county structures. They simply request that the money being paid to them and which has been ring-fenced for 2010 will continue to be so ringfenced in 2011 and 2012. They wish to be able to plan for the future and have security and fairness.

Nationwide, community development projects have had great achievements in respect of individuals, community groups, youth groups, older people, children's groups, crèches, rural travel schemes, inner-city development and so on. Such achievements have been secured across the entire gamut of human activity and range of voluntary activity. Interestingly, 2,000 volunteers participate in projects being supported by community development projects. The people involved who have such major achievements to their credit are highly reasonable, committed to what they are doing and have the requisite expertise. Incidentally, it also is worth mentioning that there are strict auditing structures, involving annual auditing and strict efficiencies. As a result, there is no question of money being wasted or of malpractice.

I do not seek additional budgets or about to upset a plan to pass moneys through the county integrated structures. Similarly, there is no lack of auditing or proper financial practices. I only seek to ensure the future security of community development projects. In other words, the voluntary personnel and groups they support in urban or inner city areas nationwide should have the security of such support and knowing that such coalface activity will continue on an ongoing bass. Essentially, that is my proposition. I, therefore, ask that the money be ring-fenced for community development projects at the same level as previously and that such funds be allowed to pass through the county integrated structures.