Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)

To give the Deputy a very straight answer, I am not sure. It is a valid question and I have often asked it myself. It is very hard to determine. Consider, for example, the case of a community council that keeps asking a local council to fix the pavement. When it gets fixed, it is impossible to prove whether it would have happened anyway or whether the community council was an agent in making it happen. Therefore, it would be unreasonable for me to claim all the projects in RAPID areas and all the projects associated with work programmes were carried out solely because of the RAPID programme. I do not believe this is true.

We had a RAPID conference today. If I were asked to state the real nub of RAPID, I would say it is that, through the area implementation teams, the people living in the areas concerned for the first time sit at the table as equals. When facilities are needed in an area, the team is present to represent that area and have an input. Deputy O'Shea's theory is probably correct that some projects would be carried out in any case. Let us consider the case of a health centre in this category. The difference RAPID could make is that, when such a centre is being built, the area implementation team, because it would sit as an equal at the table with the HSE, or because there would be some RAPID leverage money available, would be able to determine the type of centre to be constructed and the services provided. This, in itself, could make a considerable qualitative, rather than a quantitative, difference.

I stated publicly today that the defining difference between living in a local authority housing estate and elsewhere, be it in an urban or rural area, is that in the former case most decisions have been made for one by others. I refer to the size of the house, the shape of the rooms and the community facilities. Local authority housing residents have had very little input into any decision affecting their area. On the other extreme, the main characteristic of small rural communities is the considerable input they have into what happens, for better or for worse. Under the RAPID programme, I wanted to give that kind of input to the public through the area implementation teams. It is a question of having the community representative sit at the table with the Department's leverage money saying, "If we do not agree, there is no deal". For the first time, the representatives have cash when talking to officials.

See this speech in context