No. 7 on the agenda is EU scrutiny. The joint committee undertook scrutiny of COM (2025) 842 this morning, proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending directives EU 2016/2341 and EU 2016/97 as regards the strengthening of the framework for occupational retirement provision. The committee has agreed that the proposal wants further scrutiny. I thank members.

No. 8 on the agenda is the LEADER programme and rural development. We have officials from the Department of Rural and Community Development and the Gaeltacht and representatives of Pobal with us today. I will read a note on privilege and housekeeping matters before we begin. Witnesses and members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice that they should not criticise or make charges against any person or entity either by name or in such a way as make him, her or it identifiable or otherwise engage in speech that may be regarded as damaging to the good name of the person or entity. Therefore, if their statements are potentially defamatory in relation to an identifiable person or entity, they will be directed to discontinue their remarks. It is imperative that they comply with any such direction I might make.

Members attending remotely are reminded of the constitutional requirement that to participate in public meetings, they must be physically present within the confines of the Leinster House complex. This is due to the constitutional requirement that to participate in public meetings, members must be physically present within the confines of or the place the Parliament has chosen to sit. In this regard, I ask any members participating via Microsoft Teams to confirm they are on the grounds of the Leinster House complex if they wish to contribute to the meeting. I remind all those in attendance to make sure their mobile phones are switched off or on silent mode.

Today's meeting concerns discussions on the LEADER programme and rural development. I thank all witnesses for attending today to discuss this important issue. As a committee, we look forward to engaging with them and gaining insights into policy and administrative matters relating to the programme. We note the importance and the valuable contribution LEADER makes to communities across the country and the critical juncture in terms of the future design and funding of the next programme as part of the multiannual financial framework, MFF, discussions. With that in mind, I welcome Mr. Fintan O'Brien, assistant secretary general, and Ms Marie Duffy, principal officer, Department of Rural and Community Development and the Gaeltacht; and Ms Anna Shakespeare, chief executive officer, Ms Maria Farry, manager, and Mr. Michael Ryder, manager, Pobal.

I invite the Mr. O'Brien to make his opening remarks.

I thank the Chair and members of the committee for the invitation to attend today’s meeting. We welcome the opportunity to update the committee on the work of the Department in respect of Ireland’s LEADER programme. LEADER has been operating successfully in Ireland for almost 35 years and is a key element in the Department’s rural development investment programme. It is also a central part of Ireland’s Common Agricultural Policy strategic plan covering 2023 to 2027 which is co-funded by the EU and the national Exchequer. LEADER promotes a community-led local development approach to rural development by involving local communities in the development of responses to key economic, environmental and social challenges. As part of this methodology, the programme is administered by local action groups, LAGs, on behalf of the Department. They play an instrumental role in supporting local projects that bring renewed life, jobs and services to our rural communities. The current 2023 to 2027 LEADER programme is delivered via 33 LAGs in 28 subregional areas across the country. For the most part, subregional areas are aligned to county boundaries. The fact that LEADER is rooted in local communities is a key aspect of the programme, ensuring local needs and priorities drive the types of initiatives and projects that are funded. This, in turn, helps to support another of the strengths of the LEADER programme in that it funds such a wide range of activities in rural communities all over Ireland.

I am sure that members of the committee will be aware of LEADER-funded projects in their own local areas in diverse areas such as social inclusion initiatives, biodiversity projects, support for local enterprises, the development of community facilities and the provision of recreational facilities in communities.

In general, the LEADER programme is based on seven-year programming periods, which reflects the cycle of programming periods at EU level. For the most recent seven-year period, this was broken down into a transitional programme for 2021 and 2022 and the current LEADER programme, which runs from 2023 to 2027. Across the seven-year period, a total of €250 million has been allocated to the programme, with €180 million of this being in respect of the current 2023 to 2027 programme.

In keeping with the multi-annual nature of the LEADER programme, the 2023 to 2027 funding of €180 million was allocated to LAGs at the beginning of the programme to provide them with greater flexibility in selecting and approving projects which will have a meaningful impact in their respective areas. Subsequently, each LAG is then responsible for selecting and awarding LEADER funding to projects within its geographical area. The projects must be in line with each area's local development strategy, and each LAG is expected to manage its budget over the lifetime of the period. These local development strategies are key to the LEADER approach and at the beginning of each programming period they set out a comprehensive overview of each LEADER area and outline the key priorities for support over the lifetime of the programme.

The current LEADER programme is structured under three LEADER themes, which are economic development and job creation, rural infrastructure and social inclusion and sustainable development of the rural environment and climate change mitigation and adaption. In the early stages of the current programme, much of the focus for LAGs has been on the development of the local development strategies and then on animating potential projects and directly supporting local communities to develop expressions of interest for funding. To date under the current programme, LAGs across the country have approved LEADER funding for over 1,000 projects valued at €50 million. As has been the case in previous LEADER programming periods, we expect the annual drawdown of funds to increase as more projects are animated, approved and then delivered on the ground. While the level of drawdown of LEADER funding was relatively low at the start of the current programming period, we have seen increased momentum in the level of project approvals and expect that the full €180 million will be drawn down over the lifetime of the programme.

I am aware that there is a strong demand in rural Ireland for funding and LAGs are continuing their work to engage prospective applicants and to work with approved projects to ensure they are completed. We look forward to seeing the outcomes of the current programme emerge over the coming months and years as these projects are delivered.

As I stated earlier, LEADER is funded as an intervention under the Common Agricultural Policy. Therefore, the development of the draft EU regulations relating to the post-2027 CAP, and the new national and regional partnership plan is a matter of significant importance to the Department. The Department is working closely with our colleagues in the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine in respect of the draft regulations. Central issues at this stage of the process for the Department include ring-fencing of the LEADER budget and ensuring key definitions in the regulations such as how beneficiaries are defined, take cognisance of the importance of the LEADER programme. Given the clear and tangible benefits that LEADER has delivered all across the country over the past 35 years, safeguarding the future of the community-led local development approach of LEADER is a priority. At this stage of the process, much of the detail remains to be clarified and there is a lengthy period of negotiations to come at EU level. The Department has advocated, and will continue to advocate, for a well-funded EU budget that provides for the continuation of CAP supports that have proved so beneficial for rural Ireland and for a continued strong funding commitment to the LEADER programme.

I hope this brief outline has been informative for committee members. I look forward to hearing their views and I and my colleague will be happy to respond to any questions they may have.

As chief executive of Pobal, I would like to thank the Cathaoirleach and the committee for the opportunity to come before them today to contribute to the work of the committee and to outline the technical role that we play in supporting the Department of Rural and Community Development and the Gaeltacht in relation to the 2023 to 2027 LEADER programme.

Pobal works on behalf of Government to support communities and local agencies by managing funding programmes to enhance social inclusion. Our vision as an organisation and our mandate on behalf of Government is to create an equal and inclusive society in partnership with Government and communities. We work with Government, partner agencies and those delivering services to promote social inclusion and improve outcomes for all by providing high-quality programme supports and grant management services. Our teams have extensive experience, providing a range of programme management, research and data-led solutions. We prioritise outcomes which enhance participation by individuals and communities in social, societal and economic activity, delivering objectives set out in the programme for Government and other key policies. Each programme is designed to address specific social challenges, such as poverty, unemployment and accessibility to childcare. The range of services that Pobal provides can be tailored as needed to meet departmental, programme and policy requirements.

Pobal delivers several distinct elements of the LEADER programme 2023 to 2027, which I will provide a brief overview of for the benefit of committee members and of our contributions to the ongoing work of this committee. Since its launch in 1991, LEADER has provided rural communities across the European Union with the resources to enable local partners to actively engage and direct the development of their area through community-led local development. The LEADER programme aims to support the local development of Ireland’s rural areas, which, for the purposes of the programme, are defined as all parts of Ireland except for the areas within the boundaries of the five main cities of Dublin, Cork, Limerick, Waterford and Galway. Pobal delivers the following elements of the LEADER programme 2023 to 2027. It supports events for local development strategy development under stage 2. It provides technical support in managing the local development strategy application and selection process. It designs and implements the LEADER ICT system. We have provided committee members with additional information regarding each of these elements in a supporting briefing paper, which I hope they will find useful.

Additionally, in 2023 Pobal supported the Department of Rural and Community Development and the Gaeltacht with the application of the deprivation index for the purposes of resource allocation under the new LEADER programme. To confirm, Pobal does not have a remit to disburse funding under this programme. As published in our most recent annual report and annual financial statements for 2024, our role centred on the following elements: the first was concluding the local development strategy application and selection process, where Pobal appraised and presented 42 local development strategies across 28 sub-regional areas to the LEADER independent selection committee for selection of LAGs across the sub-regional areas; the second was the design and development of an ICT system for data collection for LEADER 2023 to 2027, with the final phase 4 going live in January 2025. Training on the new system was delivered to 301 attendee; and the third element is that on an ongoing basis, Pobal supports and staffs the LEADER ICT system and has responded to just under 2,000 system queries. Pobal's involvement enhances impartiality and transparency, ensures robust appraisal quality and provides consistency across regions for audit readiness.

Our role within the LEADER programme is clearly defined by Department of Rural and Community Development and the Gaeltacht and centres on delivering a set of specific administrative and technical functions. Within this defined mandate, Pobal provides the systems, assurance processes and technical expertise necessary to support compliant and consistent programme delivery nationwide, which ensures the continued flow of funding. While Pobal has no formal decision-making authority within LEADER, we remain fully available to respond to service requirements as they arise and to support the Department of Rural and Community Development and the Gaeltacht in meeting programme objectives. Similarly, we are very happy to support committee members with any questions they may have pertaining to our role or the functions we are tasked with overseeing on behalf of the Department. In this context, I am joined by my colleagues, who are the real experts. They are Ms Maria Farry, an experienced manager within Pobal's social inclusion and employment operations directorate who oversees the day-to-day elements of our role in the delivery of the LEADER programme, and Mr. Michael Ryder, a finance manager within Pobal's social inclusion and employment operations directorate. I thank committee members for their time and look forward to contributing to the discussion.

I thank Ms Shakespeare for that contribution. I invite members to discuss. I remind those participating remotely to use the raise hand feature and to cancel it when they have spoken. Each member will get seven minutes for questions and answers. Some members have indicated already. If others wish to indicate, I ask them to do so and I will take them when I can.

I thank the witnesses for their presentations. I will get straight into the nuts and bolts. In the allocation of funding, County Galway gets €9 million and County Cork gets €6 million. Who decides who gets what? How is it decided? I am only asking for a quick synopsis. If I did not ask, the two LEADER companies in my county would be very upset.

I can take that question. We are sometimes asked if the allocation is per head or by geographical size.

There are a number of ways to skin a cat, as is always the case. Over the past few programmes, we have been looking at transparency and fairness. Every LEADER area has a base; everyone gets €3 million. On top of that, we look at the deprivation index because that is very much linked to the focus of LEADER. We also look at population density. It is a combination of those two things on top of the €3 million allocation. Certainly, at the time of the allocations, there was a lot of scrutiny of and discussion about that. There are probably different ways of doing it. We are fairly comfortable that that is a transparent and fair way of doing it, particularly having the issue of deprivation so central to what LEADER does. The Pobal deprivation index is quite widely used, well regarded and very robust.

Absolutely. Continuing in that vein, Galway is a county comprising three different sections, namely the very built-up city area, the rurally dispersed west and the not so rurally dispersed east. At the same time, it is important to remember we have the Gaeltacht within that. FORUM Connemara and Galway Rural Development are the two LAGs in my area. Both of them are servicing and supporting a large population. I have no doubt that Mr. O'Brien and Ms Shakespeare have heard this. When the allocation was done, we felt we were short-changed in the context of both the previous LEADER and the current one. With the way the conversations are going at the moment, we need to put our pitch in now because we do not want to be left behind again. Mr. O'Brien has talked about population and indexing. How can he explain what is happening with Cork because it is not as rurally dispersed as Galway is?

There was a change in Cork in this programme where it was broken up into three separate subregional areas. It was not treated as a county in terms of the base allocation. Cork is quite different in this programme versus the last one. In Galway, there was a slight increase in the core LEADER funding between this programme and the previous one. As I said, there are a number of different ways it can be cut up, but we feel that deprivation and population density help. Obviously, there is a significant amount of growth in the wider rural development pot of funding in terms of the capital schemes available. I absolutely understand the Senator's concerns.

A month ago, Galway Rural Development was left with €600,000 in the pot. It has held a meeting since then. Community groups are still coming forward with applications. Their asks are smaller because the pot has practically run out. When dealing with rural, I find it hard to believe that LEADER does not cover equine therapy, particularly when we talk about social inclusion, disability and the growth in equine therapy, and the hub-and-spoke model. We have the likes of Liskennet in Cork, and we want to mirror that around the country. In addition, social farming under the LEADER programme gets a small nugget. Some of that comes through the Department of agriculture. We all know that social farming and social prescribing can be an economic driver to get people, particularly those on a disability allowance payment, back into the workforce.

The Senator has raised a couple of issues as to where we are with the allocation and drawing down of that money.

I will leave it as a comment.

This is working in different ways in different areas and that is because different LAGs do it differently. Broadly speaking, about 11% of that funding has been drawn down and 35% of it has been allocated. Therefore, there is quite a bit of money yet to be allocated. It differs between LEADER areas, and different local action groups do it differently. Allocated is different from drawn down, and there is a job of work in getting those programmes to draw down.

On the equine aspect, I am not sure of the technicalities of what is and is not. I think we have done equine therapy in the past. I can double check that for the Senator. One of the beauties of the LEADER programme is that it is a very broad church. For the most part, it is not the Department saying that people can only do X, Y and Z. It is based on that local engagement and the local development strategy. We quite often see things coming through as proposals and projects for funding which are linked to the LDS and which I might never have thought of. The flexibility to do all kinds of things is key to LEADER.

That is an important segue into my final comments. Mr. O'Brien talked about doing things differently. I have spoken about the main streets in our towns and trying to generate footfall there. We need to look at how we use our festival funding. If applications are made for festival funding, it should not be just for a particular weekend. This year, Portumna wanted to do a season of festivals starting in March and going all the way through to August. That was a hard concept to present. I have no doubt it has come through the LAG and it is making its way over to Pobal for approval as we speak. However, we need to look at how we can attract and use the funding differently in order that we can actually get communities up and running but also put them on a sustainable footing with having investment over maybe a three-year period. We need to look at how to do things a bit differently particularly when it comes to the likes of festival funding and sustaining community groups, particularly chambers of commerce that are trying to do so much good work. In our situation, Galway city would be seen as the town of all the festivals, but we have a rural community that can really benefit from having sub-festivals going on at the same time. That is a comment. In future, maybe we can do something a bit differently there.

Ms Shakespeare made a comment about childcare. Childcare would not be where it is today without the support, auditing and governance of Pobal, which does amazing work. It is continually changing in a very difficult space while trying to keep people on. I ask her to comment on the streamlining and support for childcare.

I thank the Senator for her remarks on childcare. As she is more than aware, the Department of Children, Disability and Equality has a simplification agenda. The Minister, Deputy Foley, launched an action plan covering exactly the Senator's point, streamlining and making it simpler for families and providers in navigating that system. That is an active policy agenda there.

The reason we support the Department in using the application of the deprivation index is that it is an objective, independent measure built around the numbers relating to the most recent census. It provides the Department with an objective decision-making framework for allocating funds. While noting the Senator's concerns, from the Department's perspective, it brings an objectivity lens to bear in respect of the areas of the country requiring most targeting with place-based supports, and an independent, objective view in that regard.

I thank the witnesses for coming in. The funding for the LEADER programme is down from €42 million to €32 million this year. Is that right?

Yes, that is in relation to the drawdown and the spend. I might just explain that. It is slightly different from some of our other schemes. As we have seen over previous programmes, when the programme is getting set up, there is a lot of focus on setting up the LDS, getting out to communities and getting applications of interest. That does not attract much drawdown of funding. However, when you move towards completing projects in the later years of the programme, you come to the Department to draw down the funding. We have seen this curve before where in early years the drawdown will not be as high as in previous years. In the middle of the previous programme, we were in the 40s and 50s. We went down this year because we were early in the programme. We can already see that coming back up. It is not the case that the €180 million is not there. It is there and will be drawn down. It is just drawn down in a different pattern. It is not just divided by six and away you go. It is because of the way the programme works. Funding is there over the multi-annual period of the programme. That is my main point.

I am dealing with people who go into LEADER looking for funding. An awful lot of paperwork is involved. If the Department could tell people early whether their project is worth pursuing, they would not have to go through all this process and then be refused. That might be some of the reason that people do not get involved with LEADER some of the time.

My own county of Meath comes in at about 22nd on the list of 26 counties for funding. This is not an accident. I am dealing with funding all the time, whether it is CLÁR funding, town and village funding, RRDF funding or whatever it is. We are at the bottom of the list every single time as regards funding across the board. Why is that?

The Deputy mentioned two main points there. The first is in relation to the administrative burden. That is a common issue, one we hear quite a lot and one we agree is an issue we are always working on. All schemes have bureaucracy, there will always be bureaucracy and there will always be a need to have administrative processes. That is a governance issue, if nothing else. We have ongoing engagement with the LEADER groups. For example, though our LEADER forum we are always talking about these kinds of things. We do an awful lot of capacity-building exercises with local action groups, LAGs, in terms of dealing with that administration and how the programme runs best. We do an awful lot of one-to-one engagements through phone queries or inbox queries to try to streamline processes as best we can.

I will discuss some of the things we have been looking at in terms of trying to make that less burdensome. That allocation of the money at the start of the programme is a little bit different and gives that little bit of flexibility. We have been looking at reformatting application forms. We are looking at online expression of interest forms. We are looking at changes around some of the funding letters, around reasonable costs and cheques. I agree that there is a frustration out there with the level of paperwork. It is something we are definitely working on. For us, it is about the balance. There will be paperwork, but it is about trying to make sure it is not an undue barrier. It is not a LEADER-specific issue. We have been doing work. For example, we opened the RRDF during the week and we have been looking at streamlining some of those application forms. That is ongoing challenge and an ongoing process.

It is not an issue that is specific to the Department of Rural and Community Development and the Gaeltacht. I have been in a number of meetings this week around other funding calls where exactly the same things are going on. That is a challenge for the public sector, as wide as we want to look at it, in terms of accessibility and trying not to have barriers.

In terms of County Meath funding, LEADER specifically is based on those elements I have mentioned. It is based on giving fairness - everyone has a starting €3 million - and then it is in relation to the population density and the deprivation. There are competitive processes in relation to some of our other schemes. They involve an objective and fairly robust analysis and an assessment of applications as they come in. To a large degree, many of these come through local authorities. We are engaging with local authorities as we go to support them in focusing that assessment process and giving people the best chance to get that pot of money for things like town regeneration offers or the capital delivery team's ongoing engagement. I do not have any particular stats in front of me in relation to what County Meath has and has not received, to be honest. All I can say is that it is an open and competitive process.

Who makes the decision? Is it the witnesses or is it the Government? County Meath has a population of 222,000. It is probably the fourth or fifth most populated county in the country, yet it comes in at the bottom. I will stick with LEADER for now because that is what Mr. O'Brien is dealing with. Why are we at the bottom of the list? Mr. O'Brien said that population is one of the criteria in the amount received. We have one of the highest populations in the country and we are still coming in at the bottom.

I am happy to dig out the detail of how that was done and send it on. That is no problem, but it is about population density rather than straight population and it is also about the deprivation index. It is a question of how the two of them interact on top of the base. I do not have the technical working paper on how that was all done at the time, but I am happy to share that and discuss further, as suits. Those are the principles we use in relation to LEADER. Again, the idea is to try to have a process that is understood, transparent and objective across the country.

I acknowledge the work that is done by Pobal. My time is up, but I thank it for the work it does.

I represent an urban constituency. In the past, Pobal was very supportive via the RAPID programme, especially in the time of former Minister Éamon Ó Cuív. He did huge work, especially in the inner city of Dublin. The benefit of RAPID was that it was a quick capital injection, where you were able to see progress really quickly when it was needed. It was direct. Obviously, I am also here in my capacity representing other urban representatives. We see the LEADER programme and how effective it is in getting things done. It is a really effective mechanism. I understand it is funded by the EU and is a separate funding stream to RAPID. I know Pobal administers SICAP, the dormant accounts and various things. The paperwork for those schemes is a little trickier than for the RAPID scheme. I would love to see the reintroduction of RAPID to tackle urban disadvantage in a quick way. I know of so many projects that could do with that quick capital injection and quick decision-making in a targeted way. Unfortunately, I have to leave, but I know the good work Pobal does, especially in the childcare space, as Senator Rabbitte said. In the past, Pobal has administered the RAPID scheme as well. It is part of it. I am here to bring back RAPID.

I am not on the RAPID scheme. It does not fall on my side of the house; it falls on the community side of the house, but that is being looked at at the moment. I know that both the Minister of State, Deputy Buttimer, and the Minister, Deputy Calleary, have signalled that as a priority. The process at the moment is that kind of examination of how it worked in the past, examining what elements of it that worked well, and what might need to be focused or tweaked a little bit more. There is certainly a commitment to bring back the RAPID programme. It was very popular and was deemed to be very successful in a lot of those urban areas.

I acknowledge the complexity of completing application forms. They are done programmatically. I apologise for that. Insofar as we possibly can, we take on board the reduction of the bureaucracy, the simplification, the helping hand sessions that we have, our call centre to assist people and our development co-ordinators who go out on the ground to assist and support the people who really need it. I acknowledge that. We absolutely accept that.

I will go back to Deputy Guirke's remarks in terms of the same thing regarding the difficulties around that. One of the features might be the EU funding component. Our job is to make sure that we maximise Ireland's portion of that by demonstrating not only spend but also delivery. That is our role. It is not necessarily the sexiest part of the role, but it is essential to make sure that we get every cent of the funding drawn down and actively used on the ground for the purposes for which it was intended. I thank the Deputy for that and for her remarks.

I think we all know the strength and the advantages that the LEADER programme brings. It melds together the community development piece in many respects, along with economic growth and diversification, all tailored to a rural setting. I would like to hear the voices of the local action groups, the likes of Waterford LEADER partnership or many of the other companies that may be-----

They are coming to the next meeting.

Perfect. I am glad to hear that. That is really important. Perhaps the LCDN, as the representative body, may be invited if it has not been invited.

The other thing is the concern over funding. I recognise that there is €250 million for the seven-year lifetime of the current programme, which is due to expire next year. That is on par with what was there from 2014 to 2020. You are looking at a rough breakdown of €35.8 million a year, if it were to be broken down so evenly. When you compare that as an average annual spend in 2014 and 2027, you see that it would have bought you a lot more rural development in 2014. That is really concerning. As a basis for the negotiations that are under way, it is doubly concerning. We did not see great success from an Ireland Inc. point of view during recent negotiations - let us be honest - on Mercosur and the fishing quota.

My concern is that we might see a hat-trick of poor results when it comes to LEADER funding and the overall fiscal envelope. Can the Department officials tell me whether there has been engagement with other EU countries for whom LEADER funding is central, in the same way it is for us, with regard to common negotiation positions?

I agree with the first point about the voices of local action groups. The Department has a slightly different approach. I will not call it a hands-off approach but it is a different model. Certainly, we try to engage with the LDCN and the groups themselves. We have the LEADER forum and the operating rules groups. In the context of what the Deputy talked about, we have been engaging with the LDCN a little bit. There are challenges in terms of what is coming down the road with the new regulation and funding. While there is much uncertainty and detail to come, it is very important for us to be lined up in how we understand and approach that. We might not always agree what our line is going to be but it is important for us to engage with them.

In terms of where we are with the funding element, there is a commitment in the programme for Government to increase LEADER funding within the next round. The Minister has been publicly vocal about that.

On the regulations, it is a significant change and that worries people. We are very comfortable with CAP Pillars I and II, and it has worked so well for LEADER. Having said that, the change is pretty much on the agenda now. Importantly, LEADER is, within the regulation, a required CAP intervention. If LEADER is not in there as required and with that status, then it changes LEADER. It is important to have it as an EU-funded CAP intervention. Similarly, community-led local development, CLLD, is included as a concept within the regulation. That is a starting point on which we look to build.

We are more worried about some things. We are used to LEADER having a ring-fenced element. In terms of ensuring future LEADER funding, the idea of ring-fencing at 5% of the rural development programme or RDP was a thing for us for quite a while.

I imagine that there is engagement with the Department of a. Is there a common negotiating approach on those things between the Department of Rural and Community Development and the Gaeltacht, and the Department of agriculture?

Yes. We engage with them quite regularly. Both Departments are aligned in terms of sharing the view that a well-funded CAP, which brings benefits including LEADER, is essential. I know that the Minister, Deputy Heydon, was before the committee recently and acknowledged the importance of the LEADER programme.

We have not yet reached the stage where there would be a breakdown of every intervention in CAP with a number beside it. There is certainly a shared understanding and prioritisation that CAP is vital and, within that, we are all looking to ensure the future of LEADER funding.

The Deputy mentioned the idea of international engagement. We engage at an international level through a couple of different forums. For example, we engage with the rural pact group, which is very much a more rural development way of looking at what happens at an EU funding level. Rural development and agricultural incomes are different sides of the one coin. There are different ways of looking at what rural development is, and the rural pact group focuses on that.

Another informal group of countries is particularly interested in the idea of rural development and LEADER, in particular. We are aligning ourselves in terms of understanding that complexity. We are talking about moving bits of technical detail around regulation. Five or six countries, including Germany, the Netherlands, Luxembourg and Romania, have formed a loose formation. We feed in through the Department of agriculture and keep in touch with its attaché to the team in Brussels. There are many moving parts to that. There is a lot of negotiation and a lot of clarity still to come. For example, the EU spoke about certain flexibilities around a 10% rural development target, or moving money forward from the mid-term review. It is about getting behind the detail of what that actually means. Are these toeholds for us to look at getting more surety for LEADER? Will it be the case that when they come out in the wash, they are not that useful? It is about trying to get behind that detail. That always has been and always will be a lengthy process. I am not sure I have correctly answered the question but I have tried to explain where we are.

It is really helpful to get an understanding of the negotiating position because this could make or break many rural communities that are already on their knees. I have two further questions.

The Deputy only has one minute. He can come back in a second time.

I will be very brief. First, to what extent is remote work factored into the strategic deliberations on the economic development and job creation objectives within LEADER? Second, with regard to social services and social inclusion in rural areas, what supports are available to local communities to maintain a post office service in their area?

Mr. O'Brien can respond but I remind everyone that we are solely discussing the LEADER programme today.

Yes, my questions relate to the LEADER programme.

Within the wider rural development policy framework, remote work has been key and is a game changer in many ways. Remote work will continue to form part of our future framework. Within the LEADER programme specifically, a number of projects have looked at those kinds of facilities. There is also a much wider approach in terms of various funding steams. Obviously the Department of Enterprise, Tourism and Employment has a wider policy role in that as well. I agree that this is central.

In terms of post offices and LEADER, I am not sure that there is a direct link - not that I can recall - with any projects.

I apologise for arriving a little late this morning. I have read all of the statements. I welcome the representatives of the Department and Pobal. I reiterate what has been said by previous speakers about the large amount of documentation encountered by community groups or people who want to apply for funding. I ask the officials if there is anything they can do. I have been at meetings where people have gone through all of this and said it is not worth doing. I think that is a pity. I think there are 18 requirements on the form in front of me; I could read the whole lot of them out, but the officials can see them for themselves. I presume they have looked at it. It is nearly terrifying in itself. I know there is a process you have to go through, but there are processes and processes. This was looked at in other areas and things were simplified for people.

I will speak about the whole thing behind all this funding. I was involved when all this started - when the first tranche of this money came in. The aim was to make it accessible and easy for people to draw down funds. People were coming together on a voluntary basis to do this. Now you nearly have to franchise it out and pay people to put in the application for you. That is not what this was all about at the beginning. I ask the Department to have a look at it.

I have a few questions I would like to ask. How would the next phase of the LEADER programme ensure faster funding approvals and reduce delays experienced by community groups?

It is linked to the administrative process.

Exactly.

There is an ongoing focus on that. For example, one of the things I mentioned earlier is the idea of moving towards online expression of interest forms. That would take a little bit out of the system and make it a little bit quicker.

Great.

All those little incremental improvements help to ensure that level of funding is delivered as quick as possible.

From the time when you sit down and start to fill out that programme, how long should it be before you get a result back from LEADER? In Mr. O'Brien's opinion, what should the timeline be?

The average is 44 days.

That is not what we experience. It is nice to know the average number of days. I will be able to use that information.

What specific reforms are being considered to streamline the LEADER application and reporting process for small rural community groups?

In terms of the things we are looking at, as I mentioned earlier the full allocation at the start gives flexibility. We are looking at reformatting application forms and providing for expressions of interest online. Some of the requirements around the funding letters have been removed. There is a change to the verification of reasonable costs at LAG level. All of these things will tweak, refine and sharpen those processes. They have that exact idea of trying to streamline it and make it more effective.

As I said at the start, there will always be administrative requirements and Government challenges. One of the many benefits of the LEADER programme is this idea of local engagement where community groups are brought through the process and their experience is used to make those funds more accessible for community groups. That is a key part of the whole LEADER approach.

I will go back to a question I asked previously because I would like an answer on it. What is the average timeline, from application to funding approval, under the current LEADER schemes and how does this compare to previous programme cycles? Mr. O'Brien said 44 days. Is that correct?

I do not have the figures for the previous cycles to hand.

That is grand. We will take it as 44 days. We will be using that as a barometer.

From application to approval, it is 44 days.

I am asking about the timeline between application to receipt of funding.

Yes, to approval.

That is 44 days.

The funding depends on progress with the project.

I understand but to get the green light to go ahead-----

Yes, approval and the green light.

-----it is 44 days.

Yes.

Where community groups are waiting to provide the labour for project completion, can procurement rules for smaller projects be adjusted so that funding is used to provide grant aid for raw materials, rather than just for the finished product?

I apologise but I did not catch the question.

Aid cannot be granted for the materials. Rather, it is granted for the end product only. I am asking about when people are trying to do the work and buy stuff in between. It cannot happen. We ran into it in a few of the-----

This is-----

When approval for a project is secured, the money is received at the end of the project. Interim payments in order to purchase raw materials in between cannot be granted. The answer is "No".

Generally, when the claim comes in, it is at project competition stage.

That is what I am asking about.

There are some cases in which we allow milestone payments but there are certain rules around that. They are set out clearly in the operating rules.

It is, therefore, allowed.

Yes. There are some cases. I cannot say that it is allowed in every project, however.

That is grand. I have a fifth question. While full transparency in the tendering process is required, can fewer requirements for tenders for smaller projects be put in place compared to larger projects? The witnesses know that there are smaller and larger projects.

We are entirely bound by procurement rules.

The answer is "No".

In the context of the audit universe in which we live, EU procurement rules are a big risk factor. We do not want to be in an audit finding over procurement rules.

That is all right. Are current LEADER allocations adequately reaching smaller, rural communities or are larger projects more likely to be funded?

We are seeing quite a mix. Again, it goes back to the idea of how LEADER works. It works differently across different local action groups, LAGs. It is entirely based on that bottom-up process of engaging with communities and identifying the priorities and needs at a local level. We do not say to LEADER groups that we want to see more big or medium projects. That bottom-up element makes it different from a lot of other programmes.

Is Mr. O'Brien happy that the scheme is getting into the core rural communities?

I am.

Is the current LEADER model sufficiently flexible to respond to population decline and economic changes in remote, rural areas?

Yes, it is.

That is fair enough. How is project monitoring balanced with avoiding excessive administrative burden on voluntary community groups?

It goes back to those administrative improvements we are trying to make. There is an element of monitoring that goes on with EU programmes in particular. The reason we have EU monitoring and reporting is to prove that the money has been effectively spent and that we do not have audit issues. It is much easier then, given that we are going to link it to the next LEADER programme. The more we can monitor and prove effective delivery in this programme, the better chance we have in the next programme.

That is fair enough. My next question is one that has already been asked by Deputy Guirke. What measures are in place to ensure geographic fairness in distributing LEADER funding across counties and regions? I ask that with my county, Laois, in my mind.

It goes back to that idea of ensuring an objective, fair and transparent process. Each subregional area was allocated a €3 million base. That is the base that every region received.

Each region received that.

Laois received €3 million, as did Offaly. On top of that, in order to ensure a targeted and transparent approach, it was based on population density and the Pobal deprivation index. These are robust figures that are understandable to people. We can demonstrate the process we used. As I said, there was quite a lot of political discussion and discussion with LEADER groups at the time, but that is the process.

Should future LEADER programmes have a stronger focus on enterprise and job creation?

This again goes back to the idea of how LEADER works. It is such a broad church. We have it set up slightly different in Ireland compared to other countries. We have these LEADER themes. Certain people at the EU level thought that was stepping a bit too far over the line of the bottom-up approach. Economic development and job creation is one such theme. LEADER does amazing stuff in that space in particular. However, I will not be stepping over the line and telling LEADER companies what to do in a bottom-up world, to be honest.

What mechanisms are in place to measure the success of projects funded under LEADER? Are there sufficient long-term impact assessments beyond initial project completion?

Yes. There are a couple of different arms to this question. Certainly, LEADER feeds into that common monitoring and evaluation framework at the EU level. We have a system of annual reports and key indicators, some of which I included in the briefing pack for the committee, such as the projects supported and the jobs created and sustained. That level of monitoring is in place and it feeds into the EU system. That allows us to show our impact and what is happening with LEADER.

From our point of view, we are looking at other ways to ensure the message gets out, particularly in the current context where we are talking about a pressure on funding. We met the Local Development Companies Network, LDCN, during the week and discussed how we can best demonstrate our impact. It might be through case studies or messaging around that.

In the middle of March, we will celebrate the 35th anniversary of LEADER in Ireland. One of the things we will do is try to push good examples of LEADER on our social media channels, including what the scheme does, its impact on communities, the jobs it is supporting and the facilities it has developed. The committee may wish to add visibility to that through its communication. It is an important time to talk about LEADER and the benefits it delivers.

It has been very successful in its 35 years in Ireland. I attended its first meeting.

I am sure Deputy Pat the Cope Gallagher was at the first meeting also.

Fortunately or unfortunately, I think I am the only one here who was around in 1991. I had delegated responsibility for the Gaeltacht at that time under the Minister for the Gaeltacht, who happened to be the Taoiseach, Charles Haughey. We should recall also that the Commissioner at that time, Ray MacSharry, was a good north-west of Ireland man. He brought his experience of deprivation into the mix.

I remember that in 1991 - correct me if I am wrong - there were 12 or 13 pilot programmes around the country. Coming from the north west and seeking to ensure that Donegal was included, I was told it could not be included because that would raise the question of Galway and the Gaeltacht regions. I said clearly to the officials at the time that we should call it the "Gaeltacht", which would encompass Donegal, Galway, Mayo and all the Gaeltacht regions. While I was told it would not work, it did work because the template was there for Údarás na Gaeltachta. It was the success of those pilot projects in 1991 that laid the foundations for the next programmes that covered all of the country.

Of course, without repeating what others have said, the bottom-up approach is the most important aspect of this. It is good to be around to celebrate the scheme's 35 years and to have been a part of the programme at the time. Senator Rabbitte fleshed out the issue of allocations. We have to accept that the formula used is based on topography, population and deprivation. I am pleased that we are up there near the top, at €10 million.

I recognise the work of those on the ground, both the local communities and the officials. They deserve it. The witnesses are the ones at the top of the tree but they are the people who are down there. I wish to record my appreciation for the work they do. Donegal is just a microcosm of the rest of the country. If they are good there, they are good elsewhere.

I have two questions, the first of which relates to the appeals mechanism if an application is unsuccessful. What is the appeals mechanism? Also, let us not take for granted that there will be a programme post 2027.

The programme, as was stated in the presentation, remains to be clarified and negotiated. Are the witnesses involved in this? Do they feed into the Department of agriculture, which will be the lead Department in negotiating the next CAP?

Well done to all. I hope we will have another programme after 2027.

I agree with a lot of the comments the Deputy made at the start around the local element and the people who are driving it forward. I could not agree more. I might hand over to Ms Duffy in a moment on how the appeals process works, but post 2027 is a big priority for us.

Importantly, the LEADER programme is a required intervention so that is the starting point. Every time we come to a new programming period, there is concern it will disappear from the regulation and that we will be left in no man's lands, so that is important. Now it is about building on that. The community-led local development, CLLD, process is in the regulation so it is about fleshing out the detail of that, getting a toehold for funding and making sure we have a strong LEADER programme after 2027.

Absolutely, we feed into the Department of agriculture. We have weekly meetings with its officials. There is an industry around feeding into the structures at EU level. Technical amendments to regulations, moving words, changing numbers and all that kind of thing is going on at the moment. Politically, the Minister is well engaged on this as well. I was with him in Strasbourg a few months ago engaging with MEPs about the idea of how to ensure the message of the importance of LEADER is received. There are so many priorities and so many things happening that we want to make sure it does not get lost. There is obviously a focus on delivering the current programme but we are not losing sight of the importance of LEADER post 2027 as a core element of the new funding package.

If it is okay with the Deputy, I might hand over to Ms Duffy on appeals. I have not sat on an appeals panel in a long time.

In respect of appeals, the local action groups, LAGs, are ultimately responsible for approving a project. They do so to make sure that any projects approved are in line with their local development strategies and the operational rules. If upon inspection or if after checks have been completed, a project is found to be ineligible by inspectors, there is a right of appeal to the Department. The Department has what we call a Department appeal panel, DAP, in place so that a decision by the inspector or Pobal through its administrative checking can be appealed to the Department, but if something is not approved at a LAG level, it will not come to the Department. It is if we find something ineligible as a result of our checks and balances.

Mr. Kelly mentioned he was in Strasbourg. I spent many years in the European Parliament and it always concerned me about agriculture that the vast majority of MEPs do not represent rural Europe. They are largely from the more urban areas, but they see the importance of agriculture. It is important to the European Union, so I hope it will continue. I wish the Department well in the negotiations.

I thank the witnesses for being here. I regret I missed their statements because I was caught up at a meeting next door, but I have a general idea.

One of the things that always interests me is the divvying out of the funding. Senator Rabbitte mentioned this and I do not want to lose sight of it. I keep harping on about it. If Senator Rabbitte did not give the figures, I have them. It is interesting to note that per head of population, Galway received €37 and our near neighbours in Roscommon received €97. It is hard to fathom how that formula comes about. I have raised it with the Minister in the past and we got what he thought was an appropriate response, but it did not satisfy me.

Last Friday, I had the great privilege of attending an event in the Atlantic Technological University, ATU, Mountbellew, where a number of LEADER companies came together. The Ministers of State, Deputies Canney and Grealish, were present and it was all about the future of Irish wool. What was nice or beneficial about it was that a number of the LAGs or LEADER development companies came together. They were from east Galway, Clare, Kerry, Tipperary and Kilkenny and FORUM Connemara was there. That was a fantastic departure from what I was familiar with.

I had the great privilege of sitting as chair on the board of Galway Rural Development and I witnessed at first hand the fantastic benefit to communities when they get funding. There is a celebration when a community group achieves that milestone. I am a great advocate of that and I think Mr. O'Brien mentioned the bottom-up approach and feeding into the conveyor belt. They are the ones who really know what rural and community development is all about. The one thing I recall from when I was chair is the cut in funding from previous years. That was disappointing because we all want more.

One of the things I plead for from the witnesses is that the funding going forward - it currently stands at €425 million - increase to €450 million. It was mentioned that the minimum per county is €3 million. If there were a €4 million minimum, that would bring resounding success. The Minister is focused on doing that and the witnesses have a massive interest in doing it. Is it a reality? If we are to be successful in growing rural development, rural tourism, community development and all the stuff that goes with it, if we can positively look towards an increase in funding, that is what every LEADER company and LAG would wish for.

I thank the Deputy. There were a number of things in that. On the fundamental issue of funding, as I mentioned earlier, it is not per head per se, but I know there have been some queries about Galway in the past. On overall funding, there are different ways of approaching the model and, as we go into a new programming period, we will review it again. The base of €4 million versus €3 million will depend on what the pot is, but, in the most basic terms possible, the stated aim is to have a bigger pot. That is very much where we are at the moment in heading towards the negotiation position.

The Deputy mentioned a few things, including the gathering of the LEADER groups and LAGs in Mountbellew. One of the things that can often be overlooked in the LEADER programme is the ability to do cross-LEADER group co-operation projects. They are challenging, but they can be really good. We are funding projects in the area of wool and it is a co-operation project. The power of bringing the perspectives and expertise together is an interesting part of the LEADER project.

I completely agree with the Deputy's support for the bottom-up approach and with his comments about what it means for community groups. I have been lucky enough to be on the road for various events with various Ministers. Meeting the community groups just does a soul good, to be honest. The idea of what they can do with sometimes relatively small or modest amounts of money and what it means to them is what it is all about. I agree completely with the Deputy.

As Mr. O'Brien rightly mentioned, when people do that nostalgic tour of success stories delivered by small amounts of funding - often it is only funding to the tune of perhaps €200,000 to a community - the rewards from the investment are exponentially brilliant in the confidence it gives to community groups.

Interestingly, for the best part, many of the people who are involved at community level are volunteers. We could not direct money to a better place than to support people who want to support their community, whether it be local enterprise, sport and recreation, community enhancement or village enhancement. It is phenomenal. My greatest wish, like every other member here, is that instead of hearing in the future about cuts in funding, we would continue to reward those companies that are doing great things.

I live in Galway, although not on the west coast. In west Galway, in particular, FORUM Connemara does extraordinary work. We have to embrace all of those cultural things like community events and all of that kind of stuff, and find means and ways of supporting what we are doing. If it concerns Galway Rural Development or LEADER, you are pushing an open door into my house anyway. It is something I would be a great champion for, I must admit, and I would like to continue to do that. However, it can only happen if adequate resources come from the Department and the other organisations involved.

I thank the witnesses for being here. This engagement is very useful for us.

I agree with the Deputy’s comments on the benefits of relatively modest money. The value of what LEADER groups are doing on the ground is phenomenal. In short, I agree.

The key issue with the new strategy is the design model that is outlined in the MFF proposal from the Commission and the concerns about the funding realignment. How can we ensure sustained funding is maximised in the next iteration of this? That is the biggest question for me.

That is the element of the negotiation that is yet to come in relation to exactly how the framework is going to break down into the detail at the national level, and where it all sits. It is a question of that engagement for us at EU level, that engagement nationally with the LDCN and the LEADER groups, and that political engagement that is going on. From a LEADER-only perspective, it is about keeping that message at the forefront. For us, with the very widest rural development hat on, there is the idea of CAP being central. A well-funded, well-defined CAP in its broadest sense is an absolute priority. There are different challenges and different pulls on that large pot than there were the last time, so it is getting more complicated. However, there is a sustained negotiation, engagement and diplomacy effort going on across the system in order to ensure our priorities are achieved.

There are a challenging couple of months ahead.

It is challenging. These programme periods are always challenging. By the time you finish one, you find yourself in the next process fairly quickly.

If the next round of funding is agreed by the EU for the LEADER programme, will there be an opportunity for the Government to top that up?

There is an issue with the technical rules around co-financing rates, which still have to be agreed. There is then a political process in relation to national Exchequer funding. At the moment, we are at 57% of national, which is quite a heavy national finance rate. I imagine there will be a prioritisation process around funding, Estimates processes, capital envelopes and so on. It is about working with how those regulations work out in terms of co-financing and the balancing of priorities across all of the interventions.

How did the current programme work out in terms of balancing? Is it 57%?

That is the co-financing. LEADER is co-funded. The budget of €180 million is split, with roughly 57% national funding and 43% EU funding.

There was an option to go higher but that was the decision made at the time.

I cannot remember if there is a minimum or a maximum in the current regulation.

Under the draft regulations, the co-financing rate for more developed countries is recommended to be about 60%. I think that is an increase from the last regulation, where it could have been around 40%. We are funding at 57%.

We sometimes hear this idea that outside the CAP, we could have a parallel national programme. Technically, everything is possible, but several times today, we have talked about the administrative burden. That is a complicated process of dual reporting and dual governance. Technically, anything is possible if there is political will in relation to money, but if you are against extra administration, it is very difficult to go with a national programme. It is a difficult balance to get right.

A number of other programmes on the way are looked after by Pobal, and the Department looks after them centrally. With regard to the 2023-2027 programme of €180 million, was the €3 million base based within that, or was it based within the whole seven-year programme?

The €180 million included the €3 million. It was allocated separately to the transitional programme. Given the uncertainty the last time, with Covid and so on, a two-year funding envelope was put in, and then we went again with €180 million. It was its own world of administration at the time, to be honest.

The €3 million base was based within the 2023-2027 programme.

Yes.

With regard to the three themes of economic development, rural infrastructure and sustainable development, is there a set allocation per local development company or LAG or how does that work?

When a LEADER group does its local development strategy, at the start it will say that these are the priority areas that it sees, and there is an allocation of funds to that. There is also flexibility when it goes through the programme period, so it does not have to come back again in five years’ time because it is 2% off what it spent on this or that sub-theme. There is that flexibility. We do not set that it has to be a certain amount. If a local development group comes in and says a particular theme is less important and it wants another, that is the whole process. It is not us telling them that it has to be 40:40:20. That flexibility is there.

On the funding allocations per year, Mr. O'Brien said that 11% has been drawn down and 35% allocated. Are there LAGs that have allocated more than 35%? Is there a breakdown in that regard?

Regarding the allocations, we probably go from the mid-80s down to the low teens.

Why is there a disparity?

I would be wary of treating that as a league table. Different local action groups do it in different ways. Some local action groups would have a much heavier animation process at the start, and would then build on that. There could be areas looking at more long-term projects. From our point of view, we keep in contact with the LEADER groups through a number of different fora, but we certainly do not see that as a performance metric, as such. Our focus is on getting it drawn down by the end of the period, which is delivery for communities at the end of the day.

To clarify, the end of the period is 2027 for allocations. Is it 2029 for the drawdown?

Yes, it is N+2.

I know it is now 75:25 for most projects, between economic development and community projects. It is the case that a local development group or LAG sometimes does not have enough finance in its remaining budget. Can it fund it to a lesser percentage? Would the Department get a lot of that?

Is this in respect of the administration expenses to support LAG operations?

No, this is for community projects. Some LAGs would fund a community project. The breakdown of 75:25 is the usual project figure, but sometimes they would not have enough left in the budget and would fund it at a lesser percentage. Does the Department get a lot of that from the different LAGs?

No, generally, for example, we would expect the project to come in under value, so they would still maintain those percentages. We have not seen anything like that to date. Out of the 1,000 projects that are approved, fewer than 300 are completed, so we have not really seen those issues arise under the current programme.

With regard to Pobal's involvement, I will go back to basics. The community comes with a project to the local action group. It processes the project through an EOI and an application process. The local action group then submits it to Pobal's portal. After that, what happens? I just want to know the basics.

I will ask my colleague Ms Farry, who does to the nuts and bolts, to respond on that.

I will start off and then hand over to Mr. Ryder. There is a customer relationship management, CRM, system. We are currently working with the Department on designing the expression of interest form to which both Mr. O'Brien and Ms Duffy referred. That would be the beginning stages of an expression of interest and it will be linked to the CRM system. There is a project life cycle that the CRM system reflects in terms of the submission of a project and an expression of interest to the final stages where the Department approves and is funding it. We oversee and manage that system on behalf of the Department. Then, Mr. Ryder and his team are in charge in the various administration checks that need to happen when a project comes in to Pobal at a certain stage. Mr. Ryder may want to take over from here.

It is an iterative process then. The LEADER CRM system has different stages of progression, starting with the EOI before getting to our team. A review is then done. There is a certain suite of documentation that needs to be uploaded to back up and support the projects. There is an iterative process back and forth, for example, where documentation that is required has not been provided. Once that is completed, the Pobal team will move it on to the next stage within the LEADER CRM system and eventually it will progress to-----

How many stages are there?

There are ten stages. The next stage of that is that the project will start to have the claims come in. It is an iterative process. Pobal is involved at a certain stage. Eventually, it gets to the Department inspectorate, which does the-----

It seems like a lot of stages, does it not?

It does. Unfortunately, because it is an EU programme, there is a lot of administration. Something that has come up quite a bit, even today, is the problem that if it is retrospectively audited and it is found that things have not been done correctly, there may have to be a payback, which would obviously be a disaster. As Mr. O'Brien mentioned, procurement is a complex one. A lot of people do not have the expertise in that area, so it can be challenging. We have to ask a lot of questions around that piece to be sure that all the boxes are ticked and it stands up to scrutiny after that.

I thank the witnesses. My own time is up, so we are back to Senator Rabbitte and Deputy Aird, if they have supplementary questions.

All the different questions that have been asked and the different angles taken have been very informative. It is important for me to acknowledge, as Deputy Gallagher and everybody else has, the role of LEADER companies. In Galway Rural Development, Steve Dolan, Conor Carty, Claire Conroy and the whole team there are phenomenal at ensuring there is information and an understanding of the process. As the committee has heard me say, the Portumna chamber of commerce just submitted an application in which I was hugely involved in trying to come up with a novel idea. Something we should look at going forward in relation to festivals is a season of festivals as opposed to having just one event. We should look at how we can demonstrate that we can bring footfall to our communities and bring in all the different rural and social inclusion aspects to it while working collaboratively with LEADER companies to generate that footfall. I was really heartened to hear about this, particularly as regards the bridge in Portumna where I live. What the new LEADER programme might do is challenge us as to how we might do things a bit differently.

In that vein, I want to acknowledge the work that Leitrim Development Company has done in relation to social farming. It has done phenomenal work there on a shoestring. A lot of this is down to the previous Minister and the current Minister, who is forthright in his thinking about how we can do things a bit differently. Social farming within the disability community is huge. If we were to leave it to just the health budget to deliver social farming, it would never happen. We had a group from Avista in Birr up to visit Leinster House with Deputy Tony McCormack. They actually came to look for social farming. That is the whole reason that Audrey Kennedy had them up here. A group of five men got an opportunity to do eight weeks of social farming. As it came through the health budget, they only got the eight weeks but if it could be done through a LEADER programme on a sustainable model, we could do more. We have 25,000 people who go to day services every day. Not every one of them wants to go to day services. They are from rural areas. They would like to go to a farm that participates in the social farming project through CAP, LEADER and those mechanisms. There is a role for agriculture in showing how rural farms can be more sustainable by engaging in this. There are some great farmers out there. They are in Mayo and all over the country. I cannot think of the name of the lady who is involved in the Leitrim LEADER development but she is a phenomenal workhorse for the promotion of this.

If we are looking forward to what we can do differently within this area, we still need to look at disability employment. We have nearly full employment but what can we do differently so that we can promote the people in the community? That is social inclusion and community development but we need to have community development that looks at people who may not in the last five years have been able to get employment activation. They may have a disability but they want to partake. How can we look at ensuring the next cohort of funding makes a model that would include those people? It has to do with ratios because they have complexities. I thought what Mr. O'Brien said was interesting about the State being able to parallel this. We are doing it already but there may be a model where it would be easier to manage the load of paperwork in that disability activation process. There may be some way we could do this as a state.

I want to go back the Ability programme that was delivered. At the time, the Dormant Accounts Fund, along with Pobal, gave extra funding to ensure it happened. Some 2,200 people with additional needs participated in it. I was out visiting FORUM Connemara and I could not believe that we were able to teach people how to drive to get them into Galway to participate in work. We were able to do social care with the ATU because somebody who had social anxiety did not want to go down to college but was able to access it from the remote working hub. We were also able to provide other courses. The Ability programme, through the LEADER funding programme, has been phenomenal and the Dormant Accounts Fund enabled it to be completed. There are great opportunities for us to look at and do things a bit differently.

One final comment is that every community group should do a LEADER application form, and I will tell the committee why. If you have done your work to get a LEADER application form in, as we have done in the Portumna chamber of commerce, then you have all of the paperwork ready to go for the enhancement programme from the local authority and, for example, for the money from the local credit union that is after advertising. It is live and actionable. If you have come through Conor Carty in Galway Rural Development, then you know you would have been better able to get through the pearly gates of Peter, to be quite honest. All I am saying is you have your documentation ready. While I know some people find it very tedious, the process teaches you how to keep a certain group of files together.

That was more of a contribution, as I just wanted to get the spake in for people and we have disability people all over the place.

Does Mr. O'Brien want to come in?

I thank the Senator. While she was taking about social farming and disability employment, what was running through my mind was that, although LEADER was a core programme, a lot of those companies out there were doing an awful lot more outside of LEADER. They are doing ferocious stuff. There is a net or framework of funding out there now and it is about finding innovative ways of plugging in and getting those things done.

I agree with the Senator on reaching the end of a programme.

We should always be thinking about the tweaks, the little bits of innovation and the bits we did not quite get right, be that LEADER or anything else. It is always about doing it once, doing it well and doing it better the next time. There are a lot of people out there in local action groups and LEADER groups who are thinking about it in that way. That is encouraging to see.

I agree with the comments on the importance of festivals. Certain festivals have been done in the past under LEADER. We sometimes see themed calls for festivals. Deputy Aird will be aware of the Old Fort Quarter festival in Portlaoise, which is funded through LEADER. There is also Fáilte Ireland funding for festivals. They add great value. I am a big believer.

The Senator referenced the people in those LEADER groups and the work they are doing on the ground. Part of what we are doing involves engaging with a team of people on the LEADER side day by day and dealing with their queries. That relationship is important for us. The team does a good job on that. It is a trusting relationship. When they have a query, it is dealt with. The team knows what it is talking about. It is important. That relationship between the Department at that level and the guys out there doing that work on the ground is important for us.

What is the single most important change required to make the LEADER programme more effective in supporting rural development over the next five years?

What do I think the most important change will be?

Yes.

The first thing is to get into the regulation and get it funded.

Yes, I know; I mean apart from that. We are going to get funding. Hopefully, it will be the same or it will increase. There is no doubt about that.

There are a couple of things we are looking at. That administrative element is important for us. We have been talking now for a couple of programming periods with the EU about how best to simplify costs. It is maybe not a very sexy thing, but it would make the wheels turn a little bit easier. Back to this idea we discussed earlier about where we are on that curve, we will see between now and the end of the programme what the key and big things are. It was similar in previous programmes. We are still at the point where we are getting to that hump of all the projects coming through and being implemented. There is an element of that.

As for whether I have one big, change-the-world idea for what has to change in LEADER, I do not. It is a result of 35 years of constant evolution, delivery and track record that so much has been ironed out. There is a job of work to do. As we mentioned earlier, we are talking to the LDCN and some of the LAGs about getting that story out. LEADER is a fantastic programmem, and I would like to see that being understood a little better and that message being out there a little bit more. That is something we will be looking at in March.

I have a question about the administration of it. The local action groups and local development companies are doing a great job at administering the scheme and working with the Department and Pobal. There is a maximum percentage that can be drawn down from the €180 million. Is it still 25%?

Yes, 25% is the maximum that can be spent on admin in the current regulation.

Where we are at in that regard? Are we roughly around 25% or is it less than that?

In respect of the admin spend, they have spent 30% of their administration budget allocation. We do not have any worries about that now. We are reminding local development companies of their responsibilities to manage that budget over the programming period.

Are Pobal's costs totally separate? Is it coming from the Department?

Yes. That is agreed as part of a performance delivery agreement with the Department on an annual basis. It is primarily technical. Many of the changes relate to any enhancements that might need to be made to the customer relationship management, CRM, business system. As Mr. O'Brien indicated, there is plenty of room for improvement or simplification while operating within the rules and regulations. That is certainly a live conversation that they have with us.

When was the most recent review of the LEADER programme? Has there been one in Ireland? Has there been one in Europe?

I understand a mid-term review and evaluation is going on at the moment. That is part of the wider CAP framework. Regarding how we look at it ourselves, we have that ongoing audit framework. We are undertaking an internal audit of the programme. That is important for us to enable us to put our best foot forward governance wise.

Was there a national review before the internal audit that is there now?

I cannot remember when the most recent national review was.

In respect of LEADER, we feed into the 2014 to 2022 period. It is called the rural development programme, RDP. The RPD was subject to a mid-term review and formally closed on 31 December 2025. It is now subject to an end-of-programme evaluation. The Department of agriculture is tendering for that at the minute. As well as that, we have been partaking in the community services programme, CSP, for 2023 to 2027. We have been partaking in that evaluation of the mid-term programme. That is on top of the annual reporting that we do to the Commission.

Regarding the €180 million, we are at around 11% drawn down and 35% allocated. Is it possible that in 2027, or even in 2026, following a review, if one local action group is not drawing down its full allocation and will not be in a position to do so, there will be reallocation? There have been reallocations before. My concern is that we want to ensure we get to a position when we come to the end of 2027 that all €180 million has at least been allocated. We have until 2029 to draw down, but it should be done as quickly as possible. Is there any position on that within the Department?

We have not been talking about reallocation from that point of view. Both the Department and the committee, and the LEADER groups out there, are firmly focused on drawing down the money. When we get to the end of any programming period, there is always that little bit of trying to be as flexible as we can without getting ourselves into hot water in terms of audit and EU requirements. I would imagine it will be the same again. It is not quite as easy as looking at that figure and saying we have a problem. There are different ways of doing it across different LAG areas. There is a good understanding of the imperative of getting that money allocated, delivered and drawn down. As we get to the end of the programming period, we will look at any flexibility we need to ensure this. The last thing we would be looking at is losing money. We want to draw down the allocations, and across the CAP, Ireland has historically been very good at that. We are probably very near the top of that leader board in terms of drawdown of money. We have done it before.

Chair, could we remember Anne Goodwin here today? I have been thinking about her throughout the meeting. I was involved for many years with Anne and I never got an opportunity. She would love me to be here today asking questions on her behalf. I was thinking about her there the whole time. She was such a phenomenal person. You need a leader like that the whole time. She brought the schemes out to people. That is what it takes and what it is about - encouraging communities and individuals. It always takes a special person to do that.

That was a very nice contribution to finish with.

I thank all the witnesses for their contributions and for providing the briefing materials in advance, which assisted the committee its deliberations. I reiterate that this is the first part of our discussions on LEADER. Representatives from the local action groups will join us on 25 March to provide further insights. I again thank Mr. Ryder, Ms Farry, Ms Shakespeare, Mr. O'Brien and Ms Duffy very much for coming in.