Phil Hogan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)

Members were generally interested in how we can align the community with local government. We have a group that is looking at that. No vested interests are involved in the group. I want to see how we can achieve that in an independent way, based on people's personal experiences in local government and in the community sector. We are in an era in which duplication and triplication cannot be afforded. We want to find the best way of delivering services to citizens, which is the ultimate objective.

I am a strong proponent of local government. I make no apologies for that. Local government is democratic. Its money is audited. It is accountable and transparent. Although it delivers local services, it does not deliver enough of them. I want the system of local government that is in place to deliver local services to citizens in line with the community development sector and with the assistance of the voluntary and community sector. The debate is about the best structure and mechanism to achieve that in an accountable and an open way.

Senator Keane mentioned local Leader groups and local development. We are in discussions with European Commission to see if we can achieve a little bit more flexibility in transferring money from one programme to another. If we do not achieve that, there will be a surplus of money in Brussels at the end of 2013, which we will not be able to spend. In the current climate, we will do everything we can to avoid that. However, we are working with our partners in the European Union to see what we can do to resolve that.

Senator Ó Murchú and others mentioned the scheme to support national community and voluntary organisations. That small scheme has a budget of €4 million and it provides core costs to 64 national community and voluntary organisations, including many organisations involved in advocacy. In this year's round of funding under the scheme, there were 149 applications and 64 were successful. One cannot expect it to do everything one wants it to do with €4 million but I am trying to maintain that level of expenditure in next year's budget. Perhaps that funding can leverage other synergies with local government, in particular.

An independent mechanism was set up in order to deal with these applications. All successful applicants knew exactly what the criteria were before they applied. Senator van Turnhout will be disappointed that funding for some of the national organisations had to be cut in order to facilitate others. One cannot win when one has a small budget but I understand from where she is coming. I will review the scheme at the end of the year to see what criteria will apply for 2012 and to be able to give more certainty early on in the year for people who are successful.

Some €63 million is available under the local and community development programme. That is a lot of money which can leverage a lot of activity. I hope we will be able to maintain that next year. That is tied into our European Union contribution which I suppose is helpful from my perspective because one must have 45% in one's budget in order to draw down the remaining 55% from the European Commission. It does not make sense not to take advantage of the money that is available in the European Union programmes.

The role of local authorities in regard to community issues is a central point which Senator Landy made. I have a lot of experience of local government, as has Senator Landy. I see the valuable work which goes on but I also see that local government neglected the community sector. A distance was created between the community and voluntary sector and local government because local authorities did not set up the appropriate structures or conversations, especially in the light of programmes coming on stream through the European Union. That was a mistake by local government and I am seeking to ensure it rectifies that. It must also show a better culture towards the community development work going on in every community with the help of an enormous number of people who do not get paid for anything but who are doing good work on behalf of the community they represent. I want to ensure we are in a position to draw together all the structures, funds and programmes available in every community and to have a dialogue about the best structures to deliver those services to the people which, ultimately, is what it is all about.

The local development social inclusion programme and community development programme were redesigned with a view to drawing on best international practice. We drew on evidence of what works in this field in order to establish arrangements for the ongoing re-evaluation of the programme. The LCDP encapsulates the best elements of the local development social inclusion programme and the community development programme. At one time, there were 163 structures and there are now 52, which is enough. They are more efficient and we were able to make a lot of savings. There has been a 6% reduction in funding for the entire programme and only a 3% reduction in the money going to the citizen and the groups. That answers that question. I thank Senators for their time.