Vol. 619 No. 4
63 Mr. McGinley asked the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs if he is satisfied with the progress made to date by Comhairle na Tuaithe in developing a national countryside recreation strategy; his views on the need to develop such a strategy; when this task will be completed; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [18385/06]
I appreciate the work carried out by Comhairle na Tuaithe over recent years. I established Comhairle na Tuaithe in 2004 to address the three issues of access to the countryside, developing a countryside code and developing a national countryside recreation strategy. This decision followed consideration by the rural agri-tourism advisory group of a report presented by the consultation group on access to waymarked ways. The establishment of a countryside council was the key recommendation of the report.
Comhairle na Tuaithe comprises representatives of the farming organisations, recreational users of the countryside and State bodies with an interest in the countryside. Comhairle na Tuaithe's established separate working groups, which report at regular intervals to the full comhairle, to address the three specific areas of its mandate.
In its work to date, Comhairle na Tuaithe has identified and agreed a set of access parameters to the countryside, which it believes will serve as a basis for conflict prevention and which integrates a variety of needs and responsibilities. Comhairle na Tuaithe has also agreed the key features necessary for countryside code development, with a focus on the potential application of the internationally recognised leave no trace initiative. Leave no trace is an outdoor ethics programme, which explains to visitors their role in caring for the countryside, others and themselves while visiting the countryside, forest or other areas of outdoor recreation.
Details of the access parameters and the countryside code are available in a booklet which I launched last September and are on my Department's website at www.pobail.ie. Comhairle na Tuaithe works in partnership with stakeholder organisations to develop a national countryside recreation strategy. Its strategy working group heads up this work. All members of Comhairle na Tuaithe have been actively involved in the development of the strategy and I appreciate that they have devoted time from their busy schedules to carry out this important work.
The purpose of the countryside recreation strategy will be to define the scope and vision for countryside recreation as agreed by Comhairle na Tuaithe. It will set out the broad principles under which Comhairle na Tuaithe recommends that sustainable countryside recreation can be managed into the future.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House.
To ensure the development of the strategy is informed by the wishes of the many stakeholders in this area, Comhairle na Tuaithe embarked on a consultation phase before beginning work on drafting the strategy. It invited submissions from interested individuals and groups. This invitation appeared in the national and provincial newspapers at the end of October last year and, in addition, Comhairle na Tuaithe wrote to groups representing recreational interests, State agencies and relevant Departments seeking their views. A total of 190 submissions were received in answer to this call. The work of examining the submissions received has been completed and the drafting of a countryside recreation strategy is proceeding.
I expect Comhairle na Tuaithe's report to include a synopsis of the views received in the submissions from interested parties, Comhairle na Tuaithe's vision for countryside recreation over the coming years, a discussion on the challenges to achieving that vision and an implementation action plan. I look forward to receiving a report on a national countryside recreation strategy from Comhairle na Tuaithe over the coming weeks.
I am sure the Minister agrees that when one considers Comhairle na Tuaithe has been established for more than two and a half years, few concrete results can be seen. As far as hill walking or walking in the country is concerned, the number of visitors to our shores who want to engage in that pleasant activity has dropped by 50% since 2000. I believe Leader published figures indicating such a drastic drop.
This will have major consequences and detrimental effects on rural areas. The Minister is responsible for rural development. One need only consider the number of bed and breakfasts and guesthouses in rural areas closing and taking down their signs because people are not coming. This is the tourism for which such establishments cater. Walkers do not usually go to five star hotels. One does not find them in Dromoland Castle or Ashford Castle. One finds them in little bed and breakfasts in picturesque areas of the country.
Will the Minister agree that something must be done? The number of angling tourists has also dropped. This has a detrimental effect on the economy of picturesque areas of rural Ireland. How do Scotland, England and Wales manage? I am told that England and Wales have seven times the number of hill walkers we have. It is not beyond the Minister's capability and that of Comhairle na Tuaithe to solve this problem. The farmers and hill walkers are reasonable people. Surely the two sides can be brought together so the tailspin we have gone into, as far as hill walkers are concerned, can be reversed. Following from this, these bed and breakfast accommodations, as well as other facilities in rural areas in the west of Ireland, can have an economic future.
I agree numbers are down, and we must ask why. The product is the same as it was in 2000. As the Deputy will know, two issues have had an influence on numbers. The first was the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease, which nobody could do anything about. The way we handled it was the best way, but there were clear disadvantages to it.
The second and more damaging issue is one which we have set out to ensure will never be repeated. This is conflict on the hills and the reporting of conflict on the hills. I have no doubt that the stories of conflict and people being challenged, which are reported extensively nationally and internationally inhibits people coming to our country. The first action carried out by Comhairle na Tuaithe was to get people around a table to get agreement on how parameters would work. I have already outlined how this was done.
The rest of the market has moved on. It became obvious when we began to examine the issue that even if those downturns had never happened, our product was not developed enough. We have looked at international best practice. When I was in New Zealand around St. Patrick's Day, we had extensive discussions regarding matters in New Zealand which were very similar to here. That country is considered to have best practice. We are also developing a countryside recreation strategy, and it is useful to be able to benchmark it with best international practice.
There has been extensive consultation, and 190 submissions were received. I hope to receive the Comhairle na Tuaithe recreation strategy in the near future. It will be a road map; it will outline the steps we must take to ensure we have top-class rural recreation facilities, not just walkways.
The Minister should be brief. We have already spent seven minutes on this question.
The Deputy can be assured we have a very clear roadmap worked out, and we are working steadily towards an ultimate goal. We will succeed.
64 Mr. O’Shea asked the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs the progress made by each of the ten regional task forces to date in 2006 in the implementation of their action plans; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [18227/06]
Ten regional drugs task forces have been established in areas not covered by local drugs task forces. Thus, all parts of the country are now serviced by a drugs task force.
The overall role of the regional drugs task forces is to prepare and implement regional action plans that identify existing and emerging gaps in services relating to education and prevention, curbing supply, treatment and rehabilitation. The regional drugs task forces provide a mechanism for the co-ordination of mainstream services in the regions, while at the same time allowing communities and voluntary organisations to participate in the planning, design and delivery of those services.
Membership of these task forces includes representatives of all the relevant agencies, such as the Health Service Executive, the Garda, the probation and welfare service, the Department of Education and Science, the local authorities, the youth service and FÁS. The task forces also include representation from voluntary agencies, community representatives and elected public representatives. Each task force has a voluntary chairperson and was assigned an interim co-ordinator. The recruitment of full-time co-ordinators is ongoing and it is expected that all ten will be in place by the middle of June. Each task force has an operational budget that facilitates the employment of a project development worker and an administrative assistant.
Progress is now being made by the task forces, all of which have prepared action plans for their regions. A sum of €5 million has been allocated to the ten task forces towards the implementation of those plans for 2006. Funding will be increased on an incremental basis over the coming years to achieve the full roll-out of the action plans, which are estimated to have a full cost in the region of €12.2 million per annum. It is expected that the rate of progress being made by the task forces will accelerate in the latter part of the year, especially in view of the employment of the full-time co-ordinators.
Does the Minister of State agree that progress to date with the regional drugs task forces has been far too slow? They were established in 2003, and as the Minister of State has mentioned, €5 million was allocated to them for 2006, with the full allocation being €12.2 million. Does this indicate that by the Government's estimate, less than half of the roll-out will have happened by the end of this year? In terms of the magnitude of the drugs problem and its relentless spread throughout all areas, is the figure of €12.2 million pathetic with regard to what has to be faced in areas apart from those where local drug task forces operate?
No, the purpose of task forces, both regional and local, is to analyse the situation. They are not starting from square one, and are rather investigating gaps in services. Other agencies, including the HSE, for example, have always provided services. The purpose of regional drugs task forces is to analyse problems and investigate if gaps exist. They put plans forward, and these plans amounted to €12.2 million. It will take a couple of years for these to be up and running. Some are already proceeding better than others, but we allocated €5 million for this year, which should be more than enough.
Based on what has happened in Dublin, it would take two or three years to get a full plan in place. The task forces are working on this, although they were slow in the early days. At this stage they had interim co-ordinators, some of whom were probably pushing the issue better than others. All ten full-time co-ordinators have now been selected and they will all be in place within a couple of weeks. At that stage the process will proceed more quickly. At the end of the year, the money allocated for this year will all be spent, more or less.
In December, perhaps.
I do not accept that the urgency required by this matter is being reflected in what the Minister of State is saying. The cocaine market has grown ten-fold in the past four years. Networks have been broken up by the Garda in locations such as Portlaoise, Killarney, Meath, Skerries and Maynooth. It is a very serious scenario. To speak of a plan that will be fully rolled out and operational two years hence is too lax and not focused enough on the problem out there. It is not coming to terms with it.
I apologise if I have come across as too calm.
I would settle for calm. My problem is the Minister of State is not urgent enough.
The Minister of State is sleepy.
Our job was to set the task forces up, which we did. They all consist of a group representing the various interests. We had to get the plans in and assessed, and then provide funding. That is all done.
The Minister of State is meant to drive the issue.
Why is the process so slow in being rolled out?
It was slow initially. I am not behind the issue now, and it is for the task forces themselves to act. They have submitted the plans and we have provided funding. The driving force should now be at the regional drugs task force level. Of the €5 million provided, about €1.3 has been pulled down as of the middle of May. The process is happening, but some task forces are better than others. The Deputy's own in the south east is probably ahead of the pack. Its spend is probably nearly equal to the rest of the task forces spend altogether.
The task forces that did not have a full-time co-ordinator will only get into top gear when there is a person to drive the whole committee and claim ownership of it. The process has been slow in recent years, but it will take off from now on.
65 Mr. Boyle asked the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs if his attention has been drawn to the real concern among community partnership networks that the current cohesion process may bring about an erosion of capacity, knowledge and expertise in social inclusion work, in view of the fact that the resource of volunteering to the boards and sub-structures is currently under threat. [18229/06]
Arising from the review process I initiated in conjunction with my colleagues, the Ministers for Environment, Heritage and Local Government and Justice, Equality and Law Reform, in January 2004, the Government agreed a series of measures designed to improve delivery of services on the ground, arrangements under which community and local development initiatives are delivered and improve cohesion and focus across various measures. As a first step towards achieving better co-ordination of service delivery, cohesion funding of the order of €3,248,600 was provided to city and county development boards, CDBs, in 2004 to encourage local and community development agencies to advance improvements in links, cohesion and sharing resources.
The core objective of the 2005-06 round is the alignment of local, community and rural development organisations to achieve full area coverage. The major advantage of this approach is that the State will be able to deliver programmes such as the local development social inclusion programme and the rural social scheme through the new unified structures because they will have all-area cover. The intention is that, from 2007, there will be one structure delivering services in any given area and fewer structures overall in the country.
The extension of the Leader or partnership model of delivery, which is already proven in a number of cases, to all rural-based local development agencies will lead to better delivery of services. These agencies, when fully integrated, will deliver both rural and local development programmes, have personnel with expertise in a wider range of fields and be better positioned to formulate effective co-ordinated local and community development strategies.
The Government is fully committed to supporting participation in volunteering and recognises the valuable contribution made by volunteers on the boards of local, community and rural development agencies. Of the €4,836,927 awarded in respect of cohesion initiatives during 2005, some €1,463,400 was allocated to promote participation in volunteering at local level. A further €760,600 has been awarded for volunteering measures from the Cohesion Fund since the beginning of the year.
The procedures for the establishment of the boards of the new bodies will be addressed in the context of the cohesion process, with particular reference to ensuring that genuine community representation is achieved. It is in this context that I see the participation of volunteers best safeguarded, in a way that recognises and respects their contribution.
Absent from the Minister's response was an acceptance of the need to increase local democratic involvement and control of many of these bodies. The problem seems to have been addressed from the perspective of achieving better administration, which is no bad thing. The Minister is probably aware that many State officials double up on a number of similar boards. Voluntary groups have expressed the fear that streamlining structures will result in a diminution in the voluntary input. The Minister's response does not inspire any confidence that the case will be otherwise. Can the Minister revisit the criteria he and the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government have for the cohesion process? Can he accept the need for greater voluntary involvement, particularly in local decision making? If this requires a change in the bias from State official to volunteer involvement is the Minister prepared to consider that?
I am puzzled by the question. The Deputy has clearly received representations and heard various stories to the effect that the Leader programme is taking over partnerships or vice versa. I often wonder who is looking after whose interests.
Until now there have been four elements to the boards of all these bodies. Often, as the Deputy quite rightly said, the same people serve on two or three of the boards, running from one meeting to another. Local community representation is sometimes divided between those elected on an area basis and those representing, for example, the Traveller community or people with a disability. The second group normally represented on these boards comprise public representatives, in other words local councillors. The third group is the State agencies. The voluntary sector often wants the State agencies to attend board meetings because it is the one opportunity they get at local level to call on State agencies to co-operate and account for their actions. The final elements of the boards at the moment are the social partners, such as trade unions or, in rural areas, a representative from the IFA. I have no intention of changing that structure and I made that clear at the meeting we had in the Davenport Hotel a few months ago. Nobody in the sector has suggested that I should do so. I do not know which one of the four groups one would leave out.
I am concerned about a number of issues. First, there needs to be a reasonable balance. In other words, local representation should form a reasonable proportion of each group. Second, we have all heard people call for the selection of community representation, to be open and transparent. I do not care who is on the boards. I care that everybody in the area sees the process as fair, open and transparent. I will examine that issue during the year.
There appear to be major arguments between boards. In a small number of cases people seem to think they have to jockey for position for next year. However, all these boards were due to come to an end at the end of 2006 so, in the case of community representation, all would be up for re-election at the end of the year anyway. Nobody could presume they would retain their positions on the boards so I am puzzled by it. This policy is designed to bring about a cohesive structure that applies nationwide and ensures that the citizen can avail of a wide range of services in a one-stop shop.
66 Mr. English asked the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs his views on the use of moneys seized by the Criminal Assets Bureau for drug prevention and drug treatment programmes, in view of the increasing misuse of drugs and the need to enhance funding for the national drugs strategy; if he will urge his Cabinet colleagues to support the granting of such moneys for this purpose; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [18386/06]
In principle I welcome the use of moneys seized by the Criminal Assets Bureau for drug prevention and drug treatment programmes. This idea has been explored by my officials. However, the critical issue is the level of overall funding made available for the implementation of the national drugs strategy and in that regard, I am fully satisfied with the amount of €43 million made available this year.
The earmarking of revenue for specific expenditure purposes is generally avoided as it is much more cumbersome to operate than utilising a central fund. In any case, the allocation of drugs-related CAB money to the work against drugs misuse would imply uncertain and variable amounts coming available. Furthermore, the allocation of CAB receipts would not necessarily imply an increase in overall funding.
The Government's spend on drugs initiatives amounts to much more than the amount taken in by CAB over the years. Also, the process of releasing such money from CAB takes several years. Overall, an allocation of €43 million has been made to my Department's Vote for the drugs initiative and young people's facilities and services fund in 2006. This represents an increase of 37% on the original 2005 allocation and a 61% increase on the 2004 allocation. I am satisfied that current Government expenditure on drugs is sufficient to meet the needs of those involved in tackling the effects of the misuse of drugs.
I am disappointed by the Minister of State's response to the effect that, while he welcomes the money, he is happy with what the Government is spending. Currently people who want to wean themselves off heroin and enrol on a treatment programme have to wait 19 months in some parts of this country. It is a year in some parts of Dublin and eight months in Navan, from where I come. The Minister of State is satisfied with the amount of money being spent but the delays are a direct result of the fact that not enough money is being spent.
Money raised through CAB is money made from drugs crime. Money made on the back of drugs and the hurt, death and destruction associated with drug abuse should be put back into solving the drugs problem. Some €16 million has been made from CAB in recent years. The money should be put straight back into the fight against drugs crime. There is neither enough money nor enough urgency.
The Deputy should ask a question.
It is a question. The Minister says he is happy that €5 million has been given to the regional drugs task forces but that is less than €250,000 per county to tackle drugs. It will not even cover four or five staff in a treatment centre or working with young people to prevent them taking the drugs road. Will he return to the Government and ask for an increase in money to fight drugs? Youth groups, voluntary groups and youth federations hold table quizzes and fundraising events every week to raise a few euro to pay their staff and their electricity bills and the Minister of State says he does not want the money raised through the profits from drugs crime to be put back into the fight against it. We do not even spend €1 million per week in the fight against drugs but drug dealers are making millions per day from drugs. With so little funding available, we have no chance of tackling the problem.
I am disappointed to hear the Minister of State claim to be in favour of using moneys seized by the Criminal Assets Bureau for drug prevention and drug treatment programmes given that his Government voted down the opportunity to ring-fence the €16 million raised by the bureau in recent years. This amounts to only a few million each year and the revenue the CAB will raise each year is easy to predict. This money is needed on the ground to tackle the drug problem. No one can argue that money made from the sale of drugs should not be spent on preventing drugs being peddled. I am disappointed to hear the Minister of State argue that this cannot or will not be done. We need all the money we can get to tackle drugs. The groups seeking on our behalf to keep young people off drugs are not being given the help they need. The use of CAB moneys for this purpose offers an opportunity to put another few euro their way to assist them in their work. The problem can only be addressed through money, resources and staff. There is something seriously wrong in this country of which we are so proud when a person must wait 12 months for a place on a drug treatment programme.
While I note the Deputy's comments, money collected by the Criminal Assets Bureau is not available to anybody.
It becomes available after a few years.
Yes, after seven years. The Criminal Assets Bureau was only established about eight years ago.
It was established in 1996 and has been seizing assets since 1997. Moneys it seized are, therefore, available to be spent.
As these moneys are ring-fenced for seven years, only a small amount has become available to the Exchequer in the past 12 months or thereabouts. While it would be fine if more CAB money were to come our way, I am more concerned about the overall amount of money available for drug treatment, rather than its origins.
The Deputy referred to a figure of €43 million available for community treatment projects this year. When an additional €25 million mainstreamed to other Departments is added, this amounts to funding of more than €70 million. More than 600 people are employed on projects, services or facilities which started at community level.
As the treatment funding to which the Deputy referred is the responsibility of the Health Service Executive, I have no control over it. Approximately 450 people outside Dublin are participating in methadone programmes. A couple of years ago, no one outside Dublin was involved in such programmes because anyone who wanted to participate in them had to take a train or bus to Dublin every day.
Are only 500 of the 15,000 heroin addicts on methadone treatment programmes?
Of approximately 8,000 people on methadone, about 450 are located outside Dublin. A country in which half of heroin users are on methadone is doing damn well by international standards. As I indicated, however, funding in this area is a matter for the Health Service Executive.
Waiting lists are increasing in towns outside Dublin, particularly in Leinster, because services are being provided outside Dublin. The reason there were no queues in the past was that services were not available. It takes time to extend services because not everyone can distribute methadone and it takes time to train doctors to levels 1 and 2. Nevertheless, 450 people are participating in methadone programmes outside Dublin.
Methadone is only one form of treatment and many groups want to treat drug users. The Minister of State will be aware the Aisling group in County Meath, for example, does great work but operates on a shoestring budget. It is directly funded by the Department but has been unable to secure additional funding.
I presume the Aisling group submitted an application for funding, features in the regional plan and is drawing down the money allocated to it.
Is €500,000 sufficient to operate a plan?
Has the group drawn down the funding? Is it seeking further funding?
It sought but did not receive further funding.
As I indicated, the regional drug task forces were established and later submitted plans which were approved. The Deputy should not blame me if the task forces did not seek adequate funding. They cannot put their plans into place on one day. It takes time and some of them are moving quicker than others. Overall, approximately €70 million per annum is being spent on programmes which started at community level and between 600 and 650 employees have been recruited to work with and look after drug users.
Youth groups are waiting for money.
67 Mr. O’Shea asked the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs his proposals to implement the recommendations of the Committee of Public Accounts that objectives, targeted results and funding priority for the RAPID programme should be more precisely documented; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [18228/06]
My Department, supported by Pobal, co-ordinates the implementation of the RAPID programme. As part of its co-ordinating role, my Department receives regular updates on the implementation of the programme. These updates range from informal ad hoc updates to reports prepared for the quarterly RAPID national monitoring committee which I chair. These reports can be accessed at www.pobal.ie.
The Committee of Public Accounts found that a recurring difficulty with the RAPID programme since its launch in 2001 is the different levels of expectation as to what the programme should produce. It recommended that the objectives, targeted results and funding priority for the RAPID programme should be more precisely documented. I will take the views and recommendations of the committee into account in the ongoing development of the RAPID programme.
As is clear from paragraph 4.4 of the report, my Department is well aware of the concern expressed by the Committee of Public Accounts and, as already indicated to the House following discussions with my Department, Pobal has initiated a formal evaluation of the programme. As I have indicated previously, the new, refocused RAPID programme provides a long-term model to support disadvantaged communities and should continue into the future.
Does the Minister agree that the co-ordination of the RAPID programme by his Department is a complete mess? In regard to the recurrent difficulty outlined by officials from his Department to the Committee of Public Accounts in respect of the different expectations as to what the programme should produce, is it the Minister's view that the RAPID programme should provide for the front-loading of resources under the national development plan for targeted areas of disadvantage or should it enable substantial additional funding, not restricted to projects outlined in the NDP, to be pumped into the RAPID areas?
I do not agree the RAPID programme is a mess. However, I concede that in its initial phase, when groups were asked to draw up plans, the criteria were perhaps not clear enough and the plans were cumbersome and, in certain respects, insufficiently focused. The strand two plans, however, were much more focused on what was achievable.
Consultants have been examining the issue of trying to quantify the scope of measures which were additional to those which would have been introduced in the RAPID areas under the national development plan. This is a challenging task and the Department will examine the issue in the 2007 iteration of the programme.
As the Deputy will be aware, under the original RAPID programme the intention was to match the National Development Plan, 2000 to 2006. As we approach 2007, the review carried out by the Committee of Public Accounts and another review currently under way are proving useful in guiding the Department on what changes should take place.
In the years since I became Minister with responsibility for the RAPID programme, I have made a number of significant changes. For example, I introduced the leverage fund which has had a significant impact on the ground. I incrementally increased the involvement of the local RAPID committees — area implementation teams or AITs — in the process because they were making day-to-day decisions. We also provided that a significant amount of the dormant accounts fund would be ring-fenced for RAPID areas, which recently received an allocation from the fund towards small projects that would otherwise have fallen through the cracks.
The Department has been building incrementally on a good idea, analysing the difficulties encountered in the programme — in this regard the analysis of the Committee of Public Accounts has been useful — and continuously improving the programme. The general feedback I am receiving from RAPID committees, representatives of which I will meet on 1 June, is that they believe the programme has delivered and made an impact in the areas in which it operates. They have also given me ideas on how to improve the programme.
The Minister did not address the statement made by officials from his Department at a meeting of the Committee of Public Accounts. Does he believe the purpose of the RAPID programme is to front-load funding for projects within the national development plan or to attract funds for programmes which do not feature in the NDP? Given that this matter was raised by departmental officials at a meeting of the Committee of Public Accounts, it must be a major problem. The Minister has given no indication as to how he views it or intends to tackle it in the new national development plan.
I thought it was self-evident that we have gone far beyond the national development plan in the way in which we have operated the RAPID programme. Neither the leverage fund nor the dormant accounts issue arose under the NDP. RAPID is also about co-ordinating the various agencies to get a better and more co-ordinated delivery.
Within a national development plan, front loading means that in the 2000 to 2006 period, for example, one receives the money between 2002 and 2004 rather than between 2004 and 2006. That would not be a major gain. I am concerned about additionality, that at the end of the next national development plan, we will be able to state clearly how much extra money was invested in the RAPID areas over and above what those areas would have received had there been no such scheme, because every area receives money from the national development plan.
There are two issues: front loading, which means early payment, and what one might call uploading or giving more money to areas with greater problems. The first issue is only a temporary palliative but I am focusing on the second issue. We need better ways of measuring that system because some Departments have done better than others in delivering. As chairman of the national monitoring committee, I have made it clear that we need to see results from mechanisms that demonstrate there is an extra benefit in being in RAPID and in the roll-out of various programmes under the national development plan.
I remind the House that supplementary questions are limited to two minutes.
