Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 41: To ask the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs his views on whether the RAPID programme has received sufficient resources to allow it to fulfil its mandate towards Ireland's most disadvantaged communities; his further views on whether a new programme is required to target the small number of areas here where deep-seated poverty remains a serious problem; if he is considering the introduction of such a new initiative; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [42849/06]

Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The RAPID programme aims to ensure that priority attention is given to tackling the spatial concentration of poverty and social exclusion within the 45 designated RAPID areas. In addition, RAPID priority status was recently extended to Ballyfermot. My Department, with the support of Pobal, has overall responsibility for the co-ordination of the RAPID programme. It is a matter for each Department to respond to issues of funding within its area of responsibility.

I introduced the RAPID leverage schemes in 2004. Under these schemes, my Department directly funds schemes to provide playgrounds, improve traffic measures, improve health facilities, provide CCTV, support sporting organisations as well as improve local authority housing estates and flat complexes.

Some €11 million was committed to projects identified in co-operation with the local communities in 2006. The evaluation of the programme published on 1 June last indicates that the experience of the RAPID programme has been very positive in many areas. The evaluator concluded that substantial progress had been made in identifying the needs of disadvantaged communities and in implementing important local projects in response to those needs. The evaluator stated that the leverage schemes appear to have secured a greater "buy-in" from local stakeholders and were facilitating further activity at local level. The report also identifies strengths and weaknesses of the programme and proposes 25 recommendations. Work is advancing on implementing these recommendations.

The RAPID area implementation team, AIT, structure has allowed for effective engagements with the local communities and provided community representatives with greater opportunities to work with the local authorities and statutory agencies in identifying the problems that affect their areas. Matters requiring attention have been identified and prioritised for funding. There is widespread agreement that local consultation has played a key role in supporting statutory agencies in developing appropriate responses. Community representatives are supported in working in their immediate neighbourhoods to ensure deeper and wider involvement of the community with RAPID and the statutory agencies.

We should build on the successes of the RAPID programme rather than introduce a new one. The achievements of the local structures established under RAPID should be acknowledged from the point of view both of the physical transformation that has begun to take shape in RAPID areas and the improved levels of community involvement and confidence in the process. The AITs provide a solid basis for moving forward with the programme. There is of course room for improvement in how the members of the AITs are supported and how their roles can be reinforced and developed. This is something I am working to improve in co-operation with the AITs and the national monitoring committee.

Brian O'Shea (Waterford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Will the Minister agree that a major problem exists and is concentrated in a number of areas, where there is inter-generational poverty? The parents of the children of the poor were themselves poor and all the indications are that their children will be poor because no effective initiatives are being taken. I am not saying it is widespread, but there are areas around the country in which this phenomenon is concentrated. The Minister indicated that there is no intention to introduce a new scheme. I would point out that the promised €2 billion that was to be fast-tracked into the RAPID did not happen, to put it mildly, and that essentially this year's Estimates for his Department indicate a 1% increase in terms of the RAPID funding. As he pointed out, he has the central role as regards RAPID.

The Labour Party recently published a policy document, entitled A Fair Deal: Fighting Poverty and Exclusion. Basically, there is a commitment in it that the Labour Party in Government would commit no less than 5% of the next national development plan to this fair deal in terms of addressing poverty and exclusion. However, the Minister is saying he has no intention of doing anything extra as regards these areas where there is multifaceted poverty, whether through low incomes, poor educational attainment, poor housing or employment prospects, a high level of anti-social behaviour, drug abuse or the like. Has he no intention of taking any initiative — that is what I heard him say — to introduce a new programmes to deal with these problems in an effective way so that the children in these areas are not sentenced to replicating the manner in which their parents have lived their lives?

Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I should be interested to know which of the four to six areas the Deputy believes do not display all the characteristics he mentioned. As far as I am concerned all the areas involved in the RAPID programme have been found through independent analysis to display all the characteristics as regards the problems of inter-generational disadvantage and so on. They would not be RAPID areas, otherwise. Some people are suggesting that I should abandon the RAPID programme and the four to six areas and pick a much small number. I am interested to hear the Deputy's suggestions about the areas he believes do not need the support of the RAPID programme. It is very unlikely, however, that I might agree with him that any of them does not. In fact, the demand from areas not included in RAPID suggests that many of them exhibit these particular manifestations and should be included, too — rather than shedding any of the RAPID areas. The leverage fund is not what RAPID is about, but is just a minuscule part of the programme. I decided, and it was well received, that there were some minor issues that might be dealt with by that type of funding, which would involve leveraging out funding from other Departments and dealing with matters at a local level, rather than big plans being sent to Dublin to erect a piece of pavement or do some estate enhancement — and it has been very successful. The AITs uniformly report that this initiative has been successful.

We have discussed the allegation that somebody promised €2 billion. I cannot find any reference to that in any documentation I have inherited in the Department. I do not know how often I must reiterate this, but if someone can show me where €2 billion was promised, I shall be very grateful because I have all the press releases and there is no mention of it. What is true, however, is that there is an enormous amount of money in the national development plan for social inclusion. That money has been spent and will continue to be spent. Again, as I have indicated, the leverage fund is small. At one stage a few months ago, I reported that a total spend was reported to my Department under the RAPID process in the area of more than €300 million. The big spend relates directly to line Departments giving priority to these areas. That is as it was meant to be from the start. Items such as the dormant accounts and the leverage funds were additional extras devised well after the programme had been launched.

I met recently with all of the community representatives at a conference in Dublin of the RAPID AITs and it was one of the most fruitful and positive meetings I have attended. They were highly interactive and had numerous very good suggestions. The one thing impressed on me that day, however, was that they believe RAPID is making a difference, that it is a long-haul initiative, and that they were ad idem with me, in so far as I could make out, that building on the present programme was much better than what had happened in the past. In the past a programme might be put in place and miracle results were expected overnight. Then it was scrapped and another was put in place, which was also scrapped. The conference was very positive about my thesis to the effect that a programme must be left in place for 20 years with assurances underpinning it as a long-term initiative.

Brian O'Shea (Waterford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Minister has stated that no €2 billion was promised on the record. If that is the case, how much money was promised? It was disingenuous of him to suggest that I was proposing that the RAPID programme should be done away with. Labour Party policy is to go for €3.5 billion with special emphasis being put on those regions within the RAPID areas in which the problems are particularly concentrated. That is what is being proposed in the Labour Party document. Incidentally, the preparatory work has been done and the Labour Party is not suggesting we reinvent the wheel. It is a question of putting the money in place to implement the proposals and do what needs to be done. It is an issue of resources and the Labour Party is promising that in government it will do that resourcing.

The Minister's line of argument is disingenuous, but I am intrigued to know, if €2 billion was not promised prior to the last election, how much was.

Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I cannot find any record of a figure being put on it. As we said all along it was a matter of the re-prioritisation of existing national development plan moneys. This is what is written in the press releases. I assure the Deputy that a new national development plan is under development and the entire issue of social inclusion obviously will be part of it, just as it was in its predecessor.

The Deputy appears to be suggesting that we should have RAPID areas and super-RAPID areas, which is an interesting idea. Tomorrow, I will meet representatives of the RAPID groups in an open forum, as I do once every six months. It would be interesting to put the proposal to them, to ascertain whether they believe there should be RAPID and super-RAPID areas and whether I should differentiate between them. In some ways, we already do this to an extent——

Brian O'Shea (Waterford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Minister should include the qualification that this would be in the context of fully financing the entire programme.

Séamus Pattison (Carlow-Kilkenny, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We must move on.

Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I presume the Deputy does not intend to take all the moneys for urban renewal, educational disadvantage, health and other issues from the line Departments and put them into the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs. One of the Deputy's party's spokespersons suggested that all rural matters should be removed from this Department. It was suggested that the old Department of Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands should be reassembled and that the community portfolio should be scattered to the four winds. I return to the point that the major expenditure must be done by the line Department.

Séamus Pattison (Carlow-Kilkenny, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We must proceed to the next question.

Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

This is how it must be done. I do not presume the Labour Party is suggesting anything different. It does not intend to take all the housing renewal moneys for RAPID areas from the urban development and environment portfolios.

Brian O'Shea (Waterford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Proper co-ordination is required.

Séamus Pattison (Carlow-Kilkenny, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Chair calls Question No. 42.

Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That is what we are about.

Séamus Pattison (Carlow-Kilkenny, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We must move on.