Vol. 500 No. 1
55 Mrs. B. Moynihan-Cronin asked the Minister for Tourism, Sport and Recreation the total amount of money allocated, and not yet drawn down, in each of the years 1996 and 1997 for local initiatives to combat drugs arising from the report of the Ministerial Task Force on the Reduction in the Demand for Drugs; the steps, if any, being taken to speed up the drawing down of money allocated; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3580/99]
Following the publication of the ministerial task force report in October 1996, the Government allocated £10 million in 1997 to support the implementation of nearly 230 separate initiatives and action plans which were prepared by the local drugs task forces. These task forces were set up to develop and implement an integrated response to the drug problem in their areas and involved local communities in the planning, design and implementation of that response. Funding for this initiative is held in the Vote of my Department and is transferred on request as projects become operational to other Departments and agencies which are acting as channels of funding to the approved projects. Approximately £5.6 million has been drawn down by these Departments and agencies to date and 80 per cent of the projects are currently drawing down funding. An important feature of the initiative is the engagement of local communities in the design and planning of strategies to respond to the drug problem in their area and in the implementation of approved projects. In the majority of cases this has been undertaken by voluntary and community groups in partnership with relevant statutory agencies and assisted by the local drugs task forces. It is hoped this approach will assist the viability and sustainability of these projects and facilitate their future mainstreaming. However, a vital prerequisite to achieving this is the need to develop the capacity of community and voluntary organisations to deliver locally based drug programmes and services.
In the task force areas where strong community structures were already in place prior to setting up the initiative, the emphasis in the action plan was on developing and expanding these structures. Accordingly in such areas it was possible to get the majority of approved projects up and running relatively quickly. It is notable that these areas either had a long tradition of community involvement in responding to the drug problem or had a local partnership company which had established a strong committee network in the area. Conversely in the areas where community networks were less developed, the emphasis in the plans was on building up these structures and as a result it has taken longer to get projects off the ground.
The four principal features which have impacted on the speed at which projects are being established are that they are being designed to address gaps in current service provision, which means that in many instances they have had to be designed and planned from scratch. In many instances appropriate local management structures have had to be put in place as a prerequisite to ensuring that the projects will work effectively, meet their objectives and are sustainable with a view to their future mainstreaming. There was a lack of suitable infrastructure or premises from which programmes or services could be run and in a number of instances, there was local opposition to such services due to a misunderstanding as to their purpose, which is to provide back-up and support to the care and aftercare services being provided by the health boards. There is a shortage of appropriately trained personnel to deliver drug programmes and services and there is potential competition which this can cause between projects. The local drugs task forces, the Departments and agencies acting as channels of funding and the national drugs strategy team all play an important role in ensuring the effective implementation and monitoring of group projects. The task forces assist in the planning and design of the projects and submit regular reports to the national drugs strategy team on progress in their implementation. The team members and the statutory representatives on the task forces are making every effort to assist the projects in overcoming problems and difficulties inhibiting the start up of projects being funded through their Department or agencies.
I assure the Deputy that the £10 million provided by the Government to support initiatives in the local drugs task force areas will be fully spent and the initiatives will make a considerable positive impact on the lives of the communities concerned.
Is the Minister aware that nearly 40 per cent of the 1996 budget allocation for the initiatives to combat drugs remains unspent and that £4 million was left unspent last year? The Minister said difficulties were experienced in local communities when centres were being set up. Are there procedures in place for consultation with local people prior to the setting up of treatment centres? It has been suggested that more could be done to get the local people on board and the drugs task force has a role to play in allaying the fears of the communities. What action has been taken in this regard?
The Deputy raises a number of issues and I will deal with them as precisely as I can. With regard to the drawdown of funding, the task forces were established in 1996 arising from the ministerial report and funding of £10 million was provided in 1997. There are somewhere in the order of 230 specific individual projects. These projects are essentially community based and that is one of the strengths of the approach in establishing the national drugs strategy team and in empowering local communities through the provision of resources. The projects were put forward and eventually approved in mid and late 1997. Projects were given an interim approval in mid 1997 and final approval by the end of 1997. The promoters had to come together in terms of putting in place the infrastructure which in some instances could involve seeking planning per mission for buildings and so on. There were misunderstandings in the local communities which had to be overcome.
There was the question of the recruitment of specialist staff by the individual projects which took some time. I assure the Deputy that there were no delays by the national drugs strategy team in making funding available through the channels of funding that were laid down on the original establishment of local drugs task forces. It has taken some local groups and organisations time to get up and running in order to draw down the funding. However, an erroneous impression may have been created that such funding remains unspent because it has not been drawn down. That is not the case because many local groups draw it down through the funding agency as required, otherwise they could not plan their projects, whether infrastructural or educational.
The funding continues to be drawn down at an increasing rate. It is interesting that more than 90 per cent of the funding which has not been drawn down relates to infrastructure. The Deputy asked what local health boards or local drugs task forces are doing to engage communities in the consultation process. A crucial difficulty relates to the expenditure of the final moneys for the provision of infrastructure for treatment and services, etc. There have been considerable objections to the provision of treatment facilities and services, some in my own area and those of other Members. These are being gradually overcome through the adoption of a more positive approach by the relevant health boards. In most cases, it is the Eastern Health Board and it engages more communities in consultation with the support of the local drugs task force.
Problems still remain and I appeal to all Members, where they are confronted with the possible provision of a treatment facility or service in their areas, to give leadership in encouraging communities to accept it while at the same time demanding that the local health board and drugs task force operate properly and provide representation on monitoring committees, etc., in these communities.
Will the Minister give a commitment to spend all the money allocated in 1996? He stated that communication with local communities has not been very successful so far and I agree that we should give leadership. He also stated in his reply that there has been a shortage of trained personnel. How much is spent on training and how many people are currently in training?
I am not able to provide a precise figure to the Deputy and I do not want to mislead her in that regard. However, I assure her that a number of local drugs task forces put forward proposals in which training was a significant element. I refer her to an organisation called URRUS which has been very successful in training community leaders and activists. I frequently present certificates to successful trainees who have come through the process. However, I will make the information requested available to the Deputy together with details of individual programmes.
She referred to engaging communities and I agree with her. I am responsible for the national drugs strategy and represent an area where a local drugs task force exists. The Eastern Health Board has been very industrious in attempting to provide facilities, etc.. There were difficulties in the past in terms of communicating with communities. Such communities should not come to the conclusion that if they are consulted they have a veto on proposals to provide treatment facilities and services. That is not the case and where it is shown, through consultation, that treatment facilities and services are required they must be provided. Communities cannot, for different reasons, turn their backs on other members of the same communities who require treatment in a local setting. Facilities which are provided should be properly managed by a monitoring committee. This should include members of the community to be successful and not give rise to difficulties. There are many examples in the areas most beset by the effects of the misuse of hard drugs.
How many centres have been set up or are in train? Who monitors the progress of the projects which are up and running? How are they integrating with local communities?
These questions come under the remit of the Department of Health and Children and the Eastern Health Board, but I can give the Deputy information that was provided to me recently. The EHB has established up to 40 treatment centres in recent years across Dublin in areas where they are most needed.
What about outside Dublin?
I cannot provide that information because it is a health board issue, but I will bring the Deputy's inquiry to the attention of my colleague, the Minister for Health and Children. There are 12 local drugs task forces in Dublin and one in Cork. The EHB will establish a further nine treatment centres, although some are subject to the planning process. There has been significant provision at local level. Local drugs task forces have been pivotal in developing, and assisting in the development of, treatment facilities and services. They make a considerable impact on the provision of services, facilities, counselling, etc., not just for the drug user but for his or her family and the wider community.
