Róisín Shortall (Dublin North West, Social Democrats) | Oireachtas source

I did not realise I was next. I would like to welcome the guests and thank them for their presentations. I wanted to check something first. I had the honour of being able to chair some of those national oversight committees back in 2011 and 2012. Certainly, my experience at that time was that one got a real insight into the drugs scene at local level from the community and voluntary sector representatives. That was undoubtedly the case in the community. This came back from organisations like CityWide, but also from the local drugs task forces. That is how one found out what was happening on the ground.

In the voluntary sector, different representatives represented those voluntary community services, like Merchants Quay and so many others. One heard on the ground what it is like dealing directly with people with addiction problems. There was essential feedback from the real world about what was happening on the ground. Down through the years, I have never heard any complaints about that whatsoever. It was important that both of those voices were heard clearly and that they informed policy. However, down through the years, there were constant complaints about representatives from other agencies - in the main these were State agencies - about their non-attendance at task force meetings, their non-attendance at the national level, or the attendance by people who did not speak at all and did not contribute to any of the debate or any of the insight. That was a constant refrain, particularly in the education area. Representatives refused to attend local task forces.

I can remember sitting through many of those meetings. Thinking back, if there had not been input from the community and voluntary sector, meetings would have wrapped up after probably half an hour. This is because no contributions were being made by anybody else. It was really placeholders in the main, as well as people who were there because they were required to be there, rather than having any particular interest. That is very much the way that things had worked.

I cannot for the life of me understand how there can be any rationale for writing out those critical voices. They are critical because they are essential. They are also critical because they criticise Government policy where it is not effective and where it is not adequately resourced. That is essential. I cannot understand why this position has been taken. We as a committee have to take steps to block that decision and to seek to have it reversed as a matter of urgency. It is a good idea to have the Minister of State in. I do not know when he will be available. It will be in the new year and it will be some time away. We have to act urgently now after hearing the presentations today. I completely support the proposal made by Senator Kyne that we, as a committee, now write to the Minister of State expressing our serious concern about this proposal, that we say it is a retrograde step and that we seek to have it reversed by Friday. We should do that in the strongest possible terms. I suspect that there is support across the board for that kind of approach.

Ms Quigley said she had requested a meeting with the Minister of State. Again, if the Minister of State is not engaging with people who are working on the front line, how can he possibly have a clear picture of what is happening? Apart from the formal meetings, it is essential that the Minister of State gets out and visits the area that is most affected by this. This is particularly the case when we have a Minister of State who does not represent the urban areas that are most seriously affected. It is hard to get a handle on areas where there are high levels of urban deprivation, disadvantage across the board in relation to housing, low levels of policing, lack of local health services, etc. Poverty is the overriding factor. All those factors contribute to drug misuse. Engagement is essential for the Minister of State and he cannot have any kind of understanding unless-----