With your permission, a Cheann Comhairle, I should like to give five minutes of my time to Deputy Flaherty and three minutes to Deputy De Rossa.
Adjournment Debate. - Finglas (Dublin) Recreational Facilities.
The Chair will co-operate with the Deputy.
I ask you, a Cheann Comhairle, to take that as an indication of the feeling that exists in our constituency on this matter. I would preface my comments by saying that this matter is probably the source of my greatest disappointment as a politician since I first entered the local authority in 1968 and subsequently had the honour of being elected to this House. It frustrates, annoys and angers me that people in Finglas have been deprived of a facility which is essential to their wellbeing for no other reason than that which I must describe as the conundrumming of the bureaucrats and institutions of State, local and central.
In April 1980 I had the pleasure and the honour as Minister of State at the Department of Education, known more generally as Minister with responsibility for Youth and Sport, to disburse a fund which was made available to me resulting from the tripartite employment fund. We need not go into the nature of the establishment of that fund but it was a fund agreed upon by the Government and the trade unions which was to be made available for certain developments. From that, £5 million was given to me and I did a fast examination of the needs of the country generally in respect of recreation and community centres. I do not want to labour the merits of such centres. Briefly they are centres to which young people, or indeed people of any age, can retire and pursue any form of exercise, physical or otherwise, which they feel would be of advantage.
These establishments were built throughout the country and already they have proved their worth. For far too long we looked upon the school, the Garda barracks, the church and dwelling houses as the only worthwhile buildings which should be in any area. We overlooked the importance of recreational and sporting centres. That oversight has been corrected in many areas and they are vibrant as a result of these centres. Out of the funds available to me, I was happy to allocate £166,000 to the Finglas area, not just because I represented that constituency, but because in the examination that had taken place, it met all the necessary criteria. The arrangement was that, having given £166,000 to Dublin Corporation, they would provide another third of the total cost of a quarter of a million and also provide the site. After the normal deliberations that took place in respect of the site, I was informed that the city of Dublin VEC had co-operated in supplying a site and that the sod would be turned in late 1980. The sod has not yet been turned and the £166,000 is lying somewhere awaiting approval of the Department of the Environment so that they can guarantee a loan in respect of the other amounts which Dublin Corporation think it necessary to have before they build the recreation centre. There is an Irish proverb about three days you can never recover. One of the three days you can never recover is the day you miss from school or any mental or physical exercise. When I think of all the days that have been missed by the young people, housewives and all the other people in Finglas by not having this facility available to them, it angers and grieves me. It also makes me despair of some of our Departments and also of that great local authority of which I had the honour of being a member for many years. In the same constituency there are two private enterprises, the Erin's Isle GAA club, Tolka Rovers Soccer Club and the Boy Scouts, all voluntary organisations which were given relatively small grants out of the fund. They have provided the facility out of their own resources and, as Deputy Flaherty and Deputy De Rossa know, these establishments are alive with activity which is very beneficial to the whole community in west Finglas.
In fairness to the corporation, the centres at Bonnybrook, Tallaght and Clondalkin have all been provided but, for some unknown reason, Finglas has been excluded. I do not think anybody would make the case that it is not necessary in Finglas because we all know, from rather unfavourable comments, that there is a great need there. I hope that the opportunity which you have given me, a Cheann Comhairle to refer to this will serve as a shock tactic on the Department of the Environment to release whatever confirmation is required by Dublin Corporation so that they can proceed with this centre. If, for reasons unknown to me, it is outside the competence, capacity or the ability of the Minister for the Environment to guarantee the difference between the grant which I made and what is necessary to build the recreation centre, I hope he will say so and hand over that £166,000 plus the amount originally agreed to by the corporation £84,000, and for heaven's sake proceed with the building of a centre for a quarter of a million pounds. I know that costs have risen and it angers me to think of what could have been built three years ago for that money as against what it will cost now. At least one could provide, for £250,000, a building which would serve the needs to which I refer. I repeat that it is not to serve aspiring Olympic competitors. That would not be, and never was, the function of such a facility, as I would see it. It would serve, perhaps, as a creche in the mornings and as a centre for the young married women who were not going out to employment to retire and indulge in physical exercise suited to their preference and ability. I would have nothing against its serving as a centre where they could have chats and gossip — perhaps a form of therapy which has been rendered out of fashion for some time and which makes ladies the poorer and in need of other more expensive and more dangerous therapy.
It would serve as a centre for the schools in that area — the Patrician College, Scoil Íde, St. Michael's secondary school — which are not blessed with gymnasia, where the students could be time-tabled into it. It would serve as a centre where all the members of the local football teams which are not catered for by Tolka Rovers or Erin's Isle could retire, especially in wintertime, for their physical exercise. There is no reason why such a centre should not be used every hour of every day. Under proper management there could be no better investment for the State and the people of the country. The Minister for Justice has given us a shattering figure — it is not his fault — that it costs £425 a week to keep a prisoner in Mountjoy Prison. We can multiply that by 20 or 30——
Having regard to what the Deputy said at the beginning, may I remind him that there are about 13 minutes left?
Perhaps the selfish half of me now regrets my earlier magnanimity.
There is no such half.
I appreciate having had an opportunity of putting on the record of the House my annoyance and frustration and, on the other hand, my faith in the Minister of State that he will convey to the Minister of the Environment what I have said about this lost recreational facility in west Finglas, a position which will now be confirmed by Deputies Flaherty and De Rossa.
Let me first thank Deputy Tunney for raising the matter and for being particularly generous with the time. This tradition of co-operation I hope will redound to the benefit of the area. I am particularly glad that the Deputy raised the matter now, because it coincides with the initiative which I have undertaken at Dublin Corporation level to see whether the matter can be moved more speedily from there. It does seem that the wrong Minister is present. To the best of my knowledge — and this will be indicated in his reply — the grant given by the Department when Deputy Tunney was Junior Minister is still available and quite clearly the delay has occurred in the Department of the Environment. It is there that I would lay the blame and the responsibility for the inactivity.
The delay has been of almost three years, some of which was taken up by unavoidable negotiations in relation to the site, but a year-and-a-half's delay has occurred directly because the Department of the Environment have refused to allow Dublin Corporation to borrow the remaining money necessary to build the type of facility that the corporation and the area see as necessary.
The desire is to build a multi-purpose sports hall which will be available for meetings as well as sports activities. It is extremely badly needed in the area. That is inevitably quite clear because of the size of the area and the exploding youth population. Its population is now close to the size of Galway city's and the facilities in no way resemble those of that comparative group of people. As Deputy Tunney has pointed out, the only facilities in the area are those which have been provided by voluntary activities. It is very disappointing, when we think of the concentration given to many of the problems of this area, that this should be so — that at this point when part of the area is 26 years old, part 13 years old and the most modern part two or three years old, we can still say, in terms of community facilities for meeting together, spending leisure time together, other than the swimming pool, that no other facilities of an indoor nature have been provided by the corporation or the State for this massive community which we have housed there as part of a, supposedly, coherent policy for developing our city.
This project when first mooted was very much welcomed and it is intolerable that it should be allowed to go no further. It is even more extraordinary when one considers that the other project mooted by Dublin Corporation at the same time —Bonnybrook — has been built, the money having been made available for that last year. I do not object to any other area getting money, but it is extraordinary that the decision was not extended to include a similar facility for the Finglas area, which has great need of it. It is extremely important, because so much of our activity in the Finglas area was aimed at improving the quality of life there and must be involved in providing this type of facility.
I ask the Minister here present to use what initiative he has to co-ordinate activities in his own Department and the Department of the Environment in seeing that the views expressed here reach the Department of the Environment as well as his own Department and, ensuring that the project will go ahead without any delay and that sanction will be given in this year for commencement of this building.
I wish to thank Deputy Tunney for the opportunity of contributing to this debate on a very important matter. On 3 May, in reply to a question which I put, the Minister for the Environment indicated that the £190,000 which the corporation had requested to borrow was not available because money had to be made available for priority services and, accordingly, there were no funds at his disposal. That is an extraordinary statement, when one considers the dire need for facilities in the Finglas area. What facility would be more of a priority than a sports complex for Finglas West?
At a time when the problems of the Finglas area have received such national attention, it is appalling that the Government should refuse to support this project which could play a very important role in reducing crime and juvenile vandalism, not just in the Finglas area but in a wide area surrounding it. It is typical of the present Government which indulge themselves in public hand-wringing about problems of law and order that they should, at the same time, cut back on recreational projects and educational services. They are the very facilities that are most needed by the people at risk of coming into conflict with the law.
I have been informed by the corporation that the money which they now require to borrow — they are not looking for a grant, but to borrow — is in the region of £250,000 in addition to the money which they already have on hand. This is as a result of the delay. One hundred and ninety thousand pounds would have been adequate 18 months ago when tenders were first sought and got. Even that £250,000 is tiny, compared with the money which the corporation will pay out this year for malicious damages — they are facing a bill of £11 million. It is complete nonsense to fail to provide recreational facilities in areas around this city and at the same time provide money for the payment of malicious damages which result directly from a lack of facilities for young people in any given area. It is not just this Government but successive Governments which are responsible and must share the blame for this position. I am not referring to the Finglas position but to the lack of facilities everywhere in the city. Many of those involved in petty crime and vandalism come from unstable homes and situations of real poverty. The Government's policy of cutbacks in education, health services, social welfare and their failure to provide recreational facilities aggravate that situation.
I welcome the initiative taken by Deputy Tunney and the other representatives for the constituency in raising this matter. It should be stated clearly that we are in no doubt about the needs of the Finglas area. From my first day on entering politics as an elected member of Dublin Corporation when I took my seat alongside Deputy Flaherty, I was left in no doubt about the problems in that area. The Government have shown that they recognise the fact that youth services are a priority and must be funded as a priority. They showed their concern in the most practical way possible by reviewing the Estimates prepared by the previous administration who provided for a 1 per cent increase in funding in the youth area and replaced it with a 36 per cent increase.
Deputy Tunney began his contribution by telling a tale of conundrums of bureaucrats local and central. The situation he described was something of a tangled web. It would be helpful if I outlined the facts briefly and in chronological order.
In May 1980 two capital grants each of £166,000 were allocated to Dublin Corporation towards the cost of providing sports centres in Finglas and Darndale. These grants formed part of a package of over 60 capital grant allocations to various proposed recreational building projects throughout the country. Subsequently in each of the two cases a sum of £84,000 was approved from the Local Loans Fund by the Department of the Environment. Each development had a resource fund of £250,000 to meet construction costs. The next hurdle to overcome was the selection of sites. On 16 October 1980 Dublin Corporation wrote to inform the Department of Education that discussions had been entered into with Dublin VEC with a view to siting the proposed sports centre in the grounds of the girls' vocational school in Finglas. The site was investigated by officials of the Department and considered suitable.
A design common to both the proposed Darndale and Finglas projects was submitted for approval in November 1980 and the Department's approval was conveyed to the corporation within the same month. The facility comprised on the ground floor a multi-purpose sports hall, equipment store, changing rooms, showers, toilets and a games room. On the first floor there was a table-tennis and a balcony area, kitchen, store and another games room. Following that, tenders were invited. For the Finglas project they were invited by means of public advertisement in August 1981.
As regards the costing and financing, on 4 December 1981 Dublin Corporation wrote to the Department stating that five tenders had been received and that the lowest amounted to £586,529. The corporation's technical staff examined the feasibility of cost reduction without radically altering the design and produced savings which would reduce the overall contract figure to £442,788. However there remained a shortfall of £190,000 between the project resource fund, that is the £250,000 accumulated as I have indicated, and the contract cost. The corporation sought supplementary grant assistance of £380,000, that is £190,000 for each of the two projects, from the Department to enable construction work at the proposed centre to proceed.
Was it a loan or a grant?
The Deputy is correct. It is a loan. In a letter dated 6 January 1982 the Department informed the corporation that it could not exceed its previously determined level of grant assistance and requested the corporation to indicate by early reply whether construction work could be commenced in both cases. We must be clear about this. At that stage the corporation was just seeing what might just be available and if someone would give them a bigger grant they would take it. The corporation informed the Department that the city council at its meeting of 5 April 1982 had authorised the submission of an application to the Minister for the Environment for sanction to borrow an additional £300,000 from the Local Loans Fund to enable both centres to proceed. In September 1982 the Department of the Environment notified the corporation of its rejection of this application. In October 1982 the corporation formally proposed to the Department of Education that both grant allocations be combined so as to enable the construction of one of the proposed centres to proceed.
The Department of Education was examining this proposal when in November 1982 the then Minister for the Environment, Deputy Burke, gave the corporation sanction to borrow from a source other than the Local Loans Fund an additional sum of £190,000 to enable work on the proposed centre at Bonnybrook to proceed. Work on Bonnybrook commenced in February 1983 and to date the Department has issued £41,000 of the approved grant. There have been some recent developments. On 25 November 1982 the Department of Education asked the corporation to outline the position with regard to the Finglas proposal in view of the Minister for the Environment's approval for additional borrowing in the case of Bonnybrook. On 10 February 1983 the Department issued a reminder to the corporation. In a brief reply the corporation stated that the proposal to build a sports hall at Finglas was deferred as they had not sufficient finance available to undertake the project at present.
The position can be summed up as being that the allocation of £166,000 from my Department still exists but no action can be taken by my Department or any other Department while the matter remains in the court of Dublin Corporation. However, that would not do justice to the case. I invite Deputies from the constituency to meet me so that together we can consider how progress can be made on this difficult situation.
I should like clarification of the reply to my question to the Minister for the Environment.
Can the Deputy give the reference?
They said they did not have the money. Is the Minister now saying that the money is available?
I did not catch the reference.
It was 3 May 1983, a written reply to a question I put down about the provision of a further loan for the provision of the sports complex. The Minister stated that in September 1982 they told the corporation they did not have the additional money.
The Deputy's confusion is understandable. It is a tangled web. The £166,000 to which we were committed is still available. If we meet together we can see what progress can be made.
Is the Minister aware that an innovation has emerged arising from a further decision by Dublin Corporation Youth and Community Affairs Committee to pursue this matter actively, and that would contradict the information that the matter has been deferred? What is needed is someone to liaise with the three groups and perhaps the Minister would be the most suitable person to do so.
It is a bigger conundrum or con-job than it was in the beginning.
As I said, perhaps we could all meet and put our heads together to see what progress we can make.
The Dáil adjourned at 5.30 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. on Tuesday, 14 June 1983.