73 Deputy Dan Neville asked the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs his views on recent reports in respect of disagreements at a community level regarding the future structure of the national substance misuse strategy; when the new strategy will be published; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16661/09]
79 Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh asked the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs if he will reverse the decision to dissolve the national drugs strategy team and to let its staff go at the end of April 2009 in view of the fact that the dissolution at this time risks disruption to 24 drug task forces and more than 600 projects and particularly in view of the Taoiseach’s elimination of the post of Minister of State at his Department with responsibility for the national drugs strategy. [16684/09]
80 Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh asked the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs the implications of the Taoiseach’s elimination of the post of Minister of State at his Department with responsibility for the national drugs strategy and for the draft plan to introduce a super-junior ministerial office with responsibility for the strategy based on the model of the Office of the Minister for Children. [16683/09]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 73, 79 and 80 together.
I have been re-appointed as a Minister of State at the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs, with responsibility for the national drugs strategy, community affairs and with special responsibility for integration policy. I can assure the Deputies that the change in responsibilities will have no implications for the level of commitment I will bring to tackling problem drug use in Ireland, nor indeed, that of the Government.
Work on developing a national drugs strategy is well advanced at this stage and the steering group, which is developing proposals in this regard, will be presenting me with their findings in the coming weeks. I expect to be presenting the draft strategy to Government for consideration in late May or early June. The measure, as approved by Government, will be published as an interim strategy pending the drafting and finalisation of a national substance misuse strategy. In this context, the Deputies should note that a new steering group will be established in the autumn to develop proposals for the overall substance misuse strategy, which will incorporate the already agreed drugs policy element. The group will be asked to report by the end of 2010.
As part of the restructuring proposed in the new drugs strategy, the national drugs strategy team, NDST, will be discontinued from 30 April. It is intended that proposals for the establishment of a new dedicated ministerial drugs office will be submitted to Government for consideration in the context of the new drugs strategy. In the interim, the general functions of the NDST will be absorbed appropriately within my Department.
In this regard, I would like to pay tribute to the members and staff in the NDST for their contribution over the years in tackling problem drug use in our society. It is intended that the new office will build upon a partnership approach across the statutory and community and voluntary sectors while facilitating improved governance, management and overall effectiveness.
To facilitate a smooth transfer of functions to the new office, the Deputies should note that transitional arrangements have been drawn up by my Department and are currently being rolled out. These cover a broad range of issues, including financial and day-to-day administrative issues in support of the work of the drugs task forces and local projects. While they do not endorse the recommendation to establish the dedicated ministerial office, the issues of concern to the community sector representatives on the steering group, who left the process in March, have since been largely addressed and they returned to the steering group process last week.
It is good news that we are finally to get a look at this wonderful document. Unfortunately, however, the drugs problem is worse that it has ever been. One only has to look at the events at the weekend in Dolphin House in my area where there was a major incident involving thugs running rampant, vandalising more than 30 cars with paint and acid and terrifying people. People at a public meeting the other evening had to be removed from the area because of the threat from a device left there. It is about time that this new strategy was put in place. There are major problems with drug abuse.
Will the Minister of State confirm that he will rename the national drugs strategy the national substance misuse strategy and give equal attention and importance to tackling alcohol abuse? Will the Minister of State explain how this strategy will be managed and if the national drugs strategy team will remain? Who will manage the funding allocated to task forces which are in place to help communities tackle the drugs problems on their doorsteps?
The delay in publishing the strategy was due to the fact that during the consultation process, much interest was raised in the area of alcohol and the relationship between alcohol and drugs. In that regard, the Government recently made a decision that alcohol would be included in a joint strategy. However, the reality was that much work had been done towards the preparation of a current strategy. As I said, the current drugs strategy will go to Government in late May or early June.
In the autumn of this year, a new steering group will work to incorporate alcohol into what will be a substance misuse strategy but that will not be available until some time next year. There will be two steps to this.
I welcome the Government's decision to include alcohol which was strongly put forward during the consultation process. I said the contracts with the NDST will terminate on 30 April and the funding, to which the Deputy referred, will be managed by the Department.
What is the alternative mechanism to carry out the work of the national drugs strategy team? Is there any logic to terminating the national drugs strategy team without the alternative being in place beforehand? The Minister of State mentioned transitional arrangements. Is there any logic to terminating or fixing something which is not broken?
Perhaps the Minister of State will have to ask the Taoiseach but is there any logic to downgrading his office? He is committed to tackling the drugs issue but giving him extra duties reduces the Government commitment.
Will the Minister of State give a commitment that when the full drugs strategy, including alcohol, is produced, there will be no reduction in the overall spend on tackling drugs and alcohol abuse?
I thank the Deputy for the questions. I refer to the last question on spending, an area which causes grave concern. It is very difficult to quantify the spend at any point in time because a partnership approach is taken. We can target the funding in respect of the community and voluntary sectors, so we know what we spend. However, it is not possible to do so in respect of the statutory agencies, including the Garda and the HSE. The intention is to continue the partnership approach. The statutory agencies have given a commitment in respect of the level of funding they will provide in the current year.
The Deputy asked why we are moving to a new structure. It became apparent that if we were to avoid duplication and take cognisance of concerns raised at the Committee of Public Accounts, the structures in place would not address them. There was much duplication between the NDST and the drugs strategy unit. The intention is to merge the functions of those.
The community sector had concerns about the new structure but it is fundamental that it is fully engaged with it, which I expect it to be. However, this is to avoid that duplication, to address concerns raised at the Committee of Public Accounts and to bring in overall efficiencies where people can be accountable and where we can have better governance, management and clear lines of communication from the projects in the communities, of which more than 600 are being supported, right through to the task forces and all the way up.
Why terminate them now without the new ones being in place? Why have transitional arrangements? It is usual to transfer from one to another and not to have a transitional period. That is what has caused major concern.
The transitional arrangements come into place because a Government decision on the strategy has not been adopted. The contracts with the NDST will be terminated on 30 April.
I refer to the addition of alcohol to the overall scheme. Will the submissions made form the basis of that or will a new process be undertaken? Where stands the Licensed Vintners Association, which seems to be under so much pressure? Will it have representatives on the group which will review this? Now that we recognise this is a huge problem, what will we be able to do to offer assistance to young people in schools, in particular, in regard to the dangers of alcohol?
During the public consultation process, it became very apparent there was much synergy between alcohol and drugs, particularly among young people and in respect of education, prevention and so on. However, we were fairly far advanced with the drugs strategy, which will be adopted as is without the inclusion of alcohol at this point.
One of the specific actions is that in September of this year, a steering group will be formed to bring the decision the Government made recently in respect of alcohol into a substance misuse strategy. It has approximately 12 months to do that.
The Deputy asked about the make-up of the steering group but that has not yet been decided. The idea is not to park the drugs strategy and wait. We did not set out to make that decision. The consultation process led us in that direction. It is important that if we are to engage in consultation, that we respond to what it throws up. We had not expected it to turn out like this but in light of what we have done, we have decided to go ahead with the drugs strategy.
The Deputy mentioned the Licensed Vintners Association. There are many similarities between alcohol and drugs but alcohol is not an illegal substance. We need to be conscious of that and deal with it. Many people, myself included, use alcohol and most use it sensibly. However, we need to make that very clear distinction and that is what this consultation process will be about.
There have been reports of threats of resignations in the task forces over proposals in the new strategy. Is that true? What meetings has the Minister of State had with these groups? Have any outstanding issues been resolved?
I am glad alcohol has been included because I have been pushing for that for many years. People in this country have a tolerance towards drink. We do not seem to want to say we have a problem in regard to the abuse of alcohol. It is the most disastrous drug in the country and it creates more problems for families and homes than any other drug. It might be legal but by God it has created many problems in homes and I am glad it will be included in the new strategy.
I hope the tolerance we have for the abuse of alcohol will diminish and it will be like drink driving. I told the Minister of State I would support the strategy if alcohol was included in it, otherwise I would not.
I thank Deputy Ring for his support. In regard to threats of resignations in community groups or task forces, nobody has brought that to my attention. During the deliberation process of formulating the new strategy, the community group representatives walked away from the steering committee. I met them and they had a number of specific concerns which we addressed. They are now back in the steering group and are engaging fully with it. They had a different view in regard to the establishment of an office for a minister of drugs or whatever.
We must bear in mind that to tackle the drugs issue, the community and voluntary sectors and all the statutory agencies must take a partnership approach. They recognise that there must be a compromise on the views of all concerned. I am very pleased the community sector has re-engaged with the deliberation process.
What is the situation in regard to funding for the strategy? The Minister of State mentioned funding from different agencies but they are feeling the pressure at the moment. Has funding from his Department for the strategy been altered in any way?
Does the Minister of State agree with a statement a community worker made to me the other night that drug use tends to go up in times of recession? Has he any thoughts on that or plans in that eventuality?
I refer to the rise in heroin use, particularly in rural areas. There was a time when it was confined to Dublin but we now find heroin used all over the country. Has the Minister of State taken account of that? What plans has he to deal with that matter? There are ten community drugs projects in the Cork and Kerry region. Does the Minister of State have any plans to develop further projects in other towns and areas? Can he guarantee that the projects will not be affected by cutbacks?
The Deputy asked an interesting question about the possibility of an increase in drug use during the recession. All I can say is that it depends on the evidence one examines. The pattern of drug use often changes as economic conditions change. The use of cocaine in affluent areas increased during the economic boom. During a recession, there is often an increase in heroin use in disadvantaged areas. I wish to compare the current strategy to the original strategy. The original strategy was primarily based in disadvantaged parts of the country that are associated with high levels of heroin use, whereas the current strategy recognises that we are dealing with a national problem.
Deputy Stanton also spoke about funding. As a result of the recent supplementary budget, the amount of money that is available through the task forces this year will probably be a little lower than the amount of money that was available last year. We are currently preparing figures in advance of advising the task forces on the funds that will be made available to them for the second six months of the year. The Deputy pointed out that there are ten programmes in his local area. As I do not have details on them to hand, I will make a general comment. The strategy supports approximately 600 projects throughout the country. They are funded from my Department through the various task forces. I cannot guarantee that they will all remain as they are at present. It is very important that they are evaluated on an ongoing basis to make sure they are performing and delivering the programmes that are needed in communities. I have some concerns about this area. If we are spending money on a project that is not delivering in an area, some other opportunity is being lost. In the current economic climate, everybody has to work a bit harder for the scarce resources that are available.
74 Deputy Tom Hayes asked the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs his plans to give the rural social scheme programme funding to Údarás na Gaeltachta. [16671/09]
As the Deputy will be aware, the rural social scheme provides a supplementary income to certain categories of low-income farming and fishing families. The scheme is operated by the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs on an almost nationwide basis. It is managed at local level by the integrated local development companies. In Gaeltacht areas, it is managed by the relevant companies in conjunction with Údarás na Gaeltachta. In the current economic climate, all aspects of the operation of the scheme are under review. I am considering whether it might be more efficient for Údarás na Gaeltachta to be responsible for the management of the rural social scheme throughout the Gaeltacht.
I acknowledge that efficiencies are needed in every scheme operated by every Department, particularly in the current economic climate. There is some concern in this instance. The rural social scheme is one of the best schemes being run by the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs. The manner in which it is being operated by Údarás na Gaeltachta, Meitheal Forbartha na Gaeltachta and other groups is working well. Is the Minister thinking about taking responsibility for the scheme from Meitheal Forbartha na Gaeltachta and giving sole responsibility for it to Údarás na Gaeltachta? If so, will legislation need to be introduced in this House? What is the Minister's thinking? Has he had discussions with Meitheal Forbartha na Gaeltachta? I am concerned about the employment implications of such a move. Would it lead to many job losses in the community sector? If Meitheal Forbartha na Gaeltachta officials lose their jobs, Údarás na Gaeltachta will not be able to take them on as a consequence of the Minister for Finance's embargo on public service recruitment. Can the Minister reassure those who are implementing the rural social scheme that their jobs are safe? Does he intend to disband this element of Meitheal Forbartha na Gaeltachta and re-establish it within Údarás na Gaeltachta?
Meitheal Forbartha na Gaeltachta is responsible for administering the rural social scheme in some parts of the Gaeltacht. Údarás na Gaeltachta is responsible for administering it in other Gaeltacht areas.
I know that.
I do not see any sense in that. The relevant Leader company administers it everywhere else. The Gaeltacht is different. It is the only part of the country with an elected statutory authority. I said quite clearly in a previous reply that I intend to give Údarás na Gaeltachta wide powers in the Gaeltacht. It is intended that the saoistí, or supervisors, and the oibritheoirí, or workers, on the rural social scheme will transfer lock, stock and barrel to the Údarás na Gaeltachta schemes. Údarás na Gaeltachta already operates the community employment schemes in the Gaeltacht. I am proposing that a single body will run the community employment scheme and the rural social scheme in the Gaeltacht. I believe that would represent a coherent way of doing the job.
I would like to focus briefly on employment. The administration of money is the only issue at stake. Meitheal Forbartha na Gaeltachta will get €97,000 in administration funds this year. Údarás na Gaeltachta will get €92,000 this year for administering the scheme on behalf of the Department. If the scheme transfers over, we would obviously hope to make a little bit of a saving. Most of the money will transfer to Údarás na Gaeltachta to fund the administration of the scheme. That is what will happen. I have heard suggestions to the effect that 60 people will lose their jobs. If somebody can employ 60 people for €97,000 a year, good luck to them. I wish they would explain to me how it can be done. When I returned to my office in Dublin on Sunday — I happened to be in Dublin, so I came in to do a few hours of work — there was an e-mail waiting for me. The e-mail, which argued that I would be absolutely right to give total responsibility for this scheme across the Gaeltacht to Údarás na Gaeltachta, came from the south of the country.
It is interesting to hear that the Minister does not observe the sabbath.
One would not want to, in this job.
Why should we be impressed by the communication to which the Minister alluded, when we do not know who the mystery person who sent it is? What exactly is happening here? Are statutory measures or legislation necessary to allow the Minister to bring this sort of amalgamation into effect? Is this something that will be done on the drip, by stealth? Will it have to be addressed in the new Údarás na Gaeltachta legislation? I find it difficult to understand this trend. What exactly is the Minister doing? Does he intend to gradually remove funding from Meitheal Forbartha na Gaeltachta so that resources are sent in the direction of Údarás na Gaeltachta?
I think the Deputy has got the drift of it, more or less. This, in itself, does not need legislation. Contracts have been given out for the first part of the rural social scheme, which is already being operated by Údarás na Gaeltachta, so it is obvious that no legislation will be needed for the second part of the scheme. Basically, we have given a contract to a group to run the scheme over a fixed period of time. When that contract comes to an end, we intend to agree the next contract with Údarás na Gaeltachta only. Some details of that have yet to be worked out.
We have explained this openly. As I wanted to make sure the two relevant parties were absolutely clear about what I was doing, I met representatives of both of them last Friday. When I met the board of Údarás na Gaeltachta in its offices, I discussed the whole issue and outlined the Department's vision for the future of Údarás na Gaeltachta. I reminded those present of the original concept that led to the establishment of Údarás na Gaeltachta. It was set up as a Gaeltacht authority, comprising local elected representatives, with a wide range of powers. The members of the board seemed very positive about my plans. I can give the Deputy a copy of the statement they issued after the meeting, which outlined their views on what I had said to them.
I also had a meeting with the board of Meitheal Forbartha na Gaeltachta in the presence of the board of Údarás na Gaeltachta. When one meets the two boards together, one suddenly realises that Údarás na Gaeltachta is represented on the board of Meitheal Forbartha na Gaeltachta. Four of those who attended the first meeting as representatives of Údarás na Gaeltachta attended the second meeting wearing two hats. In addition, one of the staff members of Údarás na Gaeltachta is on the board of Meitheal Forbartha na Gaeltachta. The two boards are not totally separate. There are strong ties between them.
I explained the direction of my policy in this regard in some detail. I argued that the Gaeltacht needs a single strong statutory authority that runs a wide range of projects. That is what was envisaged by those who fought strenuously for the establishment of Údarás na Gaeltachta in the first instance. That is exactly what I intend to do.
An aontaíonn an tAire liom go raibh bua amháin ag Meitheal Forbartha na Gaeltachta maidir leis na cursaí seo? Eagraíocht deonach is ea Meitheal Forbartha na Gaeltachta. Bhunaigh an pobal an meitheal ar bhonn deonach. Tá taithí na mblianta ag an meitheal ag láimhseáil na scéimeanna seo. Tá sé deacair daoine a bhfuil taithí den sórt sin acu, agus seirbhís den chineál sin tugtha acu, a ligint chun siúl. Nuair atá an t-atheagrú déanta, an mbeidh na dreamanna go léir atá ag obair le Meitheal Forbartha na Gaeltachta — ag eagrú na scéimeanna seo, mar shampla — fostaithe mar atá siad faoi láthair? An é nach mbeidh aon obair ar fáil do chuid acu? Tá éiginnteacht ann, tá sé ar Raidió na Gaeltachta gach maidin, tá an tAire féin á phlé, tá sé le cloisteáil i gceantar an Aire féin, cur i gcás dreamanna cosúil le Cumas i gConamara. Cén ról a bheidh ag an fhoireann ansin sa todhchaí?
Tá an Teachta ag leathnú na ceiste.
Níl aon fhoireann bhainistíochta ag Cumas.
Foireann atá deonach.
Níl aon fhoireann bhainistíochta fostaithe ag Cumas. B'fhéidir go bhfuil an comhlacht ann ach níl aon fhoireann bhainistíochta ann. Ba sheafóid a rá go raibh foireann Chumas ag iarraidh bheith istigh i gcomhráite ar bith mar níl a leithéid de rud ann. Tá siad ar fad aistrithe isteach mar fhostaithe de chuid MFG de réir an eolais atá ag mo Roinn. Cé a sheolfaidh MFG chuig cainteanna? Is ceist do MFG í sin agus dá leagfainn síos mar Aire cé a sheolfadh an comhlacht mar thoscaireachtaí bheadh an freasúra ag rá liom go bhfuil an tAire ag cur ladair isteach ró-dhomhan sa scéal.
Bímse i gcónaí faoi chúrsaí fostaíochta. Sin an fáth gur chas mé leis an dá phríomhfheidhmeannach i mí na Samhna 2008 le comhráite a chur ar bun go bhféadaimís na rudaí seo a láimhseáil ar an bhealach is cineálta agus is tuisceanaí agus is féidir. Goilleann sé go mór orm go pearsanta mar dhuine a bhfuil cúram daoine orm nach raibh MFG an-pháirteach sna comhráite sin ó shin. Ceann de na fáthanna gur chas mé le bord MFG an lá faoi dheireadh ná le haibhsiú orthu gurbh fhearr bheith istigh sa phróiseas, áit ina mbeadh duine in ann tionchar a imirt air, ná a bheith ag cur in aghaidh rudaí atá ag dul a tharlú.
Mura bhfuil an iomarca foirne ag plé le scéimeanna éagsúla, níl i gceist fáil réidh le haon scéim atá ann, tá i gceist iad a aistriú. Chiallódh sin go mbeadh foireann ag teastáil leis na scéimeanna seo a ghníomhú. Mar sin, go loighiciúil, bheadh ceisteanna foirne le plé ach ní fhéadfadh foireann an údaráis mar atá sé, mura bhfuil barraíocht foirne ar fad ann leis na cúraimí atá acu faoi láthair, an iliomad scéimeanna nua a láimhseáil gan comhréiteach éigin. Is iad na comhráite sin atá mé ag iarraidh a thosú le sé mhí anuas agus impím ar MFG inniu dul isteach sna comhráite sin agus páirt iomlán a ghlacadh ann.
75 Deputy Michael Ring asked the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs if he will take action on foot of the publication of a report (details supplied); and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16648/09]
I am unable to offer a substantive reply to the Deputy's question without revealing details of the report referred to. My understanding of the rules of the House regarding a "details supplied" question is that it would not be in order for me to do so, unless the Deputy agrees.
If the Deputy will name the report, I will be happy to give a detailed answer.
The Irish language and the Irish people. I am delighted to name the report and would like to hear the Minister's response.
The Deputy will have to ask me a question. I will be delighted to give a detailed answer. I cannot be blamed if the Deputy puts down a question with "details supplied" when he really intended to name the report.
We have had more reports about the Irish language than people speaking the language. The Minister reported recently to me that €800,000 had been spent on consultants to draft the Irish language report yet that report has not yet been published.
It has.
I understand that it has not been published yet.
The Irish language report has been published.
The Minister should allow the Deputy to put the question.
I apologise but I get upset when Deputies are ill informed.
I am referring to the strategy for the Irish language. The Minister is getting a report done for which he famously set up a Cabinet sub-committee. How many times has that sub-committee met? I know it met once because I have raised the matter here several times but how many times has it met since? When will that report be published? It has cost €800,000 in consultants' fees. Does the Minister not know enough people who speak the Irish language? Why does he need to spend taxpayers' money on consultants? We all know the problems around the language. There are three Gaeltachts in my constituency and Irish is spoken in only one part of one of them, Ceathrú Thaigdhe, as the Minister's recent report has shown. I support the Irish language but while the Minister, the Government and the Taoiseach talk a good game about it, this strategy was supposed to have been published, and up and running. When will it be released and when will we know about its findings?
Funnily enough I have great sympathy for the Deputy and his questions. Ceist í, marbh le tae agus marbh gan é. Deputy O'Shea is always asking about expert opinion so rightly or wrongly we decided because this is a major 20 year strategy that we would get expert opinion, including international opinion on sociolinguistics, to advise us in the preparation of the strategy. I have a draft of the strategy and it is intended to publish this as soon as possible. The next meeting of the committee, as the Deputy will find in the reply to one of his parliamentary questions today, will take place next month. We are making progress on this. The draft report is being read and it is hoped to publish it in the reasonably near future. I will not put a date on it today and I will not give my stock answer "before next Christmas" because that covers any day from tomorrow until next Christmas Day so we will not play that little teasing game. It will be done as fast as possible.
Will it be done within 20 years?
It will be done a lot sooner than the Deputy thinks. I will surprise him some day just when he is getting very impatient. It is a 20 year strategy and we want to get it as right as possible. It will also include the response to the stádas theanga eolaoíchta in the Gaeltacht. This will be the big throw at having a proper strategy. I have sympathy for the Deputy in respect of the cost. If it was not a 20 year strategy and if I did not think that Deputy O'Shea would be asking all sorts of questions about whether the experts agreed with what the Government put into the strategy, we might have skipped some of the experts' costs but there is a saying in Irish "marbh le tae agus marbh gan é" and I do not know whether I should have had the tae or fanacht gan é but sin mar——
The Government consulted plenty of experts on the economy but they did not do too much for us.
I find the outburst about expert opinion bizarre and extraordinary. I take no part of the blame for the Minister's dithering on the Irish language because on some occasion or occasions I have asked about expert opinion. The Fr. MacGréil report states that the biggest challenge facing the Irish language is to move from ability to speak the language to usage of the language and the gap between the two.
I tabled a question for the Minister for Education and Science on this issue. Will the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs address that issue and if so when and how? I have not read the whole report but the point seems to come across strongly that there is a chasm between ability to speak the language and its use.
Absolutely. I could not agree more with the Deputy. Some time before it was published I read a draft of the report from end to end. It contains an incredible wealth of knowledge and I recommend that anybody who is interested in policy development in respect of the Irish language read it although it is heavy reading and contains quite a lot of detail.
We were willing to fund the other report because this is a series of reports undertaken by Fr. Micheál over 30 years. It offers something that one would not normally get, tracking over a 30 year period the usage and knowledge of the language and attitudes towards it, which is obviously very useful when we are building a 20 year strategy. I was anxious that this report would be in the public domain before we published the 20 year strategy because it is informing my view——
I did not ask the Minister to do that. He is quoting me again on expert opinion. That was his own decision, not prompted by this side of the House.
Absolutely, but I did so on the Deputy's good advice.
Two things emerge from the report. First, the growth of the language in urban areas is significant and, second, the gap between knowledge and usage is not simply a fact of saying one should talk Irish. It seems to relate to opportunities to talk Irish in comhluadar — in other words, to interact with other people talking the language. This report is useful and certainly will be reflected in the 20-year strategy. The Deputy can take it that, sequentially, it is better that this report is published in order that we can build its recommendations into the strategy, thus taking account of the interesting recommendations that were made.
76 D’fhiafraigh Deputy Jan O’Sullivan den Aire Gnóthaí Pobail, Tuaithe agus Gaeltachta an mó cruinniú den Choiste Rialtais i leith an Phlean Gníomhaíochta don Ghaeltacht a bhí ann ó thús na bliana; agus an ndéanfaidh sé ráiteas ina thaobh. [16714/09]
Bhí cruinniú den Choiste Rialtais don Ghaeilge agus don Ghaeltacht ar 18 Feabhra 2009 agus tá an chéad cruinniú eile socraithe do 21 Bealtaine 2009.
Ar ndóigh, tá obair ar siúl go leanúnach idir cruinnithe maidir leis na gnéithe éagsúla atá faoi chaibidil ag an gCoiste. Tá Grúpa d'Oifigigh Sinsearacha curtha le chéile, ar a bhfuil ionadaithe ó na Ranna Stát éagsúla a bhfuil baint ar leith acu leis an nGaeilge agus an nGaeltacht. I measc na ngnéithe éagsúla a bhíonn á phlé ag an nGrúpa sin, tá na moltaí atá déanta sa Staidéar Teangeolaíoch ar Úsáid na Gaeilge sa Ghaeltacht agus an dréacht-Straitéis 20 bliain don Ghaeilge.
Bhí dhá chruinniú ann agus tá leath na bliana imithe beagnach. Deir an tAire go bhfuil obair ar siúl idir an dá linn, ach níl aon rud feicthe agamsa go fóill. An b'fhéadfadh an tAire insint dom an bhfuil aon tuarascáil eile le foilsiú sula chríochnaíonn sé an obair seo? Tá mé ag éirí éadóchasach os rud é nach bhfuil aon rud fiúntach le feiceáil. Níl aon eolas á fháil againn. Deireann an tAire go bhfuil seo agus siúd ag tarlú, ach creidim nach bhfuil faic i ndáiríre ag tarlú. Cad iad na cinntí atá déanta? Mar shampla, an bhfuil moltaí déanta ó thaobh teorainn na Gaeltachta? An bhfuil moltaí soiléire ann nó an bhfuil an scéal mar a bhíonn i gcónaí leis an Roinn seo agus an bhfuil rudaí measctha agus casta? An bhfuil aon obair déanta ar an sainmhíniú ar cad is Gaeltacht ann? An bhfuil muid gar don sainmhíniú deiridh a bheidh ag dul sa reachtaíocht.
Dúirt an tAire go mbeidh cáipéis amháin ag teacht amach — sin an stráitéis mar a bhí agus an plean gníomhach. Tá reachtaíocht le teacht amach ansin agus reachtaíocht i dtaobh an údaráis, ach ón taobh seo den Teach, níl aon rud feicthe againn a thabharfadh aon dóchas dúinn go bhfuil obair fhiúntach idir lámha agus go mbeidh toradh ar sin go luath.
Creidim féin, má tá muid leis an athbhreithniú thar a bheith críochnúil agus cuimsitheach atá sé i gceist agam a dhéanamh, go gcaithfear dul tríd phróiseas atá fadálach. Admhaím sin, ach tá súil agam go dtabharfaidh sé treo nua don Ghaeilge go ceann fiche bliain. Tá go leor Ranna Stáit agus eagraíochtaí i gceist agus go leor plé le déanamh. Tuigim go bhfuil frustrachas ar Bhaill an Tí, mar ag an bpointe seo níl tada le feiceáil. Tá siad ag cloisteáil faoi chruinnithe agus faoi thuarascálacha agus níl tada le feiceáil. Glacaim leis sin. Ach an lá a dhéanfar cinneadh ag an Rialtas, déanfar cinneadh ar an doiciméad deiridh. Mar sin, ní bheidh aon chinneadh againn go dtí an nóiméad go ndéanfar an cinneadh agus ansin beidh gach cinneadh againn.
Mar atá ráite ag an Teachta, agus agamsa go minic, ceann de na ceisteanna go gcaithfear aghaidh a thabhairt uirthi ná go bhfuil sainmhíniú na Gaeltachta faoi Acht 1956 as dáta ar fad. Níl sé feidhmiúil agus ní mór sainmhíniú nua a thabhairt do chéard is Gaeltacht. Déanfar sin. Caithfear é sin a dhéanamh agus tá mé sásta an méid sin a rá. Níl mé chun dul ag tógáil cinntí an choiste ar úrláir an Tí ach is léir go gcaithfear sin a dhéanamh.
Cathain?
An lá a dtógfaidh an Rialtas cinneadh ar mholtaí ar an stráitéis 20 bliain, beidh gach aon chinneadh déanta. Mar a deireann na ceardchumainn — an chaoi a bhfuil an rud seo á láimhseáil ná — No decision is taken until all decisions are taken. Déanfar na cinntí ar fad ar aon lá amháin. Tá súil agam nach mbeidh sin ró-fhad uainn. Ach braitheann sin ar cé chomh fada agus a thógfaidh sé orthu plean foirfe a fháil. Más rogha idir foirfeacht agus deifir, b'fhearr liomsa dul le foirfeacht.
Tá sé sin sofheicthe.
An fhad is atá sé sofheicthe, suífidh mise síos. Is dóigh liom go bhfuil mé tar éis mo chás a chur i láthair chomh maith agus is féidir.
Written answers follow Adjournment Debate.
