As Deputy McGinley is not present, we will move on to Priority Question No. 2 in the name of Deputy O'Shea.
Priority Questions.
Foras na Gaeilge.
Brian O'Shea
Ceist:2 Mr. O’Shea asked the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs if his attention has been drawn to widespread dissatisfaction with and loss of confidence in Foras na Gaeilge among Irish language organisations; if he plans to take action urgently to address this situation; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5857/05]
Deputies will agree with me that Foras na Gaeilge is doing important work in promoting the advancement of the Irish language throughout the island of Ireland and that the activities of the voluntary organisations are a fundamental part of that. It is essential, therefore, that there be an effective partnership in place between Foras and the voluntary organisations in order that their common aims in relation to the Irish language can be achieved. That principle of partnership is specifically recognised in the business plan of Foras. In that context, I was disappointed that division arose between Foras and the voluntary organisations, which related primarily, as I understand, to a new system the Foras has introduced in relation to the funding of the organisations.
The Deputies will understand that it is a question for Foras na Gaeilge to make decisions on the awarding of grants in accordance with the legislative framework within which it operates and in accordance with its corporate and business plans. I need hardly add that it is imperative that good governance should be applied by both Foras and the voluntary organisations in the expenditure of public moneys and proper accountability for that funding.
I understand that there have been recent meetings between a representative group from the voluntary organisations, in addition to the voluntary groups themselves, with Foras to discuss these issues. There has also been a meeting between representatives of the organisations and officials of my Department to discuss this matter. I am advised that a consultative process is under way at present between Foras and the voluntary organisations with the aim of resolving this matter. Officials of my Department will be available, if appropriate, to assist the process in any way possible.
I thank the Minister for his reply. I purposely tabled this question in English because there are many people who are favourable towards the Irish language but whose standard of Irish is not sufficient to follow a debate such as this.
I found it disturbing to recently read of a survey carried out by Foinse of 30 organisations dealing with the Irish language. There was unilateral condemnation of the way Foras is working. Matters raised included a lack of strategy and understanding, and too much secrecy. The organisations felt there was no proper dialogue between them and Foras.
Lately, the Minister has made some moves in this regard but he should have been more on top of what was happening before matters developed to this stage. For 30 organisations to be so negative towards Foras in a survey is a bad development in terms of the Irish language. Will the Minister state exactly what he will do to ensure this situation is rectified quickly in regard to the promotion and development of the Irish language in the future?
I once again stress that Foras na Gaeilge operates under a clear legislative framework. The role of the Ministers — the two Ministers effectively act jointly in relation to Foras — is quite clear. What is also patently clear is that, subject to operating within the business plan and proper procedures, Foras is free to make its own day to day decisions and it would be inappropriate for the Minister to interfere unduly on two grounds. First, it is an independent body with its own board and, second, as I pointed out, it is a North-South body and, therefore, it takes two Ministers to make decisions on Foras. Every decision made in the context of An Foras Teanga, which comprises the Ulster-Scots Agency and Foras na Gaeilge, is made and signed off jointly by the two Ministers. I have called publicly on both Foras na Gaeilge and the organisations to work in a spirit of partnership. If appropriate my Department is willing to facilitate the process. However, it is out of the question that the Minister would give orders in this case as it would be beyond his powers.
I do not accept what the Minister has said. When an organisation is performing as badly as the organisations with which it deals have made clear in a recent survey, there is a need to intervene. For instance, it might be necessary to consider the board and its constitution. It is possible for the Minister to take action. It is unacceptable and would be very bad for the development of the Irish language if this problem were not addressed quickly.
It is a purely subjective value judgment as to how well or badly the Foras is operating. The Deputy is clearly basing his judgment on the survey of organisations carried out by Foinse. I must consider whether and how Foras operates within its business plan. As long as it operates within this plan and has followed good procedure, the Minister has no role in the matter. The Opposition’s approach to State agencies is a bit of a pick and mix. Sometimes the Opposition calls on us to stand back and have independent agencies. On other days when those independent agencies make decisions with which the public might not be too happy, politicians are called upon to interfere in matters that do not come within their ambit. I try to steer a proper middle road in these issues.
I am clear as to my role and have fulfilled it totally. However, I need to be very careful, as a very bad precedent would be created if I overstepped my role. I understand that since the article was published discussions have taken place. I agree with the Deputy that it is very bad for the image of the Irish language to have warring factions arguing over issues such as this. I have urged both Foras na Gaeilge and the various organisations involved to sit down and thrash out whatever difficulties they have. In doing that I hope they will resolve the issues. Change in the system of funding is taking place and it is a normal human reaction to find change difficult.
I call Question No. 3.
As I understand it——
We have exceeded the six minutes.
I have one brief supplementary question. I understand no annual report has been published since 1999, which must be of concern to the Minister and surely he should intervene.
The Deputy has made his point and we must move on.
An bhfuil cead agam an cheist a fhreagairt?
I will allow the Minister to reply.
While the annual report forms part of the accounts, an Foras Teanga must submit them. Foras na Gaeilge has made accounts available for 2001, 2002 and 2003 to the Comptroller and Auditor General. A very complicated system of bringing the accounts together exists as two sections are involved. These accounts will be published as quickly as possible. Once one set has been completed, we will have the template for following with those for 2001, 2002 and 2003. I would like to clarify that——
The time has concluded and I ask the Minister to give way to the Minister of State to answer Question No. 3.
National Drugs Strategy.
Seán Crowe
Ceist:3 Mr. Crowe asked the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs if he will report on Government plans to combat the worst case drugs scenario for the country, namely the establishment of a crack cocaine culture in Dublin city, following the revelations that Ireland now has the second highest rate of cocaine use in Europe and the recent highly publicised arrest of two crack cocaine importers. [5895/05]
On the prevalence of cocaine use in Ireland, I believe the Deputy is referring to the figures recently reported by the Council of Europe. The figures quoted in this report are based on the UN World Drugs Report, which was released last year. These statistics are not based on the NACD-DAIRU drug prevalence survey, which is generally regarded as the most reliable baseline data on drug prevalence in Ireland. I am confident that through the implementation of the actions in the national drugs strategy and through projects and initiatives operated through the local drugs task force, the problem of cocaine use can be addressed. All the local drugs task forces have an action plan to tackle drug use in their area based on their own identified priorities and they continue to have regular contact with the local communities in which they are based. The projects deal with supply reduction, prevention, treatment and rehabilitation for a range of drugs, including cocaine.
If cocaine use is seen as an emerging problem in local drugs task force communities, task forces can develop proposals and apply for funding under the emerging needs fund, which I announced last month. Task forces have been invited to submit applications to the national drugs strategy team for consideration by the end of March.
I have visited a number of local drugs task force areas over the past year. I have discussed the nature of the drug problem in such areas, including the issue of cocaine, with community representatives and others. Arising from work conducted by the national drugs strategy team on this issue, I recently approved funding of almost €400,000 for a number of pilot cocaine projects, which are being rolled out in selected task force areas. The Deputy is aware that one of the pilot projects is in the Tallaght area. It is being developed by the Killinarden community addiction response project in conjunction with St. Dominic's and is targeted at intranasal cocaine users. I will examine the outcome of the projects closely over the coming months.
The Deputy is aware that there is no substitution treatment drug for cocaine. Existing services such as counselling and behavioural therapy are the best treatments available. It should be noted that the health services have recruited additional counsellors and outreach workers in recent years. On the prevention side, the national awareness campaign on drugs recently addressed the issue of cocaine as part of a well-received campaign. The campaign aims to tackle the perception that cocaine use is safe.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House.
The Garda and the Customs and Excise continue to target cocaine dealers and have significantly increased cocaine seizures in recent years. The mid-term review of the strategy, which is ongoing, will enable priorities for further action to be identified and the strategy to be refocused, if necessary, in the remaining period up to 2008. The need to amend the strategy to reflect changing patterns of drug use will be considered in this context.
I am sure the Deputy is aware that issues regarding supply reduction are primarily the responsibility of my colleague, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform. I understand there was just one confirmed seizure of crack cocaine in 2004 amounting to 2 g. One person is before the courts at present in respect of this offence. I assure the Deputy that the Government will continue to monitor the situation closely.
I thank the Minister of State for his detailed reply. We could discuss the extent of this country's drugs problem for a couple of minutes, but I am sure the Minister of State is aware that no towns or villages are untouched by drugs, particularly the new drug, cocaine. Communities are worried that the State will be slow to respond to the cocaine problem, as it was during the heroin epidemic of recent years.
Has the Minister of State discussed the need for an awareness programme with IBEC and the trade union movement? There is evidence of a great deal of cocaine use in the construction industry. The lack of such an awareness campaign is part of the cocaine problem. Can the Minister of State make any proposals to assist the owners of pubs and clubs in which cocaine is sold? The sale of cocaine is widespread, particularly in working class areas but also in middle class areas. Can anything be done to prevent cisterns being used in clubs, for example? I am told that a type of paint that is being used——
A question please, Deputy.
I would like to ask about the training of those involved in cocaine projects. For some reason, the Minister of State has asked the task force to identify such individuals. What were the reasons for that? Why were the projects not advertised? Will funding for emerging needs be used to help those already responding to cocaine use? Will we have to wait for up to six months until the projects mentioned by the Minister of State, including a project in my local area, have been evaluated? Will the evaluation be ongoing? How will it be worked out? How will it tie in with the work of the task force?
I understand that various projects are under way, for example relating to those who inject cocaine, those involved in the sex trade and poly-drug users. How were the four projects decided on? I note that they are mainly based in the Dublin area. There is a problem with——
We have used almost six minutes on this question.
I accept that cocaine use is a growing problem. That is why we introduced the four projects. I mentioned the one in the Deputy's area. All four projects are in Dublin and one of them concerns the training and upskilling of people in statutory employment and local drugs task forces to deal with what is a new and growing problem. Cocaine use does not show up much in overall national surveys, but I accept it is a significant issue. The pilot projects will continue to be such for six or nine months to determine whether they are good and valuable and whether they help people on the ground.
We announced the emerging needs fund and other projects that the local drugs task forces want to put forward in this regard. They will have the opportunity to do so. A very good awareness campaign was engaged in lately. It targeted nightclubs and pubs and tried through the use of beer mats to get the message through to people.
We are not being slow. Some complained we were moving too quickly. We are trying to move forward by way of partnership whereby all community groups involved will be with us. We have extra funding this year and have asked for suggestions regarding initiatives the groups want to implement locally. We are trying to act on this and I hope we can deal with the problem.
I understand Deputy McGinley is unavoidably absent and therefore we will proceed to Question No. 5 in the name of Deputy O'Shea.
I had proposed to take Questions Nos. 4 and 5 together anyway.
Voluntary Sector Organisations.
Dinny McGinley
Ceist:4 Mr. McGinley asked the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs if he has satisfied himself that his Department is doing enough to facilitate the development of the community and voluntary sector as an independent voice in the community; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5999/05]
Brian O'Shea
Ceist:5 Mr. O’Shea asked the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs the reason the Community Workers Co-operative, of the ten national anti-poverty networks which have been funded under the national anti-poverty networks programme since 1993, has been told that it will have its funding withdrawn; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5858/05]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 4 and 5 together.
Funding of anti-poverty networks arises from the White Paper on a framework for supporting voluntary activity and was originally administered by the Combat Poverty Agency on a three-year contract basis. This function transferred to the Department from that agency late in 2003. The Department sought work plans for 2004 from each of the ten anti-poverty networks funded under the White Paper and, pending review, agreed in the circumstances to extend funding for 2004 on a one-year contract basis.
As I stated on the Adjournment debate on this issue last month, the Department was established by Government in June 2002 with a mandate to produce a more co-ordinated engagement by the State with communities throughout the country as they pursue their own development. In establishing the Department, it is clear that the Government was placing a focus on communities, particularly those that are vulnerable or under threat. In such cases, the provision of support to enable communities to identify and address problems in their own areas is seen as the best way forward. Those communities may be in rural or inner city settings, grappling with difficulties caused by a range of factors, including declining population, unemployment, language issues, social disadvantage or drug misuse. While most such communities or groups of communities can be defined in terms of geographic location, others will be defined on the basis of a common focus on a particular issue such as unemployment, disability or lone parenting.
The Department's commitment in the context of the anti-poverty networks is to focus on concentrating available resources on support for communities experiencing disadvantage, exclusion and isolation. In line with this commitment, I decided to continue funding for nine anti-poverty networks in the amount of €1.35 million for 2005. This represents a 5% increase over the figure for 2004 for the networks concerned. However, as I indicated in my reply to Question No. 216 and related questions on this issue on 1 February 2005, in the context of focusing the Department's resources on disadvantaged communities, continued funding of the Community Workers Co-operative could not be justified.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House.
There is in existence a well-developed structure providing supports to the sector. For example, the Department will spend €2.3 million in 2005 on six regional support agencies in support of the community support projects. In addition, it funds 38 partnership companies to the tune of €45.7 million, 185 community development projects to the tune of €20.1 million and 32 community partnerships. Moreover, under the White Paper on a framework for supporting voluntary activity, 66 networks and federations, including the national anti-poverty networks, are supported to the tune of €4.2 million.
The Community Workers Co-operative differs from the other groups funded under the national anti-poverty networks in that they mainly deal with specific target groups. Other anti-poverty networks that will continue to receive funding have a specific focus on matters such as Travellers, unemployment, refugees and rural disadvantage. The Community Workers Co-operative is the voice of community workers rather than disadvantaged communities and its functions overlap with those of other networks. As such, it fails to meet a number of the key criteria suggested by the White Paper on supporting voluntary activity. These criteria include a membership base that ensures the voice of disadvantaged marginalised groups will find expression in relevant national fora, and individual networks should be genuinely representative and avoid unnecessary overlaps vis-à-vis each other.
No other factors, as suggested by some Deputies, were involved in my decision. As I stated previously, funding of the Community Workers Co-operative to June 2005 in the amount of €358,413 under the PEACE programme for the Towards Achieving Social Change project is not affected by this decision.
On the development of the community and voluntary sector, the details of my reply to Question No. 187 on 16 February 2005 confirm my commitment to and support for the community and voluntary sector generally. That reply gave details of €7 million in funding to the sector in addition to the range of indirect supports provided through area partnerships, LEADER companies, community partnerships, community support projects and local drugs task forces.
The Minister of State's withdrawal of funding from the Community Workers Co-operative is regarded as vindictive in some quarters. The co-operative organises the community platform, which is made up 25 organisations that deal with poverty and equality issues. The organisation did not give its support to Sustaining Progress. Many people see a sinister side to this decision. The CWC is an independent voice that criticises Government policies if it feels they are not serving their intended purposes. Will the Minister of State assure me that this is not a vindictive action and an attempt to silence an organisation that is critical?
The Minister of State referred to the ten networks, nine of which wrote to him asking that the funding be restored to the CWC. Every organisation dealing with poverty and exclusion has done likewise. This decision is inexplicable to most people in the sector and is deeply regretted. I appeal to the Minister of State to reconsider his decision and listen to the people who value this organisation which recently held regional seminars on those issues at which money is directed. The decision does not make sense. I want an assurance that there is nothing sinister or vindictive in it.
I assure the Deputy there is nothing vindictive or sinister in this decision. It was taken because the Department decided to focus its resources chiefly on the communities suffering disadvantage and isolation. We do not take decisions lightly, for good or bad. The other nine networks deal with specific groups: refugees, the unemployed, lone parents, people living in rural isolation, Travellers etc. They are in a different category from the CWC.
We want to aim the resources at the groups which reach communities and deal directly with people. The CWC is the voice of those working in the communities rather than the communities themselves. The decision was taken to give the resources to those most affected in the communities and for no other reason.
For the Minister of State to say that the CWC is for workers is to misunderstand the nature of the organisation. It has 800 members. The Minister of State describes an organisation akin to a trade union. People in the sector are members of their respective trade unions but the CWC helps groups to co-ordinate or improve their focus.
Is the Minister of State impressed by the level of support for the CWC? Is he prepared to state his reasons for withdrawing the money and to reconsider it with an open mind, as he has conceded that mistakes can be made?
The Deputy may be right that some people see the CWC as being akin to a trade union, and maybe it is doing good work as trade unions do——
I said the opposite. I said that was the perception on the Minister of State's side.
A great deal of correspondence has been received which makes more or less the same point the Deputy did. We did not, however, decide lightly on this and I am not likely to reconsider it. We examined this issue fully before making a decision. The decision was made to concentrate resources on those most in need.
The other nine networks are very different from the CWC because each has a specific focus and deals with particular groups suffering disadvantage and isolation. The CWC has a different work plan. We could perhaps have made this decision a year ago when we took over the scheme because the White Paper stated that we should reassess and reconsider the issue after the three-year period. We did not have sufficient time to do so last year so we carried on the funding for one more year to give us time to examine the matter. Having closely examined the issue we have decided that the funds should be allocated to those most in need. Nine out of ten networks were funded but the one to which the Deputy referred has not.