Róisín Shortall
Question:10 Ms Shortall asked the Minister for Tourism, Sport and Recreation the progress made to date regarding the implementation of the RAPID programme; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16213/01]
Other Questions. - RAPID Programme.
Dick Spring
Question:49 Mr. Spring asked the Minister for Tourism, Sport and Recreation when it is expected that the second strand of the RAPID programme, for rural areas and provincial towns, will be operational; the total expected budget for this strand; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16214/01]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 10 and 49 together.
The establishment of a framework for implementation of strand I of the RAPID programme, catering for urban centres with the greatest concentration of disadvantage, is well advanced. Initial work has been undertaken in each of the 25 areas designated under the programme to put the delivery structures in place. Recently, a national co-ordinator and liaison team of three were appointed following public competition. Local co-ordinators are being recruited by relevant local authorities at present. Once these co-ordinators are in place, area implementation teams already being established will formally commence work on the preparation and drawing together of area action plans which are expected to be completed before the end of the year.
The design of strand II of the programme, catering for rural areas and provincial towns is also under way. The identification and selection of disadvantaged areas in the provincial towns will proceed along lines similar to the process used for strand I and is currently being progressed by the Department of the Environment and Local Government. Funding for both strand I and strand II will be available under the national development plan, and will be front-loaded to the targeted areas before the end of 2003, according to the priority of needs identified in each of the areas.
In addition, the selection of disadvantaged rural areas, which will be targeted for special support, is being led by the Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development.
At the outset, I welcome the programme, particularly the fact that it will be extended to rural Ireland. I would like to know the progress being made on strand II. I received a reply to a recent parliamentary question that stated it was hoped the parameters would be set for rural areas by the end of the year. Will the Minister of State clarify when applications from the different areas should reach the Department? Given that a working group has been set up under the auspices of the Minister's Department, what progress has been made in this regard? What communication will the Department have with area partnerships, leaders, local authorities and so on in regard to rural areas?
The rural areas will be covered by the Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development. That communication is ongoing and is reasonably well advanced in regard to how the programme will be structured. I will only deal with the 25 areas covered under the RAPID programme for urban areas. Given that there is one national body, perhaps a case could be made for it to look after both rural and urban areas. As far as my Department is concerned, we have not been told we will be dealing with rural areas. At the moment, we will only be dealing with urban areas.
There is confusion at local level in relation to the programme. Is the Minister of State saying the local authorities should deal with the Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development if they want information on the programme?
I can understand the confusion. There is also a certain amount of confusion in regard to the RAPID programme. That confusion will only be catered for when the local co-ordinators are in place and bring groups together to put a plan together. Once that happens, much of the confusion will disappear. However, until that happens, it will be difficult not to have confusion. In areas where I launch the programme, I find people are still a little bit confused. Once people understand the potential of the programme, they will realise that if everyone works together it can have a huge impact on exclusion, whether in urban or rural areas.
Are there any plans to expand on the 25 locations after they are up and running? While no one disputes that the areas which have been targeted have been badly ravaged over the years, some of which are in the Minister of State's constituency, will he agree that additional areas should be included in the programme, otherwise he will have the same difficulty in 12 or 18 months or two years? It is a pity the Minister with responsibility for tackling the problem of disadvantage in this instance has no responsibility to rural areas. Is it the case that in order to keep Minister of State, Deputy Ó Cuív, happy this element of the budget was passed on to him? Will the Minister of State agree that one Department should have overall responsibility to answer questions rather than be divided between two Departments as it is at present?
The idea of having 25 areas was to keep the whole programme focused. The general feeling is that if we increased it to 50 areas the focus would be watered down and that at the moment it should not be extended. In my own constituency there are areas that feel they should be included. If we do not keep it focused we will not really tackle the problem. Disadvantage is very concentrated and we have an opportunity to crack and break it with this programme. If we spread it out it will not have the effect we want.
Focus is a key part of it and the areas chosen are the ones that clearly emerged as the most disadvantaged. The selection was independent and there was no interference in it. As far as the rural areas are concerned, there are discussions going on and we should see some announcements in the not too distant future.
Does the Minister agree that this programme, which is now split into two strands, should be under the responsibility of one Department where experience can be gathered, the programme can be co-ordinated and what has been learned in urban areas can be used to develop the project in rural areas? Is it the case that the reason this budget was given to the Department was to keep the former Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development, Deputy Ned O'Keefe, happy?
I support what my colleague has said. The Department of the Environment and Local Government is also involved. There will be more confusion as a result of this. If we put down parliamentary questions with regard to the RAPID programme we must table one question to the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development, another to the Minister for the Environment and Local Government and another to the Minister here today. It will be very difficult for us to get information through parliamentary questions because we will not know to whom to address the questions. The programme should be under the auspices of one Department.
The rural end of it will be under the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development but it will not be called RAPID. There is a difference between urban and rural exclusion. When we started this programme we decided just to look at the 25 worst areas regardless of whether they were urban or rural. It soon became clear that they would all be urban areas because we were using the Trutz-Haase deprivation index. That is why we decided we could not confine it to urban areas as there were rural areas with the problem. We decided then that it should be set up independently because—
Why was the Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development chosen?
Because there is a lot of development within agriculture and rural areas.
I would prefer if questions by way of interruption were not answered.