asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he supports the proposal of the Combat Poverty Agency for a community development fund as a major anti-poverty strategy; and if he was consulted about the Government's refusal to accept £8.5 million EC funds for community development as part of the Structural Funds.

The recommendations of the Combat Poverty Agency in relation to funding for community development are contained in a report entitled "Funding Policy for Community Development". This report, which was presented to me, in September this year, is currently under examination within my Department. At the same time, consultations are taking place with other Government Departments with responsibilities in relation to community development.

This is an area in which I have a very special interest. I expect to be in a position to respond to the agency's recommendations shortly.

In drawing up the National Development Plan and accompanying sectoral operational programmes, the Government recognised the importance of encouraging local development initiatives. Careful consideration was given to the merits of seeking a specific allocation from the EC Structural Funds to support such initiatives but the Government decided that local development needs could be met more effectively through the sectoral programmes.

A proposal put forward by the European Commission for a global grant scheme to aid community development would not have involved any additional assistance from the Structural Funds and would have been made at the expense of the allocation for the operational programmes.

Again, I am afraid I cannot be very complimentary. Would the Minister accept that this position — in which on the one hand he accepts the principle of community development and, on the other, his Government refuse £8.5 million which the EC tried to insist that they would take — clearly indicates that they are guilty of hypocrisy or double-talk?

I presume the Deputy is talking about the EC because, as far as the Government are concerned——

The Government.

——the problem is that there was no additional money available.

We all know that.

Therefore, it was a question of taking it from the programmes submitted by the various regions. This was a further, later proposal which was not acceptable because there was no additional finance available to fund it, which would have meant taking funds from the programmes already agreed.