Vol. 592 No. 1
74 D’fhiafraigh Mr. McGinley den Aire Gnóthaí Pobail, Tuaithe agus Gaeltachta cad é an dul chun cinn atá déanta maidir le dílárnú Fhoras na Gaeilge agus cén uair atá sé ag súil go mbeidh an dílárnú go Gaoth Dobhair curtha i gcrích. [28165/04]
Mar atá luaite agam cheana féin sa Teach seo, tá dílárnú foirne i gcas Fhoras na Gaeilge faoi réir aontú na Comhairle Aireachta Thuaidh/Theas. Tá an cheist á scrúdú ar bhonn leanúnach agus bhuail mé leis an Aire Angela Smith MP leis an ábhar seo a phlé i measc nithe eile mí Bealtaine seo caite.
Tá cáipéisíá réiteach ag mo Roinnse faoi láthair le cur faoi bhráid na n-údarás ó Thuaidh agus tá súil agam go ndéanfar é sin go luath.
Tá sé bliain ó fógraíodh an scéim seo anois. Is dócha go bhfuil cuimhne ag an Aire mé féin agus é féin i studio Raidió na Gaeltachta trasna an bhóthair agus muid ag rá go mb'fhéidir go mbeimid ag brath ar an Dr. Paisley Oirmhinneach sula n-éiríonn linn é seo a dhílarnú.
Tar éis bliana, cén dul chun cinn atá déanta sna comhráite idir muid féin agus an Chomhairle Aireacht sa Tuaisceart? Ar phlé an tAire an cheist seo le bord nó le foireann Fhoras na Gaeilge? An aontaíonn an tAire liom gur eisceacht ar leith í Foras na Gaeilge mar gur comhairle tras-Teorainn í agus go gcothaíonn sé sin deacrachtaí chomh maith?
Más rud é go réitítear an scéal, cé mhéad oifig a bheas ag Foras na Gaeilge? An mbeidh ceann i mBéal Feirsde chomh maith le ceann i nGaoth Dobhair?
Maidir leis an gceist deiridh, fanfaidh an oifig i mBéal Feirsde, ach amháin sa gcás go dtiocfadh na húdaráis ó Thuaidh chugam agus go mbeidís ag iarraidh í sin a dílárnú. D'fhéadfadh sé sin tarlú. Mar shampla, tá ceann-áras Uisce Bealaigh Éirne in Inis Ceithlinn. Níl sé i mBéal Feirsde. Mar sin, níl aon rud neamhghnách i gceist ag an Rialtas a bheith ag iarraidh go mbeadh oifig Fhoras na Gaeilge i nGaoth Dóbhair.
Maidir leis an dara cheist, glacaim leis gur cás faoi leith é seo mar go gcaithfear teacht ar réiteach leis na húdaráis ó Thuaidh. Ón gcaint a bhí agam leis an Aire Smith, ní fheicim gur cheist do-sháraithe í sin ach caithfimid a bheith tuisceanach don cur chuige. Admhaím go bhfuil an dul chun cinn mall ach is feidir leis an Teachta a bheith cinnte de go bhfuil i gceist agam é seo a fheiceáil déanta. Déanfaidh mé é sin, le cúnamh Dé, ar bhealach a bhéas tuisceanach agus réadúil.
Is ceist don bhainistíocht í plé leis an bhfoireann agus ní bheadh sé ceart ag Aire dul ag plé go díreach le foireann eagraíochta ar bith a bheadh faoi scáth na Roinne. Is ceist do bhainistíocht an fhorais plé leis an bhfoireann ansin.
Cé mhéad duine den fhoireann a chuir in iúl go bhfuil siad sásta a bheith páirteach sa dílárnú? An bhféadfadh an tAire a insint don Teach, go hachomair, cad é atá san aighneacht a chuir bord Fhoras na Gaeilge ar aghaidh chuig a Roinn féin? An bhfuil an bord taobh thiar den scéim nó cad é dearcadh an bhoird? Tuigim go bhfuil aighneacht déanta ag an mbord ach go bhfuil sí faoi rún. An bhféadfadh an tAire an rún a sceith leis an Dáil?
Ní rún é rún atá sceite. San aighneacht a cuireadh faoi mo bhráid thóg an foras ceisteanna agus deacrachtaí a shíl siad a bhain leis an gcás. Cuireadh in iúil go soiléir dom go nglacann siad le cibé cinneadh a déantar sa dá Rialtas.
Maidir le cúrsaí fóirne, go mórmór sa gcás nach bhfuil an t-aontú oifigiúil idir na húdaráis ó Thuaidh agus ó Dheas is i bhfolús a bheifí ag cur ceiste ar an bhfoireann maidir le haistriú foirne. Ní réiteofar na ceisteanna sin go dtí go mbeidh cinnteacht ann. Tá an tuairim sin go ginearálta agam faoi chúrsaí dílárnaithe ar aon bhealach. I gcás mo Roinn féin, ó tharla go bhfuil oifig ins na Forbacha, tá méadú nach beag tagtha ar an oifig sin le blianta beaga anuas agus dílárnú déanta de réir a chéile. Tá sé i bhfad níos éasca rogha a dhéanamh nuair atá oifig agus postanna ann agus rogha cinnte os comhair daoine amach. Go minic ní dhéanann daoine suas a n-intinní go dtí go mbíonn na roghanna atá os a gcomhair amach soiléir. Ach an oifig a bheith dílárnaithe ní bheidh sé do-sháraithe foireann foirfe a fháil a bheadh sásta lonnú i nGaoth Dóbhair agus tá mé cinnte go mbeadh an Teachta ar aon intinn liom, mar is áit an-bhreá í Gaoth Dóbhair.
Tar éis an méid sin uilig agus tar éis bliain a bheith imithe, an bhfuil an tAire dóchasach go dtarlóidh sé? An bhféadfadh sé buille faoi thuairim a thabhairt ar cén uair a tharlóidh sé?
Mar is eol don Teachta ní maith liom dátaí a gcur ar rud. Bhí mé óg agus soineanta nuair a ceapadh mar Aire Stáit mé agus chuir mé roinnt dátaí ar achtú an Achta Teanga. Níor oibrigh siad amach. Léigh daoine isteach sa scéal sin nach dtarlódh sé, ach tharla sé freisin. Níor mhaith liom dáta a chur air ach tá mé lán diongbháilte go dtarlóidh sé seo. Tá mé muiníneach, ach sinn a chur chuige go ceart, stuama agus tuisceanach, go n-éiroidh linn aontas na ndreamanna éagsúla a bheadh i gceist a fháil. Ach caithfimid a bheith foighneach sa gcás seo.
Tá buntáiste mór amháin ag baint leis an dílárnú áirithe seo. Go fisiciúil is é ceann des na dílárnaithe is éasca sa tír. Cheana féin i seilbh an Stáit, i bhfoirm Údarás na Gaeltachta, tá eastát breá ann agus, mar is eol don Teachta, tá áitreabh den scoth le fáil ansin. Cruthaíodh é sin i gcás Choláiste na hOllscoile i nGaillimh. Nuair a bhí mé i nGaoth Dóbhair thug mé cuairt ar an ionad breá atá acu siúd i nGaoth Dóbhair agus is eiseamláir é den rud gur féidir a dhéanamh ar an eastát sin. Bheadh i gceist go mbeadh scoth nan-oifigí ar fáil. Nuair a bheas an cinneadh tógtha bheadh sé an-scioptha foirgintí a thógáil. Tá buntáiste mór ann ó tharla go bhfuil an oiread sin áitribh i seilbh an Stáit cheana féin i nGaoth Dóbhair.
75 Mr. O’Shea asked the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs the progress that has been made to date in regard to the restructuring of ADM, specifically the changes which have been made to the memorandum and articles of association of ADM to date; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [28072/04]
I refer the Deputy to earlier replies to questions on this topic, in particular my reply to Question No. 127 on 27 April 2004 and Questions Nos. 186, 194, 198, 218 and 228 on 5 October 2004. As mentioned in these replies the first steps in the process of restructuring ADM has taken place with the appointment to the board of three persons nominated by Government. Following such appointments, work is now under way by ADM to develop appropriate changes to its articles and memorandum of association. Government approval will be required before changes are finalised.
The Minister is not telling us much. In the context of the review, the Minister gave us that information in October, that is, that the Government nominees had been appointed to the board. In what direction is the review heading? Does the Minister regard it as vitally important that ADM retains its independent status as a buffer between his Department and community and voluntary groups on the ground? Does he agree that the representatives of the community and voluntary sectors should be retained in all the areas in which they are located? How will he ensure that the expertise built up by ADM during the past ten years is not lost in the context of the streamlining of delivery of service which appears to be the basis for the Government decision?
I am interested in what the Deputy had to say about the buffer. I can never understand why we need a buffer between ourselves and the electorate. Perhaps some day somebody will explain to me what the buffer is about. I could understand it in the case of a planning appeals authority but when providing direct services to the community we all serve, I cannot understand the reason we are paranoid about putting distance between ourselves and the electorate. The decision is that the board and the chair of the company are to be appointed by the Government. The name of the organisation is to change from ADM to Pobal — presumably the staff would say there is no reason for it, other than normal staff turnover, and that it will not happen.
There are two major community sectors under the aegis of my Department, the CDP system and the partnerships. One's relationship to the Department is direct without the so-called buffer and the other is through ADM. If the Deputy considers there has to be an intermediary body, I am surprised he is not pressing that the CDPs operate in a similar way through an intermediary body. There appears to be an inconsistency there. That shows how the whole system grew up with a lack of consistency and now we are trying to bring to it a much more focused delivery in order that the people on the ground benefit from the money we are spending.
The Minister asked why a buffer is necessary. The case has been made to me that where the Leader programmes had to interface with the Department of Agriculture and Food the relationship tended to be non-administrative in the context of how money was allocated. I have been informed that what was lacking was a grasp of what community development is all about and the skills and experience of people on the ground are being lost. A buffer is necessary in this area because Departments, if dealt with directly, tend to be more straight-laced and rigid in how they operate than a group that has operated in an independent capacity and which has no allegiance to either the Department or the sector. I do not accept the Minster's point that I was making a distinction between the community and voluntary sectors in terms of the area partnerships. I regard these as part of the process. Maybe the generic term I used was not sufficiently comprehensive, but I certainly had that in mind.
The Deputy missed my point. I am saying that the community development programmes deal directly with the Department while the partnerships deal through ADM. If the Deputy believes the second method is the best, logically he should believe that it would also be good for the CDPs.
The Deputy misunderstands the point regarding Leader. Leader's administration tends to be administrative because it is an EU programme bound by a sizeable book of rules. The Department does not have discretion as a consequence and therefore its main role is to administer the rules agreed with Brussels. The Leader companies appreciate this and have discussed it with me frequently. They know there is little room for manoeuvre.
I disagree with the Deputy on the basis of my experience. I was a co-operative manager for many years and dealt with both Údarás na Gaeltachta and the Department, Roinn na Gaeltachta. The consensus among the co-operative managers was that they would much prefer to deal directly with the Department than with Údarás na Gaeltachta. This is not to cast a slur on the latter as I refer to its structure rather than its staff. Deputy O'Shea's point related to the ADM. The co-operative managers felt there was much more flexibility, much less bureaucracy and more willingness to adapt to change in the Department. Most people working in the area, certainly those who shared my experience, would much rather deal directly with the Department.
76 Mr. Boyle asked the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs if grants have been paid out by Údarás na Gaeltachta to a company (details supplied) in respect of a quarry located in Ballynahalla, Moycullen, which has been confirmed by Údarás as being outside the Gaeltacht area; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [28069/04]
As I indicated in my reply to Question No. 160 on 5 October 2004, a capital grant was approved by Údarás na Gaeltachta in respect of the company referred to by the Deputy on the incorrect understanding that it was operating within the Gaeltacht boundary.
I understand from Údarás na Gaeltachta that appropriate steps have been taken to prevent a recurrence of such anomalies. Moreover, I understand that, following a review of the matter in the course of an interim audit of the 2004 accounts of Údarás na Gaeltachta, the Comptroller and Auditor General will not be taking any further action.
I thank the Minister for his answer. Has he or his Department sought further information on other companies to which Údarás na Gaeltachta might have granted money in similar circumstances in recent years? Is he aware of how prevalent this practice might be?
Given the Minister's proposals or suggestions that Gaeltacht areas should be extended or boundaries redrawn, has he or his Department undertaken an audit to ascertain the effect such an extension would have on the allocation of grants by Údarás na Gaeltachta in regard to certain industrial or other activities?
In response to the first question, I know of no other case where this happened. Knowing the circumstances and the topography of the case, it is a pity it happened. However, it was quite understandable that it happened and I understand that local people did not quite realise the location of the townland boundary. In many cases such a boundary is defined by a stream or abhantrach where the water comes off the hills, if there are hills. The place in question does not have hills. It is in a limestone region and all the water sinks below the surface. Therefore it was not so easy to define the townland boundary. It is obvious that what happened should not have happened. In fairness to Údarás na Gaeltachta, it is taking steps to ensure that it will not happen again.
On the second question, if the boundaries ever change in the Gaeltachtaí, an issue we are considering, grants would only be paid within the new boundary from the date of the change. We experienced this when changes were made under the 1956 Act to Gaeltacht boundaries defined in the 1929 Act. There is a precedent for dealing with the matter.
The case in question was one of misplaced geography and I accept the Minister's word on this. However, does his Department or Údarás na Gaeltachta have a specific policy on the environmental impact of grants? The case to which I referred concerned a quarry, and the money given and the type of activity in which the company was engaged obviously had an environmental impact. If the Minister has a policy on this, does it inform the decisions of Údarás na Gaeltachta regarding the giving of grants?
The policy is very clear. Anybody seeking a grant must fulfil all the laws that apply, including Environmental Protection Agency guidelines, with regard to environmental impact statements and planning permission specifications. The Deputy might have understood that the planning authority was of the opinion that planning permission was not required but it emerged some considerable time after the making of the grant that An Bord Pleanála made a different ruling. We pass laws and everybody applies them but we do not know whether somebody will bring a case to the Supreme Court to prove a law unconstitutional in ten years' time. Until this happens, however, one cannot blame a person for acting within the law as it exists. A ruling was given that planning was not required in the case in question and Údarás na Gaeltachta was perfectly correct to presume, once the local authority expressed its view to this effect, that the ruling was correct. We always apply this principle to legislation.
77 Mr. English asked the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs if he will significantly increase funding and adequately resource the regional drugs task forces in 2005, in view of the growing evidence of the spread of drugs, particularly opiates, in the regions; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [28180/04]
The national drugs strategy provides for the establishment of ten regional drugs task forces. These task forces are mapping out the patterns of drug misuse in their areas and also the range and level of existing services with a view to better co-ordination and addressing gaps in the overall provision. A sum of €500,000 has been provided by my Department in the current year for administrative and technical assistance costs incurred by the task forces in the preparation of their plans.
The work being undertaken will, when complete, feed into the drafting of regional action plans which will then be assessed by the national drugs strategy team. The nature of the drug problems in the task forces' areas and the gaps in existing services will be reflected in the action plans that are being developed. I hope all this work can be completed by early 2005 and that I will then be in a position to bring recommendations on the funding of the plans to the Cabinet committee on social inclusion for approval.
The Deputy will appreciate that the Estimates process for 2005 is ongoing. However, I expect the regional drugs task forces to be in a position to begin the implementation of their plans during 2005.
It is worth noting that the Department of Health and Children, which has overall responsibility for addiction services, reports that overall 7,091 people were receiving methadone treatment at the end of August 2004. This represents a 40% increase over a four-year period.
With regard to the prevalence of drug misuse in the regions, the Deputy should note that a recent report by the Health Research Board showed that the numbers in treatment for heroin use outside the Eastern Regional Health Authority region, as opposed to the overall prevalence rate, have increased significantly. The best available figures on overall levels of use outside the ERHA region are those produced by the National Advisory Committee on Drugs last year, which estimated that there are approximately 12,400 opiate users in Dublin and 2,200 opiate users outside Dublin, although many of these users are in counties Wicklow and Kildare, which are in the ERHA region.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House
In general, treatment services in the regions have followed a similar pattern to that observed in the ERHA region when treatment availability was expanded therein. Existing users are much more likely to come forward and present for treatment as it becomes more available, accessible and attractive. Accordingly, as the services have expanded, so have the numbers in treatment. I am sure the Deputy will agree that this is a positive development as it indicates that services are meeting an existing demand. Tackling the drug problem remains a priority for this Government and it is my intention that significant resources will continue to be targeted at the problem on a countrywide basis.
I am afraid the Minister of State's answer was more of the same, especially his contention that the task forces are mapping out their plans and strategy. Will he make a commitment today to provide money in the forthcoming Estimates to fund the plans that are expected to be implemented early in 2005?
For the past year or more, I have listened to comments to the effect that plans are being mapped out. We have our heads in the sand like ostriches. The Minister of State is charged with responsibility for the drugs task forces. Is he happy that they have not submitted their plans? He could not be happy and he should order them to submit them. The plans have not been submitted because the task force cannot afford to give them to us — €50,000 to draw up a strategy and a plan to deal with the whole drugs issue. The Minister of State also said the number of people on treatment has increased. The task force is about preventative measures too, so that treatment will not be needed. We are half way through the 2001-08 drugs strategy and we have gone backwards with regard to the numbers. Will the Minister admit that the policy has failed? The Minister should now agree to provide sufficient funding in this year's budget to deal with the issue, not a miserable €50,000 for the task force. I do not want to ask the same question next June after the task force has submitted its plan, and hear the Minister say it was too late to get money in the budget because the Estimates were drawn up six months earlier. That will not be good enough. The money must be provided now to facilitate the plans. The task force needs to be driven forward to find solutions to the problem.
The first thing the members of the new regional drugs task force did when it was set up was to get to know one another and examine the services available within the region. There is no point submitting plans and seeking extra funding without carrying out an analysis of the services available and the resources needed and so on.
I asked about funding in this year's Estimates.
The Deputy asked a question and I am telling him the situation. No plan has been submitted from the ten regions. The plan from the Deputy's region is due within the next couple of weeks. The time scale for receiving all ten plans is next April. The plans will be assessed as they come in to see if the ideas are relevant. I will bring the findings to the Cabinet committee on social inclusion and I expect they will be approved in the spring. I expect the plans will be in place from summer to autumn, depending on when we receive them. We must go through the proper process. Setting up and funding the plans was a key part of the strategy and this is happening.
On the wider issue to which the Deputy referred, the mid-term review is taking place. If the Deputy or any other group has views on the matter, we will take them on board. Life is not perfect, but we are doing a significant amount of good work.
The Minister of State cannot be happy with the progress to date. I do not blame him completely for what is happening because it took three years to set up the task forces. The key question is whether funding will be provided in the Estimates to fund the plans. The Minister of State did not guarantee that the plans will be funded. There was no problem finding €50,000 for the Aislinn group because an election was about to take place. If there was an election next year would money be provided for these groups?
The Aislinn group received funding through the health board. I cannot announce the Estimates today, that will happen in the coming weeks. The plans will come in. So far none of the plans from the ten regions have come in. I am confident they will be approved and that the task forces will be up and running next year.
78 Mr. O’Shea asked the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs if, in relation to his letter in a newspaper (details supplied), he will elaborate on his comments that the outcry against the singing of the Irish national anthem in English at the Ryder Cup in America is evidence that the vast majority of the population has a positive attitude towards the Irish language; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [27979/04]
The statement is self-explanatory and does not require elaboration.
Will the Minister agree that making a daft statement about the vast majority of the population having a positive attitude towards the Irish language based on the fact that there was a complaint about the national anthem being sung in English at the Ryder Cup in the United States is a very unscientific statement? Will he agree further that we do not know the attitude to the Irish language of the vast majority of the population? We will not know that unless and until qualitative research is carried out or, alternatively, there is a referendum on the matter. My basic point is that a daft statement such as this damages the movement that seeks to preserve and promote the Irish language.
The Deputy may have missed the original article in which the allegation was made that there was general bad will towards the Irish language with just a few people interested in it. While travelling throughout the country, everywhere I go I find general goodwill towards the language. There has been research on this issue in the past. While I have a science background, the reality is that one of the best tests of popular opinion is the mood of this House. One thing that can be said of politicians of all colours is that they tend to get the way the wind is blowing fairly fast. Allowing for the fact that this House reflects the view of the people, there appears to be goodwill towards the Irish language. I will not waste significant sums of money carrying out qualitative research to debunk a wild statement made in a newspaper about lack of support for the Irish language.
The general support for TG4 and the gaelscoileanna, indicates that the vast majority of people throughout the country support the Irish language in different forms. The fact that everyone sings the national anthem in Irish indicates that there is not a general antipathy towards the language, because if that were the case, people would sing it in English.
We are getting a little bit of "looking into our hearts and seeing what the Irish people want". The question I asked was based on a letter published in a national Sunday newspaper. The Minister has not addressed the issue of whether it was a ridiculous statement to say that, because some people objected to the national anthem being sung in English at the Ryder Cup, showed that the vast majority of the Irish people are favourable towards the Irish language. That sort of crazy logic does no service to those of us who want to see the Irish language preserved and promoted. We need to be much more accurate and scientific in what we say. I disagree with the Minister that qualitative research is not important. We need to know what people in general think about the language before we can move forward. In addition, it is extremely important to develop in the community at large an ownership attitude towards the Irish language. What we are getting is hit and miss policies and daft statements such as this, which are putting back the day when we can make real progress.
If we need qualitative research, and this is taking place, we can get it anytime. A comprehensive policy is being followed in regard to the language. We must also be careful about research, which is often largely influenced by how one asks a question. There is the famous case of the car manufacturer who asked people what kind of car they wanted. As most people like to appear sensible, they answered that they would like a very sensible solid car and so on. When the car went on the market it was a total failure. The second survey was carried out slightly differently. People were asked what they thought their neighbour would want and they said they would want a big flashy car, with plenty of gadgets such as electric windows and so on. That car sold like a bomb. The way one asks a question can prompt the answer. It is difficult to get to the hard science of the matter, no matter what sociologists tell us.
As we are all aware, one of the reasons we need politicians is that, even though one might get all the evidence, it does not prove to be that useful when one tries to do the thing in practice. I am a great believer in the wisdom of the political system. It is often the best opinion poll of all because sometimes the antennae of politicians are much more accurate than surveys since sometimes questions are loaded to provide a specific answer.
I am sure the Minister believes the waffle we have just heard has some significance.
It is a fact.
Does the Minister stand over his statement in the Sunday Independent that the proof that the vast majority of the people support the language can be based on the fact that people objected to the national anthem being sung in English at the Ryder Cup competition? The Minister has avoided the issue. Waffling is all very well——
I gave a straight answer on that.
The Minister did not answer that.
I never said that so I cannot——
That is what it said.
The Deputy can check, but I never said it was proof. I said there was general goodwill for the language and then said "for example" and gave the example. However, it was not a question of proof. Nobody can prove it. Even if we carry out the scientific survey the Deputy has mentioned, it will not prove anything. It only proves that on a certain day, a certain number of people express a certain view to a certain question. Proof in a mathematical sense is not available on any of these questions.
We must move on to the next question.
What I said was only an example but in these cases it gives a good sense of what people are thinking.
The Minister should read his own words.
