I suggest that the 20 minutes which I have be divided equally between my constituency colleague, Deputy Séamus Brennan, and me. I am disappointed to note that the Minister for Education has not seen fit to be here to answer the case——
Adjournment Debate. - Knocklyon (Dublin) Community School.
He is on his way.
The main reason for bringing forward this question is to try to elicit information on behalf of parents in the Knocklyon district of Firhouse and Rathfarnham. The Minister is a very busy man and a debate on a Thursday at 6 o'clock may not be suitable for him, and I would understand that he might not be able to be here and that Deputy Keating might take his place.
The decision to postpone the opening of the school at Knocklyon until 1986 was yet another arbitrary decision such as Circular 24/81 which we have had so much discussion about. It was taken without consultation with the interested groups, parents, teachers and the other groups concerned in the development of the community in Knocklyon. The reason given in letters to parents, after the decision had been made, not before, and only after the information had been elicited at a meeting of the Knocklyon Post-Primary Committee, is that the Department of Education were having some difficulty in purchasing the site.
I and everybody in the area know that there are always difficulties purchasing a site for a school of any kind, but I cannot see why suddenly the Minister decided that he or his officials were having difficulty purchasing this site. That gave him an excuse to get off the hook because he did not want to open the school until 1986. I should like the Minister to let the House know in detail about the alleged difficulty in purchasing the site. I should like him to answer the allegation made that the Department offered the owner a price based on the agricultural value of the land although Dublin County Council had identified the site on the Scholarstown Road and had it zoned for educational purposes.
If the allegation is true, I want the Minister to clarify for the parents involved, if the owner has indicated his asking price and if so what is it. How does the price being asked compare with prices for second level school sites elsewhere? Is the Minister responding yet again to demands being made for cutbacks in his budget by the Minister for cuts and Finance Deputy Bruton?
In 1977 when Fianna Fáil returned to government, all the problems relating to the Ballally community school which the previous Government had used to delay its approval were overcome in a short time and the development and the building of the school went ahead and it was opened on time. That school is now a magnificant example of the type of educational institution community schools have become, in this case in Ballally, under the superb principalship of Mr. Pat Byrne and his staff. It is a school not just serving the children but the whole community. It serves a wide range of community activities until 10 o'clock every night: that school is open from 10 a.m. until 10 p.m.
The former Minister for Education, Deputy Wilson, gave an undertaking that the Knocklyon school would be opened in 1983 and when giving his approval he indicated that he did not see any difficulty between the officials and the site owner, that it was only a matter of discussion between them to reach agreement on the price. Suddenly, overnight, apparently unknown to his Cabinet colleague, Deputy Kelly, the Minister for Education made a decision that the school would not be opened until 1986.
I wish to remind the Minister for the Fine Gael general election manifesto an extraction from which reads:
While school size would not normally exceed 800 pupils, Fine Gael believes that social needs must be considered and other economic considerations before any decision is taken about school establishment or school closure. The criteria of viability should be flexible enough to take into account more than cost factors alone.
Note the word "viable". What about the social needs on which I will dwell for a few moments? That sentiment in the Fine Gael manifesto is very worthy, but alas the social needs of the Knocklyon community are not to be taken into consideration on this question. The fact is that public transport is practically non-existent in the area. The Killaninny community school and the school at Orwell are too far away for young children to walk to and there is lack of transport, inadequate road structure, no paths, no lighting. In addition, all the private schools in the area are either financially out of the question, even if the parents financially could afford to send their children to those schools, or they do not want to by choice or they prefer the concept of a continuing community in a school.
Knocklyon has a very viable community. The people have proved their capacity to organise and to develop their own schools and to build their own church. The figures are there to show that the school is needed. The people of the area are anxious to have a continuity of community within the district, and sending their children to schools in other districts will not help to consolidate the community spirit that is evident among the people in Knocklyon and Firhouse. It is a very strong, forceful community anxious to maintain the development of the community.
At a meeting of the Knocklyon Committee on 28 October 1981, Deputy Kelly caused considerable shock when he announced he was the bearer of bad news. Unfortunately he did not have the full details of the bad news, and a public meeting was called, which he did not attend. I do not want the issue to develop into a squabble between the Minister and me. I merely ask him to reply to the questions I have put to him. I want to appeal to him on my own behalf and on behalf of all my colleagues from all parties to reconsider his decision. All my constituency colleagues from all parties agree that the school should be opened in 1983. They agree there is a case for a school there. They say it is not a political issue. The community need the school and the community should have it. After all, Deputy Fennell is concerned about the community. I know she has been in touch with the Minister about it.
I want the Minister to reconsider his decision and to go ahead with the purchase of this site and open the school as scheduled in 1983. If it is not opened, politicians on all sides of the House will have failed in our obligation to the people of this district who unquestionably have proven their viability as a community, despite the haphazard development of telecommunications, road and transport infrastructures over the years. I appeal to the Minister of State to accede to my request on behalf of the Knocklyon Post Primary committee and the parents of young children awaiting places in a school of their own, in their own district, within their own community.
The Minister has not arrived.
On a point of order, in the normal course of events during a discussion in this House would it not be appropriate——
The Minister is referring to a transfer to his side. No, not on the adjournment. There is no doubt about that.
The Minister owes me 30 seconds. I want to get to the heart of this matter. As Deputy Andrews said, it is causing shock and fear in the Knocklyon area of South Dublin. Before we leave the House at 6.30 this evening, I want the Minister to tell us when will the post-primary school be opened for classes in the Knocklyon area. If the Minister is fidgeting about with it, if he is cutting back on it, if he is having difficulties in the Cabinet about money, we should be told the truth. We want to be able to tell the people who are depending on a promise given, which I will quote in a moment, by the Department of Education. When will the Minister for Education open the new school in Knocklyon for classes? That is the central issue in this discussion. If the Minister cannot answer that question, this debate will have been in vain.
There is a rumour that the hold-up in this school is caused by site difficulties. I have a letter from the Minister for Education which mentioned something about difficulties with site acquisition. What is the nature of the problem about purchasing this site? Is it a legal problem? Is it that the title is not correct? Are there legal difficulties about the transfer of the site? Is that the problem? If it is, I want to be told about it. Is there a difficulty in reaching price agreement with the vendor? Is it a squabble over price? If so, we should be told. We are entitled to know about it. Could it be that the vendor is backing off and is not offering to do business? If the site is the problem, will the Minister please tell us the nature of the problem. Is it legal? Is it money? What is it? We want to be able to tell the people of our constituency what the problem is.
Assuming that the Minister confirms that the difficulty is a site problem, will the Minister tell us what legal options are open to the Department to overcome the difficulties? What are the Minister's options if he wishes to acquire the site urgently? Is he examining those options? How is he examining them? When will that examination be concluded? I should dearly love a direct reply to these questions. I should like answers and not a series of platitudes. Will the Minister of State confirm on behalf of the Minister that there is no backing off this project, that there is no cutting back on this school? I want to quote from column 281, volume 323, of the Official Report of 21 October 1980 where the Minister said:
It is proposed to build two new schools to cater for the Knocklyon, Ballyboden and Marley areas. The first of these two schools is intended to be built on a site on the Scholarstown road. This school will accommodate 800 pupils and it is scheduled to open in September 1983.
That was before the Minister, Deputy Wilson, left office. I want to know if the Government are moving away from the decision taken by the previous Government to supply the Knocklyon area with a school. Are they backing off that project? If they are, the Minister should tell us. We and Deputies on the Government side of the House have to face another public meeting in a short time with many hundreds of parents who want to know the specific answers to these questions. It will not do for us to bring them a list of platitudes. They want direct answers. If we do not get them here today, we will use every means at our disposal to pursue the Minister until we get them. I do not have to go into all the reasons. There is a huge population in the area. It is bursting at the seams. The growth in that part of the suburbs is absolutely enormous. Thousands of new families are moving into the suburbs every year.
Constitutionally the Government have a responsibility to provide education. A massive demand is there. The Department have pointed out time and time again that they agree the demand is there. Yet there is no clear move to provide the necessary facilities. As my colleague, Deputy Andrews, said, all of a sudden this bombshell arrived. First the new Government arrived, and then there was this bombshell in their wake that the school will not be ready in 1983. There were no details about why it will not be ready and why there is this change in policy. Is this part of the Government's financial cutbacks? If it is, we want to know the truth so that we can tell the people. If Deputy Andrews and I and Deputy Shatter and everyone else who is involved in this, leave the House with a list of platitudes and no clear answers to these questions, I assure the Minister that we are in for a hot time in this House, and we are also in for a hot time in our constituency. If the Minister is backing off the project he should tell us the truth.
With the greatest respect to the Minister of State, my colleague and I must register a protest that the Minister for Education is not available to answer questions on this most serious matter. That is no reflection on the Minister of State. On a matter of this nature we must protest because the Minister has not come into the House to speak to us. At a public meeting recently, Deputy Andrews and I suggested that we should have an all-party approach to the views I am expressing. I understand Deputy Shatter, Deputy Fennell, Deputy Kelly, Deputy McMahon and all of us involved in the area, and all the people in the area, agree that this school should be opened as promised by the Department of Education in 1983. I take it that this is an all-party request to the Minister to carry on the policy as agreed in this House on 21 October 1980. In the absence of any interruption from the other side, I take it that what I am saying is agreed by all the Deputies who represent the area. I would ask the Minister to give me specific answers to those questions and I thank Deputy Andrews for giving me some of his time.
Does the Minister accept that there is one Deputy from his side, Deputy McMahon, who wishes to speak for a few minutes? Deputy McMahon.
On a point of order——
Sorry, Deputy, may I say that it is at the discretion of the Chair. If the Minister agrees to give a couple of minutes of his time, it has been done before. I think there is genuine interest on the part of Deputy McMahon. He has two minutes only.
I want to thank the Minister of State for permitting me to make a few remarks. May I say to our colleagues on the opposite side of the House that if they were so anxious to get commitment to an all-party agreement they might have given us a few minutes in this debate.
I am as anxious as anybody else to see a post-primary school built at Knocklyon. I have been committed to this for a number of years. My commitment dates back to the time when Deputy N. Andrews served on the same committee. I am aware of the difficulties that have been encountered in procuring a site there, as indeed should Deputy N. Andrews, seeing that he served on the same committee. I am glad that Deputy Andrews has adopted a tamer attitude here today than that he took at the recent public meeting in Knocklyon. I regret I was not present for his contribution. Many people have been in touch with me since. I regret very much that Deputy Andrews saw fit to make that an occasion for a vicious attack on the Minister for Education and an official of his Department. I hope he will redress that position at the next public meeting. It was totally uncalled for, because both men are well known for their activities with regard to the provision of educational facilities in County Dublin.
They are not doing much in Knocklyon.
I am satisfied that the Department of Education are doing all in their power to procure a site, but I will leave that for the Minister to say. I have no doubt that a site can be procured. A site has been identified in consultation with the town planners of Dublin County Council. As I said at the recent public meeting, I am satisfied that the members of Dublin County Council will ensure that this site remains zoned as one to provide educational facilities. Whatever ideas the owners of the site may have of having a higher value on it, we in the county council are determined to ensure that it passes from agricultural zoning to educational purposes. I think I can say without any fear of anything else happening that that will be so.
It is important that this area should have a post-primary school. It is a community in itself. There are many householders in the area who bought their house on the understanding that a community school would be provided there. Many people have spoken to me over the last few years, people who would not have moved had they thought a post-primary school would not be provided in the area.
I would appreciate if the Deputy would now yield to the Minister.
I will give way to the Minister and I thank you a Cheann Comhairle, for permitting me to contribute. I am sure there will be another occasion on which I can go into this matter in greater detail.
I should like to apologise to the House for being late arriving back for the Adjournment debate. I was at another function and felt it would have been discourteous to the Leader of the Opposition had I not waited to hear his contribution.
Deputy Brennan would not wish that either.
The real Minister was looking after the job.
In relation to this matter the comment could well be made that facts are facts, fancy is free. For some weeks past now there has been a consistent attempt at misrepresentation on the part of Opposition Deputies in relation to the acquisition of a site and the planning and provision of a post-primary for the Knocklyon area. The facts of the matter explicitly contradict the contention that has been made locally and mischieviously in the Knocklyon area that the Government have in some way abandoned the second level school building programme. Nothing could be further from the truth. By the end of this year I am confident that a sum of over £38 million will have been spent on the building of second level schools generally.
What about Knocklyon?
I assume that the specific reference in the matter under contention is to the building of a school in the Scholarstown Road area near Knocklyon. The position—contrary to any of the stated contentions recently made—is that a possible opening date of 1983 had been mentioned in relation to this school. But it is clear from the relevant official correspondence that that date was based on a hope that a suitable site could be obtained in time. As it turned out negotiations for the purchase of the site have proved to be exceedingly slow and have not yet concluded. How exceedingly slow is exactly this: these negotiations have been going on literally for years, literally years, prior to 30 June last——
What is the problem with the site?
—— and for anybody to attempt to hoist around my neck or that of the Government the failures of the past Government ill becomes those who are themselves members of that party.
I never heard such nonsense in all my life. The Minister should answer the question.
Will the Minister answer the question?
I am sorry, Deputies, the Minister has a few minutes only. Would Deputies please cease interrupting if they want to hear the information?
I want to reiterate specifically a commitment I gave in writing several times in the last few months, a commitment to the provision of a second level school in the Knocklyon area. That commitment will be delivered on and that school will be planned and built just as soon as I can successfully ensure the purchase of a site, a purchase acquisition that had been conducted at the pace of a tortoise over the course of the last few years.
What is the nature of the problem with the site? That is my only question.
The Minister shall be allowed conclude. Time goes very quickly and Deputies do not get a proper reply. Will Deputies please allow the Minister to reply?
I am sure the nature of the problem with the site is very well known to the former Minister for Education and I am sure has already been explained by him in view of his apparent intimate connection with this whole question——
The Minister is the Minister with constitutional responsibility.
I am sure that has been intimately explained to the Deputies opposite also.
The Minister is not answering the question.
The Deputies are not giving him a chance.
The facts are that I will see a school built in Knocklyon as soon as a site can be obtained. Despite all of the developments in modern building techniques in this country I have yet to discover schools which can be built on stilts.
What is the nature of the problem with the site?
The Minister should tell us what is the problem with the site.
There is a simple problem with the site—the owner will not sell.
Now we are getting places.
What did the Deputies opposite think it was?
A disgraceful performance by the Minister.
Deputies, please. You have come here to elicit information. Please allow the Minister to conclude.
I should make it clear at this stage that I have already instructed that a better offer be made for the site than was made by Deputy Wilson.
Hear, hear. Will Deputies just listen?
Congratulations.
I have also issued instructions that an alternative site already unsuccessfully negotiated for by Deputy Wilson should be pursued once again so that all options would not lie in one basket. All I can say in relation to the entire matter of the provision of proper and adequate post-primary schooling in the Knocklyon area is that the entire matter has not been helped at all through the mischievous activities of Opposition Deputies who appear to be more interested in their own political ambitions than the adequate provisions of post-primary schooling in the Knocklyon area.
Is the Minister going to open a school in 1983? Will he answer that question?
There has been a positive, constructive and helpful attitude displayed by certain Deputies in the area, in particular by Deputies Shatter, Fennell, Kelly and McMahon. Deputy McMahon has already arranged that a deputation of residents from the area should be received and have their case stated within my Department. That has been useful and has helped explain to people the factual situation rather than the misrepresentations which have continued over a period of months past.
So the Minister has made a new offer? Is that right?
I have instructed that a better offer than that made by Deputy Wilson should be made in respect of this site.
When does the Minister expect a reply?
I am one half of this bargain only, somebody else owns the site. I cannot undertake to say when the other person may respond to the offer made.
I have also commissioned a re-investigation and negotiation in respect of an alternative site. I want to say this. If I can get that site in the morning I will do everything in my power to see that the school is built in 1982 if possible, if not, by 1983. The one thing I must have is a site. The mischievous activities of certain Deputies, who appear to be intent on doing nothing more than pushing up that potential site cost through their public pronouncements, have done nothing to further the early provision of proper post-primary schooling in Knocklyon.
The Dáil adjourned at 6.30 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. on Tuesday, 15 December 1981.