4 July 2002 Edition
DARD handling of LEADER+ and Rural Development Programme questioned
Sinn Féin Agriculture and Rural Development spokesperson, South Down Assembly member Mick Murphy, has questioned the handling of LEADER+ and Rural Development Programme by Agriculture Minister Brid Rodgers.
"The potential benefits of a properly run and well thought out Leader+ and Rural Development Programme to rural communities and to support farming families cannot be underestimated," he said.
"Unfortunately, the sad reality is that the LEADER II programme created approximately 145 full-time job equivalents, while the rural development programme, that includes LEADER II, created 256 full-time job equivalents at a cost of £46·5 million. That means that the rural development programme spent over £180,00 to create each full time equivalent.
"Despite Brid Rodgers' assurances that this in itself represents good value for money, I'm sure that many people in rural communities and the farming industry will not be so convinced. This is supported by the Audit Office report into the Rural Development Programme that stated that many aspects of the programme did in fact not represent good value for money.
"Although the potential of the programme goes far beyond a simple calculation of cost per job created the harsh reality is that farm incomes are deplorably low and that rural economies are not as strong as they need to be to keep people living in rural communities."
"The potential benefits of a properly run and well thought out Leader+ and Rural Development Programme to rural communities and to support farming families cannot be underestimated," he said.
"Unfortunately, the sad reality is that the LEADER II programme created approximately 145 full-time job equivalents, while the rural development programme, that includes LEADER II, created 256 full-time job equivalents at a cost of £46·5 million. That means that the rural development programme spent over £180,00 to create each full time equivalent.
"Despite Brid Rodgers' assurances that this in itself represents good value for money, I'm sure that many people in rural communities and the farming industry will not be so convinced. This is supported by the Audit Office report into the Rural Development Programme that stated that many aspects of the programme did in fact not represent good value for money.
"Although the potential of the programme goes far beyond a simple calculation of cost per job created the harsh reality is that farm incomes are deplorably low and that rural economies are not as strong as they need to be to keep people living in rural communities."