Vol. 485 No. 2
1 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach if he convened a meeting of the Cabinet Committee on Social Inclusion and Drugs prior to the budget; if the commitment to a £20 million youth services fund in the second report of the ministerial task force will be confirmed by his Government; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [19281/97]
2 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach the progress, if any, there has been in the establishment of a youth services development fund in relation to the recommendation in the second report of the ministerial task force on measures to reduce the demand for drugs; and the progress, if any, which has been made in relation to attracting funds from the private corporate sector. [19408/97]
3 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach if he will give details of the number of occasions the Cabinet Committee on Social Inclusion and Drugs has met; and if he will make a statement on the matter [21153/97]
4 Mr. Hayes asked the Taoiseach the number of occasions the Cabinet Committee on Social Inclusion and Drugs has met; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [22063/97]
5 Mr. Gregory asked the Taoiseach the date of the last meeting of the Cabinet Committee on Social Inclusion and Drugs; the reason the commitment to a £20 million youth services fund was reduced to £1.25 million for 1998; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [23019/97]
61 Ms Shortall asked the Taoiseach if he will give details of the dates on which the Cabinet sub-committee on drugs has met; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [23223/97]
It is proposed to take Questions Nos. 1 to 5, inclusive, and 61 together.
The previous Government established a Cabinet committee on drugs, chaired by the Taoiseach, to give overall political leadership in the fight against drugs, to review all trends in the drugs problem, to assess progress in the strategy to deal with it and to resolve policy and organisational difficulties which might inhibit an effective response. Recognising the links between social exclusion, drug abuse and alienation, the Government decided the most strategic way to tackle the problem of social exclusion was to reconstitute the drugs committee into a wider Cabinet committee which would address disadvantage in its broadest sense. That committee, which continues to be chaired by the Taoiseach, links the work being done under the Local Development Operational Programme and the national anti-poverty strategy as well as the national drugs strategy.
The committee meets, as appropriate, to review progress in the implementation of these strategies, to resolve difficulties that might arise and direct the work of bodies such as the National Drugs Strategy Team, which was set up to progress the implementation of the various strategies. Between meetings, relevant Ministers, individually and acting together on relevant issues, ensure the various elements of the Government's social inclusion programme are progressed in so far as they relate to their areas of responsibility.
As announced in the budget, an initial allocation of £1.25 million has been made by the Government towards the establishment of a youth services development fund in 1998, which will be administered by the Department of Education and Science. Detailed arrangements for the administration of the fund, including the issue of corporate contributions, are currently being developed by the Department of Education and Science for final consideration by the Cabinet Committee on Social Inclusion and Drugs.
This is the sixth week in which I have tabled Questions Nos. 1 and 2 and I thank whoever who is responsible for arranging to have them taken today.
Will the youth services development fund established by the committee of Ministers of which I was chairman be implemented by the Government? The Minister of State said an initial payment of £1.25 million has been allocated in the budget. Does that mean the previous Government's commitment to provide £20 million for the fund is being honoured in full? Are procedures laid down for accessing money from the fund? If so, will the Minister of State make them available to the House? How widely will the moneys be disbursed? Will they be disbursed within the areas identified by the local drugs task forces only or does he propose to disburse them on a wider basis? Has he had any success in leveraging similar funding from the private sector? Does he recall the recommendation of Deputy Currie and others was prompted by a speech from Dr. Michael Smurfit who drew attention to the menace of drugs and their significance for society. The implication from different soundings at that time was that the corporate sector would contribute substantial funding.
The Progressive Democrats might talk to Smurfit about that.
The previous Administration promised to establish a youth services development fund to deal with the misuse of drugs. The Government has decided to establish the fund and has provided the initial capital to do so. Deputy Rabbitte raised a number of issues. In regard to accessing funds, the fund will be administered by the Department of Education and Science. Allocations from the fund will be made on the recommendation of the Cabinet Committee on Social Inclusion and Drugs. We will continue to have a significant role to play in the allocation of funds.
It is expected the youth services development fund will be targeted at the areas covered by the local task forces on drug misuse. Some 12 of these task forces have been established in Dublin and one in Cork. Private sector and corporate funding is an important issue. We have already received what I might describe as feelers from the corporate sector about the provision of funding for the youth services development fund. These matters must be thrashed out in detail and the specific mechanism for allowing the corporate sector to participate will be worked out by my colleague, the Minister for Education and Science. It is an important fund which will be targeted at the areas covered by the local drugs task forces. It will make a further contribution, particularly in the youth services area, to tackling the underlying causes which give rise to drug misuse.
Will the Minister clarify if total funding of £20 million is provided for in the 1998 financial year? Is it a good idea for the Minister for Education and Science to have this budgetary role? Given its specific purpose, the Minister's responsibility in the area of local development and his involvement in the drugs strategy, would it not be more appropriate within his remit? What does he mean by saying the Cabinet subcommittee meets as often as appropriate? How many times has it met?
The Deputy will be aware that the Administration of which he was a member recommended that a sum of £20 million be provided over a three year period for the youth services development fund. While £10 million was provided by his Administration in 1997 for the local drugs task forces and the national drugs strategy team, no such funds were provided for the youth services development fund, although it was recommended that it should be established on 1 January 1998. The Government has given a commitment to establishing the youth services development fund and has provided £1.25 million.
The Deputy will also be aware that although £10 million was provided for use in 1997 by the local drugs task forces, much of that money cannot be drawn down until the programmes and projects are in place. That is a matter for the local drugs task forces operating through the national drugs strategy team. We must proceed with the establishment of the youth services development fund and the various criteria attaching to that. An announcement will be made shortly about the mechanism for the establishment of the fund for tapping into the corporate sector.
As regards the Deputy's comment about the involvement of the Department of Education and Science in this fund, it has considerable experience of funding youth services projects. It will have an important role to play in the fight against drug misuse. The decision to place this fund within the remit of the Department of Education and Science is good bearing in mind the skill and expertise it has displayed in similar situations.
Will the Minister confirm it is still the Government's intention to set aside £20 million for the youth services development fund over a three year period and that 18 per cent or £1.25 million will be spent within the next year? How many times has the sub-committee met since its inception? Is it intended to establish riding instructions for the Department of Education and Science so that there will be a sufficient bias in favour of communities worst afflicted by the drugs problem? Will he ensure such instructions will be given to the Department?
The Cabinet sub-committee on social inclusion and local development on drugs is chaired by the Taoiseach and meets as often as required. It has met once since the Government came into office.
That is not very often.
The work of its members continues. The purpose of the sub-committee is to co-ordinate efforts to tackle social exclusion and to deal with and clear up policy difficulties which might arise. That has happened and one decision it took is covered in the budget. A sum of £0.75 million has been made available to establish a number of pilot projects to seek to co-ordinate the delivery of services into areas of most disadvantage in a better and more effective way. Many of these areas are covered by local drugs task forces and we must try to develop a system whereby the provision of services by all statutory agencies and the community and voluntary sectors will be carried out on a co-ordinated basis.
Does the Minister agree that all that is clear from his replies is that the Cabinet sub-committee has met once and an allocation of £1.25 million has been agreed? Will he state specifically the contribution his Government intends to make to the fund? Will it be the sum of £20 million recommended by the previous Government or will it be another amount? I am sure he accepts there are many communities, projects and organisations trying to fight the drugs threat in areas of social exclusion waiting today for answers to these questions. They have no chance to deal with this problem without a commitment from the Government to the sum of £20 million at the very least. This contribution is critical to divert young people away from heroin and other drugs in areas with which he is familiar.
Will he state clearly the amount of money the Government is committed to spending on youth services' funds? Is the Government, which made such a hue and cry about the drugs issue prior to the last election, sending out the wrong message by virtue of the fact that its special sub-committee has met once, the intended allocation has been cut from £20 million to £1.25 million and we cannot get answers to very simple questions? Many communities see the allocation of £1.25 million in the context of a £20 million contribution to an organisation that does not need it, to build a stadium it is fully able to finance.
The Deputy should confine his remarks to supplementary questions.
The decision by the Government to establish the youth services development fund is a signal that the proposal contained in the ministerial task force on this matter is being implemented. The Cabinet sub committee responsible for local development, the national anti-poverty strategy and the national drugs strategy brings the three groups together. The Government has continued to provide funding for the local drugs task forces. In the financial figures for 1998 is a sum of £10 million, a continuation of the funding of £10 million provided each year for the implementation of the policy of the national drugs strategy team. A significant issue, as we campaign to fight against the misuse of drugs, particularly in the targeted areas, is that these areas have suffered extreme neglect by different statutory authorities in the past for different reasons.
And the Minister of State will continue it.
I will not.
The Minister of State will aggravate it.
The Cabinet sub-committee on social exclusion and drugs has decided to tackle this issue in a co-ordinated way, to implement the efforts of the local drugs task forces and to identify the underlying causes of specific areas being ravaged by the effects of drugs misuse. It has decided to involve the local community and voluntary sector and to challenge the statutory agencies on why these specific areas were allowed deteriorate to such an extent that they have become ravaged because of drugs misuse.
The Minister did not give them money and he is not doing it now.
The local drugs task forces will seek to tackle the underlying causes in the specific areas where there is massive drug misuse. That is the proper and the best mechanism for dealing with the issue.
Given that the Cabinet sub-committee on social inclusion and drugs chaired by the Taoiseach has met only once and, seemingly, has made only one decision, which effectively was to reduce the level of spending from a high of £20 million to £1.25 million, will he agree that to do its work this committee should meet on a regular basis to monitor the work of the other agencies? The effect of its meeting only once in six months is that it is simply a window dressing exercise and is a new level of neglect of this area of social exclusion and the menace from drugs. Will he indicate when this committee will meet next?
That the Cabinet sub-committee does not meet as frequently as Members might suggest does not mean——
What is it for?
I have already outlined its purpose. It does not mean the work of the constituent members of that Cabinet sub-committee in dealing with social exclusion does not continue.
How?
As a member of that sub-committee I spend practically all my time dealing with the misuse of drugs, the local task forces and the national drugs strategy team, which is responsible to me. The other constituent members continue with their work in terms of the national anti-poverty strategy. I am responsible for local development which plays a fundamental part in tackling the issue of neglect in some of these areas. It is incorrect to say the work of the Cabinet sub-committee is not continuing.
How can the work continue when it does not meet?
Recently the Government approved the balance of the funding for the local drugs task forces. The amount is significant. At its meeting today the Government approved funding of £922,000 for Ballyfermot; £645,000 for Ballymun; £752,990 for Blanchardstown; £820,000 for the canal communities; £943,000 for Clondalkin; £566,700 for Cork; £636,000 for the Dublin 12 area; £567,865 for the Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown area; £716,500 for the Finglas-Cabra area; £728,000 for north-east Dublin; £770,000 for the north inner city; £986,220 for the south inner city, and £695,700 for Tallaght. The local drugs task forces will be notified by the national drugs strategy team of the individual allocations from each of these sums. The decision was based on the work of the Cabinet subcommittee on social exclusion and drugs. The total amount to be allocated comes to £4.9 million.
A Cheann Comhairle——
Order, I call Deputy Richard Bruton to be followed by Deputies De Rossa, Jim Higgins, Sargent, Naughten, Rabbitte, Hayes, Joe Higgins, Currie and Gregory in that order.
The Minister of State, whose work I admire, is admitting that under the chairmanship of the Taoiseach the campaign to address the drugs problem and the commitment to establish a £20 million fund have disintegrated——
Absolute nonsense.
——and that all we are left with is a commitment to provide £1.25 million?
The Government of which the Deputy was a member did not provide a red cent.
In a year when a commitment was given to provide £20 million to tackle the drugs problem the same sum was provided for a project at Croke Park which in no sense shares the priority attached to the committee which is addressing the problem of social exclusion. This indicates a strange set of priorities. On 15 October the Minister of State said he would finalise the £20 million fund with the Minister for Finance. Following their discussions, is the commitment to provide £20 million over a three year period still intact or has it disintegrated under the chairmanship of the Taoiseach?
The Deputy is out of order in suggesting the Taoiseach is not committed to the matters under discussion.
Actions speak louder than words.
With regard to the allocation of funding to the local drugs task forces, I have indicated the decision taken. With regard to the £20 million youth services development fund, that was an aspiration which was not backed by resources by the previous Administration.
It was a Cabinet decision.
It was to be provided over the three year period 1998-2000.
Regrettably, no finance was provided.
There was no Book of Estimates.
The Exchequer is awash with money.
The youth services development fund has now been established and funding has been provided to enable work to commence. As the Deputy well knows, in a matter such as this it may not be possible, as happened in the case of the local drugs task forces, to draw down all the available funds in the first year of operation for a variety of reasons. We have established the fund and provided the requisite seed capital. If later, during the year, it is found that everything is in order, the matter of additional funding can be examined. The important decision was to establish the fund, thus implementing a decision of the previous Government in respect of which no funding had been provided.
A mirage, not a rainbow.
Will the Minister admit to the House that the amount of money he announced for the drug task forces today was that already committed for that purpose in the preceding Government's January 1997 budget, that he is merely implementing a decision of his predecessors and approving projects recommended by the task forces? Will he come clean and state clearly that the Government has now abandoned its predecessor's decision to provide £20 million over a three year period, commencing in 1998, for youth services designed to tackle the drugs problem? Does he also agree that all we have heard from him so far has been waffle, while the redevelopment of Croke Park has been allocated £20 million, accompanied by a reduction in the £20 million commitment to tackling the drugs problem to £1.25 million, and children in this city die through abuse by drug pushers and dealers? That is an utter disgrace, especially since that Cabinet Committee on Social Inclusion and Drugs is chaired by the Taoiseach who represents one of the areas worst hit by drug abuse.
To contend that we have abandoned any aspect of the previous Government's approach to tackling the drugs problem is totally inaccurate because we have taken developments considerably further. It is an absolute commitment of the Taoiseach and the Cabinet Committee on Social Inclusion and Drugs to ascertain the position at ground level and tackle the causes of drugs misuse. That is the crucial task now confronting us. The resources are available this year provided by the previous Administration and, as the record will confirm, we shall continue to provide them in 1998 and 1999 to fund the local drugs task forces. The underlying causes of drugs abuse must be tackled. As I understand it, the previous Administration did not set itself the objective of tackling those causes which could remain regardless of what we do.
If the Minister believes that he has not read the reports.
I have read both reports.
Then the Minister is misleading the House.
In order to make significant progress beyond tackling the personal effects of drugs misuse, it is important that we tackle the underlying causes. That is what the Cabinet Committee on Social Inclusion and Drugs is all about.
Why does the Minister think the Government provided £20 million for youth services rather than tackle the root causes of the problem?
The Government, of which Deputy De Rossa was a member, did not provide any money. It was a mirage, just like the rainbow.
Waffle.
Is the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs a member of that committee?
Deputy De Rossa should resume his seat while the Minister is replying. Deputies, please allow the Minister to complete his answer.
Order, please. Deputies are aware of the large number of questions tabled. In fairness to their colleagues who may wish to pursue them further by way of supplementary questions, I appeal to them to refrain from interrupting the Minister.
On the matter of the youth services development fund, I have already stated on a number of occasions that the Government has taken a decision to establish that fund——
But not the money.
——and provided £1.25 million to get it under way. At the end of three years——
It might not last that long.
If the Deputy wants to check the record, he is very willing to do so but he should not presume at this point that that fund will not be properly resourced and will not have the considerable impact expected.
(Mayo): Does the Minister not recognise that the task force concluded that this second drugs epidemic is worse than that of the early 1980s? Does he not agree that the time for pilot projects and examination of its causes has long since passed, that what is needed is positive action since we know the problem, its causes and cures? Is he aware the report laid down in straightforward terms that what is needed is positive action by way of diversionary programmes, recreational facilities, youth training programmes and job opportunities? In ghettos of this city there are no job opportunities or training programmes, there is no sustained thrust or dynamic approach to tackling the drugs problem and there is no hope. The amount announced by the Minister of State, whether it is £1.25 million or £4.9 million, is hopelessly inadequate in the context of the problem.
The Deputies opposite let it get out of control and they should be ashamed of themselves for leaving this mess. The drugs problem got out of control because of the scandalous neglect by the previous Government.
The Minister of State is not even a member of that committee. He is the hapless Minister of State with responsibility for housing.
Order, please.
The Progressive Democrats will end up in the skip very soon.
They are in the skip to Carlow.
As Minister of State with responsibility for the national drugs strategy team I have to deal with the position as I find it. Bearing in mind that the task force areas have been ravaged by the effects of drugs misuse and specifically require direct intervention——
The Minister of State has cut the money for youth services recommended by the report on the matter.
——we are proceeding to implement strategies to fund local drugs strategy teams. We have taken a decision to do that. The establishment of the youth services development fund will begin the process of directing resources into those areas precisely for the reasons referred to by Deputy Higgins, to try to divert youth from becoming involved in drug misuse and abuse.
Social exclusion and the no hope syndrome to which the Deputy referred are difficult areas which the Administration of which his party was a member, and others, neglected for a very long time.
Does the Minister of State propose to do that by cutting the top rate of tax?
I make no apology for that and I accept this side of the House has had some responsibility in that regard as well. If we are to tackle the causes which give rise to drug misuse, we must do so as well as implementing the recommendations of local task forces, which we are doing and which we are continuing to fund along the lines recommended by the previous Administration.
That is all waffle.
It is a fact. The £10 million allocation in 1998 may be waffle in Deputy De Rossa's view, but that is the figure he and the Administration of which he was a member suggested we should make available and we are doing so. I have given the Deputy information this afternoon on the final allocations for that sum of money.
That money was there. The money the Minister of State should have been providing is not there.
The underlying causes of social exclusion must be tackled. It is in areas suffering massive exclusion and disadvantage that misuse of drugs, particularly heroin abuse, has taken hold. Unless we are prepared to tackle those problems in a co-ordinated way we will not make progress. That is the responsibility I have in terms of local development and I also have responsibility for the national drugs strategy team.
Will the Minister of State tell us how cutting the top rate of tax will achieve that?
Did the Minister of State hear the report on the RTE one o'clock news today of residents from Ballybough in Dublin who are outraged by the scant allocation of £1.25 million to the youth services development fund in contrast to the £20 million allocation for Croke Park? In light of that can he give an assurance in this regard to regain some of the credibility the Government has lost? Will the Cabinet sub-committee meet regularly and, if so, how often? Will the £20 million recommended as a minimum be allocated over the period recommended? As the money allocated will be for certain geographical areas, can he say what identifiable target groups will be involved? Will voluntary youth organisations be involved in the process? Will he bear in mind that the geographical areas he mentioned do not include areas outside the remit of Operation Dóchas? These are being increasingly invaded by the notorious drug dealers evicted from Operation Dóchas areas who are now preying on peripheral areas such as my constituency.
As Ballybough is an area in the north inner city, I have allocated £770,000 to support the efforts of the local drugs task force. That is not an insignificant amount and it is replicated in a number of other areas. Social exclusion must be tackled, including in the area referred to by the Deputy. That is my commitment. It is why we will begin the process arising out of the decision I referred to in the budget.
What funding has been made available for combating drugs misuse from the seizure of assets by the Criminal Assets Bureau? Why has it taken more than six months for the Government to get soundings, without a money commitment from the corporate sector? How long more will it take for the corporate sector to commit money? When did the Cabinet subcommittee meet to discuss these issues and make these decisions?
Replying to questions in the House on 15 October, the Minister of State said he was still in favour of the £20 million funding. When did the Government engage in a U-turn on this? The Minister of State referred to areas of massive disadvantage throughout this city and the rest of the country. However, the country is at a massive disadvantage because of the position taken by the Government and the lack of funding to combat this problem.
The funding we indicated would be available has been made available. The announcements I made this afternoon confirm the Government's intention to continue with the implementation of the local drugs task forces projects. A decision by the Minister for Finance with regard to tax incentives for the corporate sector will assist it in making funding available to this area. It is an important decision and is part of the process whereby the corporate sector can feed finance into the area under discussion.
What about money from the Criminal Assets Bureau?
A great deal is beginning to happen in the fight against the misuse of drugs and in addressing the underlying causes for those areas ravaged by drugs.
Does the Minister of State agree it is not desirable, either in the answers or the questions, to confuse the moneys allocated to the local drugs task forces and the youth services development fund? They are two distinct and separate matters. Does he agree the previous Government allocated £14 million to underpin the work of the local drugs task forces, £3 million of which was allocated towards State refurbishment by my colleague, the then Minister of State, Deputy McManus, at the same time as she approved the project in Carlow which the Minister of State at the Department of the Environment and Local Government, Deputy Molloy, reversed? Some £1 million of it went to combat non-opiate abuse outside Dublin and £10 million went to underpin the work of the task forces, the first tranche of which was allocated at the beginning of this year. Does he agree that some of the money he has now announced is in the second tranche of that allocation?
Does the Minister of State also agree that the youth services development fund is a separate objective? Is it not the case that that recommendation, which I think was made in May by the previous Government, could not have been provided for since the Book of Estimates was not to be published until October? Is it not the case that the entire contribution of this Government towards that objective is £1.25 million?
If the Cabinet sub-committee met more frequently, it could have its discussions in the Cabinet room. The Minister's colleagues should not distract him because, like Deputy Richard Bruton, I have a lot of regard for him personally and for his commitment to this issue. However, he ought not trade on that in this House.
If he found there was nothing left in the bag when the rest of his colleagues were finished with it, he must tell this House that.
A question, please.
I have no difficulty asking a question, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle. Is it not the case that the meeting of the Cabinet sub-committee, to which the Minister referred, was the meeting when it was founded which the Taoiseach told me about in this House? Did it meet before the budget? Was specific provision made in the prebudget planning for drugs eradication or was that the only time the sub-committee met? Is it not the case, at a time when the Minister for Finance was scattering money around like confetti in order to bring it into 1997, that all Minister Flood got out of it was £1.25 million?
The Minister cannot confer.
Brevity please, Deputy Rabbitte.
On the one hand you want me to ask questions, but when I ask questions you want brevity.
The Deputy is imparting information to the Minister.
A Leas-Cheann Comhairle, do you accept that, after waiting six weeks to have these questions answered, the answers we have had so far indicate why they should be taken on a weekly basis and that adequate time should be given to them? The House is appalled at what it has learned today.
Deputy Rabbitte, I am asking you to ask the Minister a question.
Is the Minister aware of the disenchantment inside and outside the House after today's performance?
He has just allocated more money.
Please, allow Deputy Rabbitte to ask his question.
If this is what the cavalry amounts to, I am afraid its too bad. The question remains, is £1.25 million the only commitment of this Government to this problem? Is it not the case that, of the £400 million which the Minister for Finance added to spending in 1997, Minister Flood received only £1.25 million? Will the Minister state specifically the guidelines for accessing that amount of money? Is it his intention as a result of today's debate to ensure that the Cabinet sub-committee is reconvened to look at the very urgent need to set up facilities to distract youth from falling into the habit of drug abuse, which cannot be addressed with £1.25 million? It is not possible to do it for £1.25 million.
I assure the Deputy that the Cabinet sub-committee to which he referred met well in advance of the final budgetary decisions.
When did it meet?
It met in October.
Then it met twice.
It met informally several times for the budget. The Deputy has been there. He should know by this stage.
I was wondering why Deputy Woods was in the Cabinet.
It met on 8 October 1997.
The Minister without interruption.
I am anxious to impart further information to Deputy Rabbitte. If given an opportunity I will do so. In so far as the guidelines are concerned, the particular scheme will be drawn up by the Department of Education and Science and will come to the Cabinet sub-committee to be finalised. The allocation, including the guidelines, etc., will be emanating from the Cabinet sub-committee on social exclusion so we will still be centrally involved in that particular issue.
The Deputy raised the question of the amount of money obtained, as he put it, by me. We have provided £10 million for 1998 to continue the work of the local drugs task forces and that is not an insignificant amount of money.
I agree.
A decision has been obtained from the Government to establish the youth services development fund and provide the seed capital to get it under way. The Minister for Finance's decision to provide tax incentives to those who wish to make donations or contributions will be of assistance.
The drug problem will not be solved by charitable donations.
The Deputy is aware that such donations will make a contribution.
When will the fund be put in place?
It will be put in place immediately.
The Minister of State indicated that the Department of Education and Science will be provided with a block sum of £1.25 million to spend on mainline, online services in youth provision during the next years. Will the Department be given any directions in respect of that money so that it will be targeted at the worst affected areas? How will the committee ensure that this is done?
Will the Minister of State ask the Taoiseach to invite the Minister of State at the Department of the Environment and Local Government, Deputy Molloy, to join the Cabinet sub-committee? As Deputy Molloy has direct responsibility for homelessness, does the Minister of State not agree that his colleague should be a member of the committee so that he will become considerably more knowledgeable than at present?
Deputy Hayes has much to learn.
That depends on what the Minister of State means by the term "much to learn".
In so far as the utilisation of the youth services development fund is concerned, guidelines must be drawn up. However, there is a specific requirement that the money be targeted at areas of most disadvantage. These areas are clearly covered by the local task forces with regard to the misuse of drugs. That continues to be a fundamental requirement in respect of the allocation of the funding in question. With regard to membership of the Cabinet sub-committee, all strands seeking to make a contribution to the alleviation of social exclusion are adequately and ably represented.
That concludes questions to the Taoiseach.
(Dublin West): I must draw the Leas-Cheann Comhairle's attention to the fact that, before leaving the Chamber, the Ceann Comhairle placed the names of Deputy Gregory and myself on the list for supplementary questions.
There are a number of Members on the list, including Deputies Conor Lenihan and Currie.
(Dublin West): We have waited 50 minutes to ask supplementary questions on this issue.
On a point of order, the Ceann Comhairle agreed to take supplementary questions from the remaining Deputies. The question I tabled is listed on the Order Paper and, as a result, I am sure I am entitled to ask a supplementary question. However, before he left, the Ceann Comhairle agreed to take supplementary questions from a number of Deputies who indicated a desire to ask them.
A number of Deputies have offered but, under Standing Orders, questions to the Taoiseach should have concluded at 3.19 p.m. We are already five minutes over time. Priority questions must be taken now. In fairness to Deputies who submitted ordinary questions to the Minister for Public Enterprise, it is important that we do not overstep the time allocated for questions to the Taoiseach.
Is the Leas-Cheann Comhairle overruling the Ceann Comhairle?
No, I am not.
The Ceann Comhairle named the Deputies he intended to call.
On a point of information, the Ceann Comhairle named the Deputies involved.
I presume he indicated he would call them, subject to the time available.
He did not say that, he said he would call each Deputy.
In fairness to the Deputies who submitted questions to the Minister for Public Enterprise——
(Dublin West): I tabled a question to the Minister for Public Enterprise. However, I have been present for the past 50 minutes while my community was discussed without the opportunity to ask the Minister of State a number of questions. In fairness, the Ceann Comhairle named a number of Deputies and indicated he would call them.
If the Ceann Comhairle named them, I have no problem taking their questions.
On a point of order, if one or two of the Deputies in question are allowed to——
I intend to call on each Deputy whose name is on the list.
On a further point of order, the time has been exhausted because Deputy Rabbitte asked elongated questions which amounted to speeches. It was for that reason that other Deputies could not ask supplementary questions.
I notice Deputy Lenihan waited until Deputy Rabbitte left the House before making that statement.
(Dublin West): It is nauseating to see certain parties using the heroin crisis as a means to trade insults across the floor of the Dáil. I have seen the suffering caused by that crisis which was caused by the neglect of the political and economic establishment and six successive Governments. Will the Minister of State indicate if the Taoiseach was present when the Cabinet Sub-committee on Social Inclusion and Drugs met? As chairman of that sub-committee, why has the Taoiseach not appeared in the House with the Minister of State to provide answers on these crucial issues when he gives replies each week on matters which are relatively trivial? I put it to the Minister of State that the fact that one meeting has been held shows that the Government is not really aware of the desperate suffering caused by the heroin crisis which continues to affect communities.
The waiting lists about which the Minister of State provided information show that 367 people were on the Eastern Health Board waiting list in October. Does he agree that this is completely out of touch with the reality? A recent study carried out in Finglas shows that increasing numbers of young people are smoking heroin and have become addicted to it, but they have not been placed on any waiting lists. There is a real need for the Government to take emergency action in respect of this crisis.
With regard to the financing of the youth services development fund, is it not pathetic for the Government to be seeking handouts from big business for paltry amounts a week after handing back £15 million per year to the two biggest banks through reductions in corporation tax?
If any insults were traded in the House on this issue, I wish to place on record that I was not responsible. I would not engage in such activity, because of the suffering experienced by those who misuse drugs, their families or communities.
The Taoiseach was present and chaired the committee meeting on social exclusion. He drove the proceedings forward and challenged everyone to meet their responsibilities in this regard.
Deputy Higgins referred to the Eastern Health Board waiting list. The Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Cowen, is responsible for that health board and would be better placed to provide more detailed information. I agree there is an urgent need to establish the precise situation in respect of levels of addiction and the waiting lists to which the Deputy referred. That information should be available from the Minister for Health and Children, through the Eastern Health Board. I will convey the Deputy's request for that information to Deputy Cowen. I am not trying to avoid the issue, I merely do not have access to the information requested.
The youth services development fund is an important tool in the fight against drug misuse and in dealing with the need to divert young people in areas of great disadvantage from becoming involved in such misuse. Consequently, I believe the fund is complementary to the work of the local drugs task forces.
Does the Minister of State agree that there are some matters, namely, Northern Ireland and the drugs crisis which, because of their gravity, should be above party politics? Would he agree that anyone looking at the drugs crisis in order to determine the Government's priority and commitment will note that the Taoiseach's committee has met on one occasion — 8 October — since this Government came into power? Does that not indicate a lack of priority which, I say more in sorrow than anger, is scandalous in the circumstances?
My next question may be helpful to the Minister. Why is it that a Minister of State at the Department of Tourism, Sport and Recreation has been given prominence in this anti-drugs drive? Previously this issue was driven and led by the Department of Health, as it used to be called. Is it because of infighting, power struggles or empire building that this role has been taken from the Department of Health and Children and given to the Department of Education and Science, which was seriously deficient in its discharge of past responsibilities in this area?
The drugs crisis should be above party politics but that is not to suggest that Deputies should not challenge on these issues. They should, and that has been done this afternoon.
One meeting in six months.
I am coming to that. The Cabinet sub-committee has met but between meetings the range of issues in its remit is progressed by the Ministers or representatives on that sub-committee.
Then why have a sub-committee?
That does not mean the work stops.
The former Minister knows how committees work. When those who attend such meetings leave that does not mean their work ends — in fact it begins.
So the Government started work on this on 8 October?
The committee drives forward the tackling of issues and deals with policy issues as they arise. It is for the constituent members of the committee to get on with the work, which is what I am doing as the person responsible for the national drugs strategy team and for local development.
I respect the Minister's work and commitment but he has done himself a disservice in taking the rap for the Taoiseach, who is the chairman of this Cabinet sub-committee
A question please, Deputy.
It is a difficult job but the Minister is trying his best. Will he clarify whether the youth services fund was discussed at the only meeting of the Cabinet sub-committee. If so, was the amount to be allocated to it discussed? Did the sub-committee take the decision to cut the youth services fund from £20 million to £1.25 million so that the Taoiseach could give £20 million to Croke Park? That is how people in deprived communities will see it. Does the Minister agree he cannot do the job for which he has been given responsibility with £1.25 million? To quote himself, he cannot tackle the underlying causes of the drug problem in Dublin, never mind the whole country, with that sum. If I were in his position I would resign because I would accept that I could not do the job.
A supplementary question is to elicit information from the Minister, not to give it.
To suggest that I would walk away from a challenge or a difficult task is not to understand how I conduct my business as a public representative.
The Government has walked away by cutting the fund to a miserable amount of money.
We have not walked away. Regarding the work of the Cabinet sub-committee, I understand it is the policy not to disclose specific discussions, rather to convey decisions taken through the Cabinet in the normal way. As to tackling the issue mentioned by the Deputy, if I had £20 million for the youth services development fund it would not make a significant impact on the problem. He knows well from his long experience in this area that it is the underlying causes we must tackle. If we do not do so in a co-ordinated way, we will make no progress — we will simply heal one generation of drug misusers and inherit another. That is not the way to tackle this issue. In communities covered by the task force areas, we must first provide for current needs through the local task forces, which we are doing and, more importantly, we must find out why individual, clearly identifiable communities have suffered the ravages of drug misuse, particularly heroin misuse, when other communities have not been so affected. When we find the answers, which I feel we have——
The Minister knows the answers and also knows he needs money to deal with the matter.
——and deliver the co-ordination of services and target the resources to those areas, we will deal with the underlying causes. We will then make significant progress, first in healing those who currently suffer the effects of drug misuse and second in putting in place structures, services and resources which will prevent new people encountering drugs.
I welcome the Minister's presence to answer questions on the issue. Does the Minister favour having fewer Cabinet sub-committee meetings and more of a "ground-up" approach to the drugs problem — that is, solving it in local areas, rather than the "top-down" approach which Deputy Gregory seems to advocate? Will he spell out the co-ordinating role he plays in the sub-committee and confirm that he co-ordinates activities between meetings? Will he also give a detailed breakdown of the Clondalkin and Tallaght allocations?
Meetings of the sub-committee deal with policy issues and drive forward our attack on social exclusion. The constituent members of the sub-committee should be and are tackling that issue. Tallaght received an allocation of £695,700 and Clondalkin received £943,000, which sums were to complete the implementation of the original recommendations of the task force.
