Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 367: To ask the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs if he will withdraw the requirement that projects funded under the community development programme need to close; if he will allow them to engage in the local and community development programme on an equal footing with the partnership companies, retain their company structure, retain their assets and liabilities, retain their independence, autonomy and accountability; if he will meet with stakeholders to discuss viable alternatives to those his Department is currently pursuing; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25357/10]

Pat Carey (Dublin North West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

As the Deputy is aware, the Local Development Social Inclusion Programme and the Community Development Programme were my Department's two main social inclusion/community development programmes. These came to an end on 31 December last and have been superseded by a new integrated programme, the Local and Community Development Programme (LCDP). A key difference between the new LCDP and its predecessor programmes is the fact that, when fully implemented, it will be delivered nationally on an integrated basis by a reduced number of companies.

It is important to note that, despite what is stated by some community development projects (CDPs) and by others, integration does not mean closure of a CDP or the cessation of CDP activities in any given area. As has been stated previously, any worthwhile community development activity or service delivered under the CDP can continue to be delivered under the new LCDP and by the same staff who currently do this work. Of course, CDPs may opt out of the LCDP integration process and decide to go it alone. In such cases, my Department will be supportive in relation to the retention of any assets acquired with programme funding and may also be in a position to provide for some limited funding for a transition period, subject to certain conditions.

My Department has set out a model involving full integration of CDPs with local development companies (LDCs), but has made it clear that other options can be considered and that it is not a question of 'one size fits all'. The only option not acceptable is one that seeks to preserve the status quo: some models proposed by CDPs and other parties in the period since the launch of the LCDP have had to be rejected on that basis. However, my Department has been able to respond positively to a number of other alternative models put forward by both LDCs and CDPs. While agreement has not yet been fully finalised in these cases, I am satisfied that the real possibility for agreement exists. Additional proposals from other CDPs and LDCs are also being considered positively but are less developed at this stage. I can assure the Deputy that my Department will continue to respond positively to all constructive proposals that it receives and that my officials will continue to be available to meet with the boards of projects.

My overall aim is to ensure that, notwithstanding the difficult budgetary position, disadvantaged communities will benefit from a more focused programme and better integrated actions. As previously indicated, my primary concern in this most difficult economic climate is to make every effort to ensure the front-line services provided by or supported through my Department, especially those focused on the needs of the most disadvantaged communities, are protected and to minimise overheads and ancillary costs.

I am aware that some CDPs have a range of concerns about assets, the impact on local service delivery, local buy-in and accountability. However, I am confident that all of those issues can be addressed in the implementation process previously outlined by my Department and now under way. In this regard, an information session for stakeholders was held by Pobal, on my Department's behalf, on 10 June last.