Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 13 Dec 2006

Vol. 629 No. 4

Other Questions.

Community Development.

Pat Rabbitte

Question:

41 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs his views on whether the RAPID programme has received sufficient resources to allow it to fulfil its mandate towards Ireland’s most disadvantaged communities; his further views on whether a new programme is required to target the small number of areas here where deep-seated poverty remains a serious problem; if he is considering the introduction of such a new initiative; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [42849/06]

Éamon Ó Cuív

The RAPID programme aims to ensure that priority attention is given to tackling the spatial concentration of poverty and social exclusion within the 45 designated RAPID areas. In addition, RAPID priority status was recently extended to Ballyfermot. My Department, with the support of Pobal, has overall responsibility for the co-ordination of the RAPID programme. It is a matter for each Department to respond to issues of funding within its area of responsibility.

I introduced the RAPID leverage schemes in 2004. Under these schemes, my Department directly funds schemes to provide playgrounds, improve traffic measures, improve health facilities, provide CCTV, support sporting organisations as well as improve local authority housing estates and flat complexes.

Some €11 million was committed to projects identified in co-operation with the local communities in 2006. The evaluation of the programme published on 1 June last indicates that the experience of the RAPID programme has been very positive in many areas. The evaluator concluded that substantial progress had been made in identifying the needs of disadvantaged communities and in implementing important local projects in response to those needs. The evaluator stated that the leverage schemes appear to have secured a greater "buy-in" from local stakeholders and were facilitating further activity at local level. The report also identifies strengths and weaknesses of the programme and proposes 25 recommendations. Work is advancing on implementing these recommendations.

The RAPID area implementation team, AIT, structure has allowed for effective engagements with the local communities and provided community representatives with greater opportunities to work with the local authorities and statutory agencies in identifying the problems that affect their areas. Matters requiring attention have been identified and prioritised for funding. There is widespread agreement that local consultation has played a key role in supporting statutory agencies in developing appropriate responses. Community representatives are supported in working in their immediate neighbourhoods to ensure deeper and wider involvement of the community with RAPID and the statutory agencies.

We should build on the successes of the RAPID programme rather than introduce a new one. The achievements of the local structures established under RAPID should be acknowledged from the point of view both of the physical transformation that has begun to take shape in RAPID areas and the improved levels of community involvement and confidence in the process. The AITs provide a solid basis for moving forward with the programme. There is of course room for improvement in how the members of the AITs are supported and how their roles can be reinforced and developed. This is something I am working to improve in co-operation with the AITs and the national monitoring committee.

Mr. O’Shea

Will the Minister agree that a major problem exists and is concentrated in a number of areas, where there is inter-generational poverty? The parents of the children of the poor were themselves poor and all the indications are that their children will be poor because no effective initiatives are being taken. I am not saying it is widespread, but there are areas around the country in which this phenomenon is concentrated. The Minister indicated that there is no intention to introduce a new scheme. I would point out that the promised €2 billion that was to be fast-tracked into the RAPID did not happen, to put it mildly, and that essentially this year's Estimates for his Department indicate a 1% increase in terms of the RAPID funding. As he pointed out, he has the central role as regards RAPID.

The Labour Party recently published a policy document, entitled A Fair Deal: Fighting Poverty and Exclusion. Basically, there is a commitment in it that the Labour Party in Government would commit no less than 5% of the next national development plan to this fair deal in terms of addressing poverty and exclusion. However, the Minister is saying he has no intention of doing anything extra as regards these areas where there is multifaceted poverty, whether through low incomes, poor educational attainment, poor housing or employment prospects, a high level of anti-social behaviour, drug abuse or the like. Has he no intention of taking any initiative — that is what I heard him say — to introduce a new programmes to deal with these problems in an effective way so that the children in these areas are not sentenced to replicating the manner in which their parents have lived their lives?

Éamon Ó Cuív

I should be interested to know which of the four to six areas the Deputy believes do not display all the characteristics he mentioned. As far as I am concerned all the areas involved in the RAPID programme have been found through independent analysis to display all the characteristics as regards the problems of inter-generational disadvantage and so on. They would not be RAPID areas, otherwise. Some people are suggesting that I should abandon the RAPID programme and the four to six areas and pick a much small number. I am interested to hear the Deputy's suggestions about the areas he believes do not need the support of the RAPID programme. It is very unlikely, however, that I might agree with him that any of them does not. In fact, the demand from areas not included in RAPID suggests that many of them exhibit these particular manifestations and should be included, too — rather than shedding any of the RAPID areas. The leverage fund is not what RAPID is about, but is just a minuscule part of the programme. I decided, and it was well received, that there were some minor issues that might be dealt with by that type of funding, which would involve leveraging out funding from other Departments and dealing with matters at a local level, rather than big plans being sent to Dublin to erect a piece of pavement or do some estate enhancement — and it has been very successful. The AITs uniformly report that this initiative has been successful.

We have discussed the allegation that somebody promised €2 billion. I cannot find any reference to that in any documentation I have inherited in the Department. I do not know how often I must reiterate this, but if someone can show me where €2 billion was promised, I shall be very grateful because I have all the press releases and there is no mention of it. What is true, however, is that there is an enormous amount of money in the national development plan for social inclusion. That money has been spent and will continue to be spent. Again, as I have indicated, the leverage fund is small. At one stage a few months ago, I reported that a total spend was reported to my Department under the RAPID process in the area of more than €300 million. The big spend relates directly to line Departments giving priority to these areas. That is as it was meant to be from the start. Items such as the dormant accounts and the leverage funds were additional extras devised well after the programme had been launched.

I met recently with all of the community representatives at a conference in Dublin of the RAPID AITs and it was one of the most fruitful and positive meetings I have attended. They were highly interactive and had numerous very good suggestions. The one thing impressed on me that day, however, was that they believe RAPID is making a difference, that it is a long-haul initiative, and that they were ad idem with me, in so far as I could make out, that building on the present programme was much better than what had happened in the past. In the past a programme might be put in place and miracle results were expected overnight. Then it was scrapped and another was put in place, which was also scrapped. The conference was very positive about my thesis to the effect that a programme must be left in place for 20 years with assurances underpinning it as a long-term initiative.

Mr. O’Shea

The Minister has stated that no €2 billion was promised on the record. If that is the case, how much money was promised? It was disingenuous of him to suggest that I was proposing that the RAPID programme should be done away with. Labour Party policy is to go for €3.5 billion with special emphasis being put on those regions within the RAPID areas in which the problems are particularly concentrated. That is what is being proposed in the Labour Party document. Incidentally, the preparatory work has been done and the Labour Party is not suggesting we reinvent the wheel. It is a question of putting the money in place to implement the proposals and do what needs to be done. It is an issue of resources and the Labour Party is promising that in government it will do that resourcing.

The Minister's line of argument is disingenuous, but I am intrigued to know, if €2 billion was not promised prior to the last election, how much was.

Éamon Ó Cuív

I cannot find any record of a figure being put on it. As we said all along it was a matter of the re-prioritisation of existing national development plan moneys. This is what is written in the press releases. I assure the Deputy that a new national development plan is under development and the entire issue of social inclusion obviously will be part of it, just as it was in its predecessor.

The Deputy appears to be suggesting that we should have RAPID areas and super-RAPID areas, which is an interesting idea. Tomorrow, I will meet representatives of the RAPID groups in an open forum, as I do once every six months. It would be interesting to put the proposal to them, to ascertain whether they believe there should be RAPID and super-RAPID areas and whether I should differentiate between them. In some ways, we already do this to an extent——

Mr. O’Shea

The Minister should include the qualification that this would be in the context of fully financing the entire programme.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We must move on.

Éamon Ó Cuív

I presume the Deputy does not intend to take all the moneys for urban renewal, educational disadvantage, health and other issues from the line Departments and put them into the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs. One of the Deputy's party's spokespersons suggested that all rural matters should be removed from this Department. It was suggested that the old Department of Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands should be reassembled and that the community portfolio should be scattered to the four winds. I return to the point that the major expenditure must be done by the line Department.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We must proceed to the next question.

Éamon Ó Cuív

This is how it must be done. I do not presume the Labour Party is suggesting anything different. It does not intend to take all the housing renewal moneys for RAPID areas from the urban development and environment portfolios.

Mr. O’Shea

Proper co-ordination is required.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair calls Question No. 42.

Éamon Ó Cuív

That is what we are about.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We must move on.

Dormant Accounts Fund.

Bernard J. Durkan

Question:

42 Mr. Durkan asked the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs the amount spent by his Department from the proceeds of the dormant accounts fund in each year for the past five years to date; the extent to which he expects to have funds available to him from this source in each of the next five years; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [42883/06]

Dan Boyle

Question:

73 Mr. Boyle asked the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs the end of year allocation of funding from the dormant accounts fund for 2006; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [42909/06]

Willie Penrose

Question:

103 Mr. Penrose asked the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs the groups and projects he will prioritise in the upcoming round of funding to be allocated under the dormant accounts fund; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [42850/06]

Minister of State at the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs (Mr. N. Ahern)

I propose to take Questions Nos. 42, 73 and 103 together.

Decisions on the disbursement of funds from dormant accounts under the initial round of funding were a matter for the Dormant Accounts Fund Disbursements Board, an independent body established under the Dormant Accounts Acts. Under this round, the board approved 521 projects for funding totalling slightly more than €60 million. To date, approximately €29 million of the €60 million approved has been paid over to groups, of which €4 million was paid in 2004, €8 million in 2005 and €17 million in 2006. It is anticipated that the remaining €31 million will be disbursed during 2007 and beyond.

Following the enactment of the new amended legislation in 2005, decisions on disbursements are now made by the Cabinet following a transparent process. In accordance with the legislation, the Government approved the allocation of €60 million from the fund in 2006 for the following purposes: €24 million to support projects tackling economic and social disadvantage; €18 million towards projects tackling educational disadvantage; and €18 million towards projects assisting persons with a disability.

To date in 2006, under the economic and social disadvantage category, the Government has approved funding of €17.5 million in support of 342 projects. In respect of the remaining funding measures under the economic and social disadvantage category, as well as measures relating to educational disadvantage and people with disabilities, further Government decisions can be expected in early 2007.

The rural social scheme, RSS, was launched two years ago to provide an income supplement to small farmers and part-time fishermen. A total of €32.4 million has been allocated to date from the dormant accounts fund to part-finance the RSS, of which €10 million was allocated in 2004, €6.4 million in 2005 and €16 million in 2006.

The priorities to be supported from dormant accounts next year are currently under consideration. In this regard, the legislation requires the Minister to consult other appropriate Ministers for the purpose of developing a proposal for submission to the Government for approval. This process is well under way and the intention is to submit a proposal early next year concerning the 2007 round of funding.

As for the amount that is expected to be available over the next five years, Members will be aware that the legislation provides for an annual transfer by credit institutions and insurance undertakings of moneys in dormant accounts into the fund. Since the establishment of the fund in May 2003, a total of €373 million has been transferred, of which €108 million has been reclaimed. At this juncture, it is difficult to say what the expected inflows to the fund will be on an annual basis. These details will only become available as the funds are actually transferred by financial institutions, which occurs once a year.

Mr. McGinley

I thank the Minister of State for his fairly comprehensive reply. I am almost shocked that almost €400 million has already been transferred from these accounts to the Exchequer and that €108 million has been reimbursed. This constitutes a huge sum of money.

The funds are paid out under various headings to several areas of social deprivation. Does it all go through the Minister's office, or is it allocated to different Departments in which the decisions are then made? For example, if one wishes to apply to this scheme to develop something like a health centre in a particular locality, to whom does one apply? Does the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs, the Minister for Health and Children or the Minister for Finance have ultimate responsibility? Is a single Minister responsible for distributing the entire amount?

Mr. N. Ahern

As for the amount being huge, initially, some major payments were made. Subsequently, the fund was extended from financial institutions to encompass insurance companies, An Post and similar bodies. Hence, there were some very significant once-off inflows. In future, the amount of money accruing to the fund may not be so dramatic. I believe more people will reclaim their moneys as the accounts in question will only have become dormant recently and will not extend back 40 years. Perhaps €30 million to €40 million will accrue per year, with approximately €20 million flowing out on an ongoing basis. However, it will take a year or two before accurate figures in this regard can be compiled.

While the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs is the lead Department, every decision regarding dormant accounts now goes before the Cabinet. In respect of the €60 million plan announced earlier this year, the €24 million allocated under economic and social disadvantage falls mainly under the aegis of this Department. A further €18 million was allocated under educational disadvantage and €18 million under disabilities, which is the responsibility of the Department of Health and Children.

However, all applications go before the Cabinet. The Deputy will have noted the various schemes announced by the Department during the year, all of which go before the Government when they are being independently assessed. One of the questions concerned the plan for next year, which will be approved by the Government. The individual sums of money go into the Votes of different Departments. While some of it goes to this Department, money for educational or disability-related projects would be transferred to a different Department's Vote. The Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs is the lead Department and takes the proposals to the Cabinet. However, everything is agreed at that level.

Mr. Boyle

To what extent does the Department keep statistics regarding the geographical distribution of the funding? This will be of great interest to many Members who wish to ensure the funding is spread proportionately nationwide in a fair and even manner. Moreover, to what extent have decisions on funding been made already with regard to 2007? How much of the funding in question is likely to be paid out before 30 June 2007? Anticipating such decisions would also be useful to Members.

I suggest that what the Minister of State described as an open and accountable system was argued against in this Chamber by Opposition Members, who would continue to so do. I accept the administration of the scheme in respect of informing Members of advertisements for funding allocations and the natures of the subsequent decisions made. However, my experience has been that, as individuals, Members have few powers of persuasion regarding how eventual allocation decisions are made or whether the Government is reconsidering how decisions are made in respect of allocations from the dormant accounts fund.

Mr. N. Ahern

I have no data to hand regarding geographic spread. Incidentally, however, some funding was announced last weekend regarding older people's facilities and I happened to perform a minor analysis on the allocation. When considered from the perspective of geographic spread, it was not carried out fairly. This pertains to independent assessment because if it was in my hands, or those of any other politician, a geographic spread would have been much more likely. If one looks at the analysis of what we announced at the weekend, which is on the website, there was one county, not a very large county, in which 17 different groups received funding. It was not in my constituency or in that of the Minister, Deputy Ó Cuív.

Mr. O’Shea

He should tell us.

Mr. McGinley

Tiocfaidh ár lá.

Mr. N. Ahern

Kerry. I looked at the list with a particular Deputy and there was none from his constituency. I checked up on it and found there had been no applications from that midlands county. If a politician had his or her hands over all of this, we would be much more likely to look at how our colleagues might be influenced by it. If one looks at the funding measure for older people, one can see that it was not a political input.

Some counties, for whatever reason, have a better structure of community and voluntary organisations. The word must get out or else they have better partnerships who guide them on how to complete an application. I do not have exact data, but I saw it at the weekend.

These programmes are being announced all the time. Of this year's ones, there is still the one on IT to which I referred in the reply and the one for equipment for youth groups and scouts. Even within our own segment, the one on alcohol and all those advertised during the year will be announced early in the new year.

Then we had our overall flagship project. The Department of Health and Children is looking after the disabilities programme, the closing date for which was this month. The Department of Education and Science has not got very far yet with its project. Decisions are being rolled out all the time.

Mr. McGinley

I understand that under the old regime the modus operandi on disbursements was that at the end of every year there would be an annual report showing where all the money went under different headings. Can we expect an annual report on how these funds are disbursed throughout the country?

Mr. N. Ahern

Yes. There are data in the reply on the different categories to date — the number of projects and total amounts in the cases of the RAPID areas, support for vulnerable immigrants, support for the suicide prevention programme, supports for offenders and ex-offenders, and supports for older people. We listed the seven or eight headings we would address during the year. Those five have been announced and the other two or three are still being processed. All that information and all the decisions are available on the website. There will be complete data for anybody who wants it.

Road Network.

Paul Nicholas Gogarty

Question:

43 Mr. Gogarty asked the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs the timeframe for the delivery of the road improvements recently announced under the local improvement scheme in County Cork; and the way he will ensure that there will not be a repeat in delays in the delivery of improvements as previously encountered under the scheme. [42919/06]

Éamon Ó Cuív

In 2006, for every €2 spent by local authorities on local improvements schemes, LIS, in CLÁR areas on non-public roads, my Department is providing an additional €1 from CLÁR funding for works on further LIS roads within the CLÁR areas. This, in effect, will increase investment on LIS roads in these areas by 50%. The projects are selected by the local authorities.

I allocated €653,013 to Cork County Council to carry out works on 20 roads in CLÁR areas in County Cork in 2006. The Deputy will appreciate, however, that my Department has no input into the selection, or the timeframe for delivery, of these projects which is a matter for the local authority.

Mr. Boyle

I thank the Minister for his answer. Does his Department subsequently seek such information? It is important in allocating the funding that there is an awareness of public accountability on how and where it was spent. For instance, how much road improvement does €653,000 buy in County Cork and where in County Cork was the work eventually done by the county council? If that information is not being sought it is a serious deficiency. I speak also as a member of the Committee of Public Accounts. Even though the sums are small, the point of the scheme is that the small allocation can have a greater effect because it is being better targeted, but we still must know where and how it is targeted.

Can further information be got on how access has been improved in these areas because the difficulty reported is that these are roads that access facilities such as cemeteries and old routes to remote beaches, and improving them also improves access to these communities by visitors, resulting in an economic benefit. I ask this question not only for accounting of the money spent but for an analysis on behalf of the Department of the economic impact of that money because it is important to know how successful is such a programme.

Éamon Ó Cuív

Deputy Boyle misunderstands fundamentally one aspect of CLÁR, that is, that CLÁR provides money to accelerate existing programmes and does not make up new rules for the main schemes. The people who lay down the rules for LIS are the officials of the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. They give lumps of money to local authorities to carry out LIS and give directions on how projects should be selected. We operate the exact same rules — we cannot operate to any other rules. In the final analysis, it is up to the local authority, which is a public body in its own right, and the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government to ensure that this represents value for money.

The selection of the roads is a matter for the county council but it does so according to the guidelines of the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. They are the exact same guidelines that apply when the same county council is undertaking LIS road works with money provided by the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, and my understanding is that the reporting arrangements would be the same.

In our case, we get a list of roads and the amount of money to be spent on each road. The method of calculating the cost and the amount of roads done are the exact same ones used by that local authority in spending the money of the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, and the exact same criteria is applied.

Téann muid ó thaobh amháin go taobh eile. We go from one extreme to the other. We can spend all our time doing economic assessments, but there are certain things in this life one does because they need doing. I do not care, within reason, what it costs where there is a widow living in a house on an impassable road. Although there is economic analysis, at the end of the day one either makes up one's mind that one will repair the road. What happens if the economic appraisal advises not to repair the road? I do not think any of us would leave the widow in that situation.

It is important that criteria are laid down for schemes. I firmly believe in ensuring value for money and a high standard of work from local authorities. While, no doubt, the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government ensures this is done, the one great brake on irresponsible LIS spending is that the local people must make a contribution, of 10% in some cases and 15% in others cases. Local people would not spend 10% of the cost of repairing a road which is not of major benefit to them and, therefore, the scheme is inherently sound in value for money terms.

For those of us who live in rural parts of the country, the amounts of money involved are tiny compared to the benefit to be got from scéim na mbóithre áise and the LIS. As a rural Deputy, the generality of these schemes represent fantastic value for money and they are a small part of public infrastructure towards which there is a direct local contribution. I know of no other roads towards which one is obliged to make a direct local contribution.

Mr. Boyle

I think the Minister misunderstood me. I am asking not that analysis be done prior to projects, but that a general analysis be done subsequently to ensure the money is creating maximum impact. I am making the opposite argument, that because the sums and the projects are so small, often the hap'orth of tar — the additional money — needed to meet many of these basic human needs the Minister highlighted is not provided due to the lack of proper analysis. I am asking that the Department put in place mechanisms to ensure that the small-scale projects do not fail as a result.

Éamon Ó Cuív

We are back again at the beginning of the story. On the issue of undertaking an overall analysis of value for money, there are ongoing value for money audits in all Departments and, I presume, in local authorities. Therefore, it is a for the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government to carry out a value for money audit on the scheme. The Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government is the begetter of the scheme, controls its conditions and is responsible for its rules.

If the Deputy wants to know whether a value for money audit on this scheme has been undertaken, he should table a question to the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. That is not my Department's role. I do not make the rules of the scheme and I am not responsible for the overall policy issues.

Mr. Boyle

The Minister is responsible for spending his Department's money. The whole point of Question Time is that we are here to ask the Minister questions about how he spends his Department's money and determine if it is spent properly.

Éamon Ó Cuív

No. Constitutionally, Ministers are collectively responsible for all Departments. The idea of running Government as if it were a series of parallel independent republics is not only stupid, but it is fundamentally unconstitutional. The collective nature of Government is fundamental to the Constitution.

As regards the specific issue, the role rests with the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. Why would I duplicate the work of a ministerial colleague when this is a single Government? It would make no sense.

National Drugs Strategy.

Martin Ferris

Question:

44 Mr. Ferris asked the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs his views on Citywide’s Cocaine in Local Communities follow-up survey. [42866/06]

Damien English

Question:

51 Mr. English asked the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs his views on the recent proposals by the national advisory committee on drugs and the national drugs strategy team on dedicated cocaine clinics; his response to these recommendations; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [42873/06]

Seán Crowe

Question:

53 Mr. Crowe asked the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs the details of the most recent British-Irish Council ministerial meeting regarding the sectoral group on the misuse of drugs; and the situation regarding all-Ireland co-operation on the issue of tacking cocaine abuse. [42862/06]

Joe Sherlock

Question:

88 Mr. Sherlock asked the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs if he will expand on his recent comments that ways must be found to get over the stigma that many middle class people feel about receiving drug treatment in view of increasing levels of cocaine addiction; his views on whether Ireland is in the midst of a cocaine crisis; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [42847/06]

Mr. N. Ahern

I propose to take Questions Nos. 44, 51, 53 and 88 together.

I have been aware for some time of the anecdotal evidence of increased cocaine prevalence and, for this reason, last year I asked the national advisory committee on drugs and the national drugs strategy team to prepare a briefing paper on cocaine. This paper was presented at the last interdepartmental group on drugs meeting in September 2006. The paper did not involve new research, rather it arose from an examination of sources such as crime data, drug seizure figures and data from hospital and drug services. While more detailed evidence on cocaine will arise from the drug prevalence survey, which is currently in progress nationwide, available indicators point to increased use of cocaine.

The Departments and agencies listed as being responsible for the implementation of the recommendations of the briefing paper have been asked to give their reactions to the relevant suggestions and it is proposed to discuss their responses further at tomorrow's meeting of the interdepartmental group on drugs. The recommendation on dedicated cocaine clinics will be looked at in this context, as will the issue of the stigma that many middle class people feel about receiving drug treatment. However, in the broader context, I believe we should work towards having drug services that can cater for the individual problem drug user, regardless of the drugs they use.

Mr. Crowe

One of my questions related to the Citywide survey on cocaine. It confirms what the Minister of State has said, namely, there is clearly a growth in drugs use. The 2004 survey found that 14% of projects reported seeing clients with what they described as problematic cocaine use. However, 62% of projects are now reporting such problematic cocaine use. Two years ago, 92.6% of projects reported existing clients were using cocaine. This survey has shown there is a huge growth in cocaine use.

There is a lack of proper analysis of the information available. There clearly is a gap between what some community groups are doing and what we seem to have officially. The worrying thing for community activists or those involved in the anti-drugs campaign over the years is that the problem is worsening. The survey discusses the emergence of crystal meth and ten projects report on the local availability of crack cocaine. However, the Garda does not seem to have information on the spread of crack cocaine.

Does the Minister of State accept that the survey is useful and timely? Does he believe this data is vital to combating drugs? Some 62% of projects are seeing clients for whom cocaine is their main drug. Half the projects have recorded an increase in cocaine use among clients; one project in north Dublin recorded four cocaine-related deaths.

Does the Minister of State accept that we also need to look at so-called recreational drugs? Does he accept that alternatives, such as cafés or youth clubs, must be provided for young people? It is vital that groups setting up such facilities are funded by the Department. Does the Minister agree that facilities such as these should receive State funding? Is the Department currently funding any alcohol and drug free cafes? These provide an alternative to hanging around on street corners. Such a youth facility operates in Killinarden and a huge number of young people use it, enjoy the atmosphere in it, and are involved in positive activities such as education.

When will the decision be made regarding the cocaine projects? The biggest problem is that the Government, and probably the Minister of State himself, is still unsure as to how to tackle the problem. Anecdotal evidence from across the country suggests drug use is worsening. How will we respond to this?

Mr. N. Ahern

I thank the Deputy for his questions and know he understands the problem. I do not disagree with anything contained in the Citywide survey — it is a reflection of attitudes on the ground. We are working in partnership with community groups and the local drugs taskforces. Approximately €70 million is being spent annually on projects that were recommended and suggested at community level. While we take on board their suggestions about what is required, the drugs problem has not gone away and will not go away. It is a case of trial and error, and if anyone has the total solution they should let us know what it is.

The point made in the paper produced by the advisory committee on drugs and the drugs strategy team is that many of the available services — there are up to 700 people working in the areas of prevention and treatment — were tailored to the heroin problem. There is a degree of truth in the assertion that many of the services are very opiate-focused. We need to adjust and tweak those, or set up new services to attract people with cocaine problems. This is the difficulty. As the Deputy has mentioned, cocaine use is not just happening in the traditional, disadvantaged areas; it is also being used in many middle class areas. It is difficult to get those people to avail of treatment. They are much slower to realise they have a problem. They think recreational cocaine use is for the film star set and no health difficulties are attached. This is entirely untrue. Cocaine is a very dangerous drug and can lead to mental and physical health problems, including heart attacks and strokes. It is difficult to get that through to people. Many people are reluctant to admit they are "druggies" and avail of services. It is similar to the problem with alcoholics. We could cope better and tailor services to people's needs if we could make them realise and admit they have a problem.

The young people's fund has provided many services such as facilities and youth workers. More than €120 million has been spent in this area, mainly in the Dublin suburbs, including Tallaght, in recent years. An allocation was also announced in recent weeks. They are providing an alternative and giving young people something else to do. At-risk teenagers are particularly targeted by these programmes. While much is being done, the problem is shifting from heroin use, where numbers have stabilised, to cocaine. However, they do not come forward so we are considering what services can be offered to convince them to cop on and realise they are building up a problem within themselves. Then we must provide the appropriate treatment.

The pilot project in Tallaght about which Deputy Crowe spoke is still being evaluated. Its funding will continue but it is very much a pilot project. We want to build on it, tweak it where necessary and get it to adhere to best practice before it becomes mainstream. Reports on the project are good and it may be replicated in other areas in the future. Its funding will continue until the evaluation is completed.

Written Answers follow Adjournment Debate.