Vol. 616 No. 4
59 Mr. English asked the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs if he is satisfied with the amount spent on the RAPID scheme to date; his views on whether this programme will end on completion of the national development plan in 2006; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [11081/06]
I refer the Deputy to a previous reply to Question No. 11 of 29 June 2005.
As the Deputy will be aware, my Department, supported by Pobal, formerly known as Area Development Management, ADM, Limited, co-ordinates the implementation of the RAPID programme. It is, therefore, a matter for each Department to report on progress on the implementation of RAPID and details of funding allocations to the projects that fall within their remit.
However, Departments were asked in 2005 to track funding against specific projects submitted in RAPID plans from each area. I am informed by Pobal that Departments have, to date, reported spend of the order of €337 million in RAPID areas since the inception of the programme. It should be noted that this amount relates solely to specific projects in RAPID plans and does not include funding to RAPID areas by Departments, which are in addition to the RAPID plans.
As I stated previously, I believe that despite a slow start, the RAPID programme is now making a valuable contribution in disadvantaged communities. However, as the Deputy will appreciate, tackling disadvantage will require long-term commitment by Government and in this regard, I believe that the RAPID programme should continue beyond 2006.
The programme is now progressing on a number of levels in tandem and clearly the benefits at local level are becoming evident. In the first instance, many small-scale proposals from RAPID plans are now being dealt with more effectively at local level. A dedicated fund of €8.8 million has been put in place in 2006 to support small-scale capital projects through co-funding with other Departments or local agencies as appropriate. I announced a number of co-funded schemes this year.
As for the larger projects from RAPID plans that have already been submitted to Departments, these will continue to be considered for funding within existing funding streams in each Department. However, I expect that Departments will now be dealing with a smaller number of projects and will therefore be in a better position to prioritise projects and set out timescales for further actions. Work on improving integration and co-ordination of service delivery at local level will also continue as this is a key component of the RAPID programme.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House.
Special provision was made by the Government for RAPID areas under the dormant accounts plan. RAPID-drugs task force-CLÁR areas have benefited from 60.8% of the €63.1 million in funding allocated to date. The next round of the dormant accounts disbursement will provide approximately €11.5 million specifically to support priority projects in RAPID areas. Discussions are ongoing with Departments regarding prioritisation of other non-capital actions included in the AIT plans.
As the Deputy will be aware, the RAPID programme is running in conjunction with the National Development Plan 2000-2006. While no formal decisions have been taken on the lifetime of the RAPID programme, the indications are that it will continue post 2006.
I thank the Minister for the reply. I am conscious that we discussed this a few months ago but I am still trying to comprehend the RAPID programme, the commitments made under it and exactly how one will measure the achievements arising from it. While it is probably the right way to proceed, what can the Department do to measure the benefits of the programme and how good RAPID is? The Minister said it should continue after 2006. I agree, but I want to see exactly how this can be measured and the results coming from it.
That last time we spoke the review was to be undertaken by each Department and they have since come back stating they spent €337 million, according to the Minister. Did the Department give a measurement tool or what results were obtained from that process? Was the Department satisfied with the money spent or where can we improve on it?
What performance indicators is the Government setting down for the future? Some €377 million is a long way short of the €2 billion that was announced. We argued previously over who announced it, but it has been announced and we have proof of it.
It was never announced.
It might have been the Taoiseach, not the Minister, who announced it. From where exactly will the rest of this money come? Is the €2 billion figure to be reviewed or what is the target of spend under the RAPID programme? If it is not €2 billion, is it €1 billion or €800 million? What exactly is the figure and what does the Minister hope to achieve from it?
The RAPID programme was supposed to tackle social disadvantage etc. Unfortunately social disadvantage has worsened in the recent past. In that case, how can the Minister say the RAPID programme is working?
Some 60% of students leave school before completing the leaving certificate examination in many disadvantaged areas. That is evidence. The proof has been recorded. More than 1,000 children do not make it into secondary school from primary school and nobody can account for where they are or why they have left. More than 120,000 children still live in consistent poverty. Some 50,000 households are on local authority housing waiting lists. The UN report states that more than 600,000 or 15% of people in Ireland live below the poverty line or are at risk of poverty. With all this evidence, are we making progress? How does the Minister propose to prove in future that we are making progress, which is my biggest concern, and that we are getting value for money?
Perhaps the Deputy could do me a favour because I genuinely cannot find a reference to a sum in any of the statements made about RAPID at the beginning. On this famous statement, to which people keep referring, of somebody referring in some way to €2 billion, my suspicion — I cannot find the reference anywhere and I went looking — is that it said X amount of money was available for social inclusion measures in the national development plan, and that relates to the original RAPID programme and how we have changed it.
RAPID began as a re-prioritisation of existing spend on social inclusion measures under the national development plan so that it would be front-loaded in disadvantaged areas. Previously, under NDPs those who were best able to make the applications got the money and, therefore, we tried to make sure the funding under the national development plan would be allocated in RAPID areas. I suspect, in that context, funding for social inclusion was mentioned. However, I have looked up the press releases issued at the time and could not find a reference to this. It is difficult, therefore, to make a comparison with something I cannot find. It was not mentioned in the press releases when RAPID was established.
What are the spending plans?
The Deputy referred to performance indicators. While Pobal has commissioned a review, the most powerful performance indicator is the AITs in the communities. If I am told by the teams the programme is working, I have much more faith in that than all the commentary of the external gurus.
I accept the Minister's comment on performance indicators but I have also received bad reports on the ground from people involved.
Tralee AIT made a powerful presentation to the national monitoring committee recently. One of the speakers said they were doubters of the process but that it had worked. It is working because many different strands have been added to it and every allocation has had an immediate effect on the ground because communities are given confidence that they can influence issues. These areas have been prioritised under the dormant accounts fund, which gives them specific money to spend. We have pushed hard on the co-ordination. The Deputy referred to many statistics but both of us know it will not be easy to solve this problem. We have laid good foundations on which to build. The four or five communities involved would not want us to scrap these foundations and move in a new direction because that always happened in the past. They want us to build and improve.
60 Mr. O’Shea asked the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs his views on amending the Dormant Accounts Act 2001 to allow emigrant organisations to seek funding from the dormant accounts fund; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [10958/06]
I have no plans to introduce further dormant accounts legislation. As I indicated in reply to Question No. 913 on this topic on 25 January 2006, the Government is fully committed to providing supports to vulnerable Irish communities living abroad. This commitment is clearly demonstrated by the allocation of significant funding directly from the Exchequer to support emigrant organisations. In 2005 alone, more than €8.25 million was allocated for such services and this figure will increase by 45% in 2006 to more than €12 million. This allocation demonstrates the Government's continued commitment to funding emigrant organisations without the need to expend time and resources on new legislation or to specifically earmark dormant accounts funding.
With regard to the dormant accounts fund, disbursements are designed to assist three broad categories of persons, those who are economically or socially disadvantaged, those who are educationally disadvantaged and persons with a disability. In light of the significant funding for emigrant organisations as outlined above, I intend that allocations from dormant accounts in 2006 will remain focused on tackling disadvantage in Ireland. In this regard, following Government approval, I announced details on 4 January 2006 concerning the allocation of €24 million for the purpose of supporting programmes and projects tackling economic and social disadvantage.
Does the Minister of State agree the Government had no problem introducing legislation to convert the dormant accounts fund into a slush fund to aid it in the run-up to the next general election? Does he further agree that a significant amount lodged to the dormant accounts fund came from bank accounts belonging to emigrants to England, in particular? They lodged money in Irish banks with the intention of returning to Ireland and using it, but that never happened. Does the Minister of State concur that equity and fairness is an issue in this regard and that an appropriate amount, based on the proceeds of accounts of emigrants who intended to return but did not do so, should be used to support emigrant services?
The task force on emigrant services recommended the provision of €34 million for such services by 2005. In 2006, €12 million will be provided, one third of the recommended allocation. It is not the case that great things are being done for our emigrants. Does the Minister of State agree that not alone should the €34 million recommended by the task force be provided, but additional funding should be provided through the dormant accounts fund and it is incumbent on the Government to introduce amending legislation? It would not be as complicated as the legislation introduced to convert the dormant accounts fund into a slush fund.
I do not agree the money collected from the dormant accounts of emigrants should be used for emigrant services. That is not the direction the Government is taking. We have agreed three categories for the disbursement of funds and these funds assist people in disadvantaged areas. We do not have data on the locations of accounts, for example, how many were in Ballymun, Ballyfermot or Ballybunion, or how many were held by people living abroad or in Ireland. We will not go down that road because if we did, the money would not be invested in disadvantaged areas, given that it is likely few of the accounts were held by people from these areas. Funding will be provided for the three categories agreed by Government.
Significant funding is being invested in emigrant services. I acknowledge the Deputy's comments on the task force recommendation but funding this year has increased by 45% and that is huge by any standard. Given that the funding is on such a curve, additional funding will be provided in the coming years. This year's budget is 12 times what it was seven or eight years ago. Significant funding is being allocated to emigrant groups. Funding could be spread thinly but the Department of Foreign Affairs, which is the sponsoring Department, is looking after such groups and it is not our intention to allocate money from the dormant accounts fund in this regard. Since that Department is providing funding, it is not our intention to provide money from dormant accounts, while accepting that money is needed in this area. Money is being provided by the sponsoring Department and whether it should have been provided years ago is another issue.
I cannot fathom the Minister of State's logic regarding what the Government decided. Money in the dormant accounts fund is used for emigrant services and for the purposes he mentioned. Will the Minister of State at least acknowledge that a substantial number of dormant accounts, the proceeds of which were diverted into the dormant accounts fund, were held by emigrants to England, in particular? The report of the task force on emigrant services was accepted by the Government in August 2002 but only one third of the recommended budget will be provided this year. Does the Minister of State not agree that if dormant accounts money is additional to State funding within the State, the funding for emigrants should be dealt with similarly? There is inequity in the situation. Many of our people in Britain, in particular older people, are in need and the services for them require additional funding. We should remember these people. They did not go to Britain by choice but because Ireland could not provide them with a living. A proportion of the dormant account funds should be used to help those who went to Britain and who have fallen on bad times, whatever the reason.
I do not have the data on the locations of the——
Will the Minister of State try to get it? Apparently a private individual is trying to get in on this act.
I do not have it and do not know if I really want it. The Deputy may want to know whether it is possible some of the accounts were held by people abroad. I am sure some were. We are spending the money on social and economic disadvantage. What does the Deputy want? Does he want us to distribute the money in areas from which it came, probably wealthy areas because it was presumably the wealthy who——
That is illogical. It does not make any sense.
It is not. Presumably, it was people with money who had these accounts. The Deputy appears to be trying to undermine what we are trying to do by suggesting we send the money back to wealthy areas.
People who were not very well off saved hard.
I will not take that direction.
61 Mr. Gregory asked the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs when a decision will be made on the funding application by a group (details supplied) in Dublin 7 for their drug rehabilitation project; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [10960/06]
As I indicated in a reply to the Deputy earlier this month, I am aware of the rehabilitation programme being provided by this project. It is in receipt of substantial core funding of approximately €80,000 per annum. In addition FÁS provides funding through its special category community employment scheme for the trainees and supervisor of the project.
An application for additional assistance from the emerging needs fund has been made on behalf of the project. This application, with a large number of others, is being considered at present and a decision on the matter will be made soon.
When will a decision be made? That was my question. I have raised this question on a number of occasions, but do not seem able to get that information. Will the Minister of State clarify whether there is a deadline on this and whether he intends to make a decision or leave it on his desk?
Is the Minister of State aware that concerned people in the north-west inner city were encouraged by the health board, the drugs task force and everybody involved in the drugs problem in that area to create a process for rehabilitation and reintegration into the community? This group, the first community-based group to provide a workable and successful rehabilitation project, set up the project in good faith, but the funding door has been slammed in its face. It is not good enough that the Minister of State should speak of substantial funding when this group is running a project for heroin addicts on a shoestring with the assistance of a FÁS scheme. Is that the attitude of the Government and the Minister of State who has special responsibility for the drugs problem? Is the response to drug rehabilitation to leave it to a FÁS scheme?
Is the Minister of State aware that the people benefiting from this scheme have, on average, been addicted to heroin for ten to 12 years, since their early teens? Is he aware their heroin addiction arose from social disadvantage and the neglect by Governments of this area of the inner city? Now, when they attempt to rehabilitate and reintegrate themselves into the community, they are again excluded by the Government. They are excluded from funding that would provide staff. Surely the Minister of State accepts that rehabilitation cannot occur without full-time staff and a proper premises. This cannot be provided by a FÁS scheme and the limited funding that has been made available to date. What are the Minister of State's views on this and how much money is being spent on drug rehabilitation projects in the inner city?
I am told there is a Cabinet committee that deals with social inclusion and drugs, with the various Departments represented on it. Has this committee examined the issue of rehabilitation? It was the failure of the health services to provide this type of service that caused the community to fill the gap and develop a workable rehabilitation project. Having done this, the community is getting a slap in the face for its efforts from all concerned. Will the Minister of State make a decision on the issue as quickly as possible? In making his decision he should consider in detail the work and success of this project to date and the value to the community and society generally of reintegrating people who have been unfortunate to suffer from heroin addiction for more than ten years.
Some of what the Deputy has said is over the top and I do not quite understand him. He says there is a very good project in the area rehabilitating people and that is fine. It was set up under the process and has a FÁS supervisor and €80,000 per annum of core funding which provides two extra staff. Therefore, there are currently three staff involved in the project. FÁS is an important agency in the area of the rehabilitation of drug addicts and currently has approximately 1,000 CE places ringfenced for it. Many projects with FÁS CE places do great work. I distance myself from the Deputy's criticism of FÁS because its projects are worthwhile. The Deputy's comments are at variance with the facts and with what people on the ground would say.
That is rubbish.
The Minister of State knows that is not what I said.
The Minister of State should go up to Coolock and he would see the situation.
Order, please.
He should not put his own spin on what I said.
I am answering the questions I was asked.
Is drug rehabilitation part of the FÁS brief or its responsibility?
Order, please.
This matter has been recommended to me. In the Deputy's words and the words of others we have a project that is deemed very successful. It has three staff members and caters for 14 or 16 recovering drug users. The funding proposal put forward is for an extra €151,000 for three more staff. If the project is so successful, I am at a loss as to why it needs to double its staff.
The proposal has been made and I have read the file on it carefully. I am still not fully happy and have many questions on it. I hope to visit the project and speak to those involved. Many people, including the Deputy and others, have recommended the project. However, if it is so successful, I wonder why it needs an extra €151,000 for three more staff. It seems a big change in resources to move from three to six. I will not reject the proposal without talking to the people involved.
The Minister of State may have forgotten what I asked. I welcome the fact the Minister of State intends to visit the project — I know he visited it previously and think he launched it. Leaving FÁS aside, what is being spent by the Minister of State's Department on drug rehabilitation projects in the inner city?
I cannot give the Deputy an overall figure now but under the mid-term review of the strategy we agreed to make rehabilitation the fifth pillar. Currently a working group is addressing rehabilitation in conjunction with all the relevant agencies. It is accepted by the Department that one of the weaknesses in the strategy concerned rehabilitation. The working group is operational and will submit its report this year.
The Minister of State made great play of all the money he was spending and all the resources made available for this issue——
We must move on to Question No. 62.
He does not know how much is being spent on drug rehabilitation in the inner city, even though he has responsibility for drugs. The only possible explanation is that nothing is being spent on drug rehabilitation.
Question No. 62, please.
The Minister of State should resign.
He should start investing in it.
62 Mr. English asked the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs the main aspects of the national drugs strategy where considerable progress remains to be achieved; the way in which he intends to ensure that all the 100 recommendations contained in the strategy and those amended through the mid-term review of the strategy are implemented in full by the strategy’s end; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [11082/06]
The report of the steering group on the mid-term review of the national drugs strategy was published in June of 2005. The report was the culmination of a comprehensive review, which included extensive consultation with Departments, agencies and the public.
The review was overseen by a steering group, chaired by my Department and made up of representatives of the relevant Departments and agencies as well as the community and voluntary sectors. Some assistance was provided by external consultants. The review sought to assess the impact and direction of the strategy at its mid-point and the steering group concentrated on identifying beneficial adjustments to the strategy and highlighting priorities for the second phase up to 2008.
The steering group found that the current aims and objectives of the drugs strategy are fundamentally sound. It confirmed that there have been encouraging signs of progress since 2001, when the strategy was first launched, suggesting that our current approach to tackling the drug problem is proving to be effective.
However, the review highlights the need to refocus priorities and accelerate the roll-out and implementation of various key actions in the remaining period of the strategy up to 2008. In this context, a number of new actions and amendments to others were identified. These changes have strengthened the strategy and will enable it to deliver its aims more effectively.
Ten of the strategy's 100 existing actions were replaced, a further seven were amended and eight new actions, which aim to address issues such as family support and rehabilitation, were added. In terms of progress, the review found that 49 of the original 100 actions outlined in the strategy are completed or are of an ongoing nature, progress was ongoing on a further 45 and there were six actions on which considerable progress has still to be made.
Rehabilitation was identified as an issue that needed to be developed. It was agreed that rehabilitation should become the fifth pillar of the strategy and that a working group be established to develop a strategy for the provision of integrated rehabilitation services.
I established the rehabilitation working group, which includes representatives from a range of Departments and agencies involved in delivering rehabilitation services as well as the national drugs strategy team, the national advisory committee on drugs and representatives from the community and voluntary sectors. The report of the working group will be available in the coming months.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House.
All the actions in the national drugs strategy are progressing with significant input and co-operation from other Departments and agencies, such as the Health Service Executive, the Garda Síochána, the customs service of the Revenue Commissioners, the Department of Education and Science, the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, the Irish Prison Service and FÁS, as well as the community and voluntary sector.
I am confident that the current consensus on the direction of the national drugs strategy will remain and that we will continue to respond in a focused way as the situation evolves.
I thank the Minister of State for his reply, although I do not agree that there are encouraging signs of progress. The report he refers to was published almost a year ago and those who wrote it might change their minds in the current climate, with people being shot and drug usage increasing. We are going backwards in terms of the availability of drugs. Drugs are widespread and readily available in every town and village in the country and usage has increased considerably. Regardless of what a report indicates, the Minister of State knows that drug usage has increased. Progress may have been made in implementing some of the strategy's recommendations but progress has not been made in tackling the overall drug problem.
A major part of the drug strategy was the introduction of regional drugs task forces. These task forces were set up three or four years ago and their plans were finally submitted last September, although many of these were simply a copy of the national plan. A sum of €5 million was allocated and we now discover that less than 13% of that has been spent or drawn down. Only 4% was spent in the greater Dublin region, where there is an enormous drug problem, and 0% was spent in the midlands, despite the fact that several reports have indicated a major increase in the use of cocaine and other drugs.
What does the Minister propose to do to ensure the money is spent and results are achieved? I have spoken to people involved in the regional task forces who are not happy with the progress made to date. In some areas, staff have resigned. What is the problem and why is there a delay in spending the money? I complained in the past about the delay in publishing the plans. The plans finally arrived but now the money is not being spent. I have been told that staff in the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs are selecting certain elements from the plans and making recommendations on what should be funded. I do not know if that is true but my understanding was that if a task force produced a plan, it would be allocated funding and directed to implement that plan. The task forces spent four years designing their plans and the Department should back off.
Money is not being spent but it is likely that next December or January, the Minister of State, Deputy Noel Ahern, and other Ministers will hand over large cheques and smile for photographers in the run-up to the general election. That will be next year's money. It is a shame. Let us spend the money now and get results.
Community policing was highlighted in most of the regional drugs task force plans as an essential element of the way forward. Much ranting and raving has taken place in the past few days over the figures for the Garda Síochána and the fact that numbers have dropped in many places. In my home town of Navan, there are seven fewer gardaí than there were 20 years ago. In the greater Dublin area, there were only two more gardaí.
That is a matter for another Minister.
How will we improve community policing if the numbers of gardaí are down? Will the Minister of State lobby the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform to increase the level of community policing, given that it is highlighted in most task force plans as a successful way to tackle the drug problem?
I do not deny that there are more drugs available now but supply reduction is one of the pillars of the strategy. At some levels, the Garda Síochána has been very successful. Seizures in recent years have yielded enormous amounts of drugs. The Garda Síochána and customs officials have been very successful. I recently attended the launch of a new x-ray scanner for use by customs officials, which can scan full containers and trucks as they come through the ports, much like what happens with suitcases at airports. While the Garda Síochána and customs officers are seizing more drugs, a large amount is still getting through.
The regional drugs task forces may have been slow in getting their plans finalised, but those plans are now agreed and approved, and funding has been provided.
Nothing is happening.
The people the Deputy is talking to on the ground——
The Minister of State knows this himself.
We approve the plans and provide the funding.
There is something wrong. The funding is not going out——
There is no problem with funding.
Who do we blame for that?
There is no problem whatsoever with the money.
Only 4% was spent in six months.
Allow the Minister of State to respond.
I saw the Deputy's press release yesterday——
The Minister of State gave me the figures.
Of course, but there is no problem with funding. Spending is being driven at local level by the regional drugs task forces. We do not give the money to those task forces. Different projects will involve the HSE, local authorities, VECs and so on. We would like such agencies to send their bills to us on a weekly or monthly basis but that does not happen. We will probably be hit by a raft of bills next November.
The figures we supplied to the Deputy refer to the amount that has been claimed from the Department by the various agencies and is not necessarily an accurate reflection of the amount being spent on the ground. I do not have to give any further authority or approval in order for things to happen on the ground. That is now entirely up to the regional drugs task forces. However, just because something is approved does not mean it will happen overnight.
I totally accept that.
There is a process involved in developing and building up a critical mass of appropriate staff. In many cases, it will take a number of months to get the key projects up and running. That is all being driven at local level, in co-operation with the national drugs strategy team. There is no block or hold in terms of the Department's role. All the plans from the regions were estimated to cost €12.5 million and to take approximately three years to implement. The task forces have been given approval for €5 million, which is more than enough for this year. Next year, they will probably be given another couple of million, as they develop and get projects up and ready to roll out.
Garda numbers in Dublin are up by approximately 600.
The numbers are only up by two.
No, they are up by 600 since the Government came to power eight years ago. The figures discussed yesterday do not include specialist units, most of which are based in Dublin. Extra gardaí have been assigned to the national drugs unit, the Criminal Assets Bureau and the bureau of fraud investigation. These are additional to the figures that Deputy English's colleague was arguing about yesterday. The reality is that there are 800 to 900 extra gardaí in Dublin.
Will the Minister of State bring the issue of community policing to the attention of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform? Although every Garda station may have access to a drugs squad, it will not have one based in it.
Every Garda division has one.
It does not. Every station needs a person dedicated to combating illegal drugs crime. As it takes so long to get a result in a drug crime, to keep detection figures up, many stations put their efforts into combating other areas of crime. Will the Minister of State bring this to the attention of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform?
The Minister of State claims the money is available but there is no more he can do. I believe he is interested in tackling the drugs problem. Will he take charge and demand results? The strategy needs to be driven. We waited long enough for the recommendations of the mid-term review. We cannot wait any longer to spend the money. The Minister of State must take an active involvement in spending the allocated money and pushing the strategy. I am concerned it lacks drive. The Minister of State is the man to drive the strategy. There is no point in saying the money is available. I want to see it spent with results.
We are driving the strategy. We are pushing it but we need a little pull as well. We are working with the national drugs strategy team. I understand the Deputy's concerns but it will happen as the year goes on. I would be concerned if a half a dozen staff were to begin working on the strategy next Monday. I would be much happier if there was one recruit every four weeks so that it is built up in a proper way. At the end of the year most of the funding will be spent.
63 Mr. O’Shea asked the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs his proposals to establish local development structures to meet specifically the needs of migrant workers and their families; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [10959/06]
The Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs is not the lead Department with regard to migrant workers. However, since 2004 they have been regarded as a target group under the local development social inclusion programme, the LDSIP. The programme aims to counter disadvantage and to promote equality and social and economic inclusion through the provision of funding and support to local partnerships. It is administered by Pobal, on behalf of the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs, and is funded through the national development plan. At local level, it is delivered by 38 partnerships, 31 community partnerships and two employment pacts in their designated areas. The three measures it delivers are services to the unemployed, community development and community-based youth initiatives.
Under the LDSIP a significant number of area-based partnerships, community partnerships and employment pacts have developed actions to support migrant workers and their families. While many of the actions are still at an early stage, the partnerships can build on several years' experience in the programme of providing supports for refugees and asylum seekers.
Types of actions carried out under the LDSIP, with other agencies and programmes, to meet the needs of migrant workers and their families include helping ensure that migrants' information needs are met in appropriate ways, including in a variety of languages, arranging language classes that are accessible to migrant workers and their families, facilitating the participation of migrant workers and their families in intercultural events and their use of local amenities, community development processes to facilitate migrant workers and their families to take an active part in programmes and policies that affect them and anti-racism initiatives at local level.
Pobal, the Dublin Employment Pact, and the Migrant Rights Centre Ireland are supporting an action research project on local development strategies to meet the needs of migrant workers and their families. The research, intended to share practical lessons and to inform thinking about future strategies, will be published by the middle of 2006. As part of the cohesion process on local development the Department is extending the coverage of area partnerships to the whole State.
For the past five years, migrant workers and their families have comprised the largest single group of new residents in the State. There have been problems, most notably with employment and work permits. A report is to be prepared on the pilot project run by Pobal, the Dublin Employment Pact and the Migrant Rights Centre Ireland. I understand the analysis was to have been completed by December 2005 and the report documenting the planning process and good practice was scheduled for publication in spring 2006. From the Minister's reply, I take it the project is well behind schedule.
No. The LDSIP autumn 2005 newsletter stated:
The analysis is expected to be completed by December 2005, with a report documenting the planning processes and good practice scheduled for spring 2006.
I presume it is still on target to be published by spring 2006. Is spring in the middle of the year? It is not far off.
We will hold the Minister to it.
I am only telling the Deputy what I was informed. The Deputy cannot be holding me to anything.
I would not dream of doing that. There is no point in doing so.
The House amazes me at times. Pobal, the Dublin Employment Pact and the Migrant Rights Centre Ireland, the groups involved in the project, operate independently of the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs. Since I cannot hold Pobal to anything, there is no point in holding me to when its report will be published.
The Minister could give them the funding to finish the project.
I cannot micromanage. If I did, I would be accused of interference.
The Deputy is out of order. It is a Priority Question in Deputy O'Shea's name.
This is an important issue and every effort must be made to have an integrated and multicultural society. The Minister has informed us that no one is answerable to him or that he has no control over measures that are being drawn up for planning processes and good practices for migrant workers. Is that not an admission that he is doing nothing in the area? The issue of the integration and the welcoming of the migrants and their families into our society is not moving as it should. This is because the Department is not forthcoming in its support.
It must be the jet lag that is getting to me. Pobal is funded by the Department and it operates independently on a day-to-day basis. On certain days of the week, it is the Labour Party's favourite policy that people should operate independently of the Department.
Pobal established a review group that claimed in autumn 2005 that it will publish a report in spring 2006. Now, it claims it will publish it in the mid-year. The end of spring and mid-year are not far apart. The Deputy then asks me to hold them to that. Since I did not commission the report, it is not so simple. Deputy O'Shea is always laying down good practices for me to follow, one of which is I should lay down policy. However, I cannot become involved in the day-to-day management of the agency. Deputy English asked the Minister of State to drive the drugs strategy, yet the Opposition go mad with the Government for introducing legislation to ensure control over——
Yes, I have a problem with legislation for slush funds.
When I spend the money, I am asked to keep control and micromanage it. If I introduced legislation to take over Pobal, I would be accused of creating another slush fund and trying to take total control. At times one cannot win with the Opposition because it is so inconsistent.
I am not accusing the Minister of creating a slush fund. I am accusing him of doing very little.
The Opposition's approach is inconsistent.
