The Deputy raises a number of issues and I will deal with them as precisely as I can. With regard to the drawdown of funding, the task forces were established in 1996 arising from the ministerial report and funding of £10 million was provided in 1997. There are somewhere in the order of 230 specific individual projects. These projects are essentially community based and that is one of the strengths of the approach in establishing the national drugs strategy team and in empowering local communities through the provision of resources. The projects were put forward and eventually approved in mid and late 1997. Projects were given an interim approval in mid 1997 and final approval by the end of 1997. The promoters had to come together in terms of putting in place the infrastructure which in some instances could involve seeking planning per mission for buildings and so on. There were misunderstandings in the local communities which had to be overcome.
There was the question of the recruitment of specialist staff by the individual projects which took some time. I assure the Deputy that there were no delays by the national drugs strategy team in making funding available through the channels of funding that were laid down on the original establishment of local drugs task forces. It has taken some local groups and organisations time to get up and running in order to draw down the funding. However, an erroneous impression may have been created that such funding remains unspent because it has not been drawn down. That is not the case because many local groups draw it down through the funding agency as required, otherwise they could not plan their projects, whether infrastructural or educational.
The funding continues to be drawn down at an increasing rate. It is interesting that more than 90 per cent of the funding which has not been drawn down relates to infrastructure. The Deputy asked what local health boards or local drugs task forces are doing to engage communities in the consultation process. A crucial difficulty relates to the expenditure of the final moneys for the provision of infrastructure for treatment and services, etc. There have been considerable objections to the provision of treatment facilities and services, some in my own area and those of other Members. These are being gradually overcome through the adoption of a more positive approach by the relevant health boards. In most cases, it is the Eastern Health Board and it engages more communities in consultation with the support of the local drugs task force.
Problems still remain and I appeal to all Members, where they are confronted with the possible provision of a treatment facility or service in their areas, to give leadership in encouraging communities to accept it while at the same time demanding that the local health board and drugs task force operate properly and provide representation on monitoring committees, etc., in these communities.