Vol. 435 No. 10
12 Mr. Shatter asked the Minister for Education the purpose for which it is now intended to use the premises in Churchtown, formerly used by Loreto Girls National School; whether it is still intended through arrangements with Dublin County Council to make these premises available for communal use, including use by Rathfarnham Concert Band; and if she will give the reason for the change, if any, in her plans in this regard.
My Department is grant-aiding the refurbishment of a portion of the former Loreto school at Nutgrove Avenue to provide permanent accommodation for a south city school project. The need to resume usage of these premises for primary education arises because the previous buildings occupied by the south city project which is a fully recognised multi-denominatinal national school were burned down earlier this year. Obviously this requirement was not anticipated.
I am conscious of the fact that some local community groups are using part of the school premises with the permission of Dublin County Council. I intend to ask the council to continue managing the section of the premises not required for school use and I am in touch with the relevant officials.
Is the Minister aware that the premises concerned were formerly occupied by Our Lady of Loreto national school and that in 1989 that school and De La Salle national school were amalgamated and became known as the Good Shepherd national school? Is she aware that undertakings were given to the boards of management and the teachers of the two amalgamated schools that the Loreto school premises would no longer be used as a school premises, that the Good Shepherd national school would cater for the catchment area and that the Loreto nuns were given undertakings by her Department that the premises would be used solely for community purposes?
I had occasion to visit the premises in question as a member of Dublin County Council and at that stage the building, apart from a small portion of it, was totally vandalised. As I stated in answer to an earlier question we had a private school premises which was offered to a multi-denominational group whose school premises in Crumlin was burned out earlier in the year. That group will not require the use of the entire building and the building has been the subject of much debate in the community. When the premises became available I was interested in housing a school group which required a school premises. Many local groups are also using the premises and some refurbishment of the building is taking place. Officials in my office were in touch with members of Dublin County Council as late as this morning to ensure that use of the building will be available to the community involved. A section of the premises will be used as a school during school hours and other sections of it will be open in the evenings and during weekends for use by the local community.
Such usage of a school building will act as a model if it is successful.
Will the Minister answer the question I asked? Will she confirm that there has been a serious breach of trust and faith by this Government with the Loreto nuns who believed the premises in question would be made available solely for community purposes? Will she agree that there has been a serious breach of trust and faith with the boards of management and teachers of the Good Shepherd national school who agreed to an amalgamation? Will she agree also that all the children currently attending the multi-denominational school come from the Crumlin and Drimnagh areas? They travel by bus to Churchtown and they all live outside the catchment area of the building in question. Will the Minister agree that moving the multi-denominational project to Churchtown does not meet the needs of the people in Crumlin and Drimnagh who would prefer to have their own multi-denominational school established in the area?
We had a building and a school that was seeking accomodation. People involved in the multi-denominational project visited the Department and said they had found accommodation. As I stated already, we are talking about a building that is not owned by the Department of Education.
We are talking about a breach of trust.
That is a matter between the Deputy's community and the people involved. The Deputy is asking me to cast——
The Minister should be allowed respond.
I will be very careful how I respond to this matter.
The Minister should be because she is in serious difficulties.
I have said all I am going to say about the matter. The premises was made available to the multi-denominational group and I was conscious that local people outside the multi-denominational school requirements were using part of the premises. As I had occasion to visit the premises I consider myself well informed about the matter.
The Minister is not addressing the issue. She is evading the question of a serious breach of trust by her Department.
I will not be pushed on this matter. I have said all I am going to say.
Is the Minister refusing to answer the question?
I have answered the question tabled. I cannot have words put in my mouth. I can only answer a question in the words in which I wish to answer it. The needs of the community are being met satisfactorily by Dublin County Council and I intend to ensure that community use of the building continues by allowing Dublin County Council use the premises. In regard to the needs of the school, a protracted and heated discussion took place at a meeting of the Select Committee on Social Affairs about the dire needs of the multi-denominational school because their premises was burned out. At that time the pupils had to travel by bus a much greater distance from their community. It was mutually agreed between the boards of management and the various parents' groups involved that the site in Nutgrove would be suitable for their needs and they are being facilitated.
We will move now to question No. 13.
I want to ask one further question. I have waited all afternoon for this question to be taken. It involves a very serious issue.
I would ask for brevity because I must be fair to other Deputies who have tabled questions. I will allow Deputy Shatter a final brief supplementary.
I want to puruse this matter to a certain further limited extent. Why is the Minister refusing to meet with the management of the Good Shepherd national school who have been betrayed and abandoned by her Department? Also, will she tell the House why she has refused to date to agree to a meeting with the board of management of that school accompanied by the five Deputies in the constituency in question despite the fact that her ministerial colleague, Deputy Fitzgerald, walked out of a meeting with the board of management? If the Minister believes that this proposal meets the needs of the people in Crumlin and Drimnagh, why has a new Crumlin multi-denominational group been established and published a statement in the newspapers stating that a multi-denominational school will be opened in Crumlin in September 1994 and that there is a waiting list of 66 children?
I would ask the Deputy to conclude his question.
If the Minister believes that this proposal has met the needs of the people in the Crumlin and Drimnagh areas, why has she located a school outside a catchment area to the detriment of the schools adjacent to it and deprived a local community of promised facilities?
That should be adequate.
I have one final question. Is the Minister aware that her ministerial colleague, Deputy Brennan, as late as 20 September 1993, wrote to the board of the Good Shepherd national school stating that the agreement he reached with the Loreto sisters was for the old Loreto school to be utilised for community and job creation efforts and when he heard of the latest developments he was concerned and apprehensive?
That is not an appropriate supplementary question.
The Minister has broken faith with the school and her ministerial colleague in the constituency is not capable of talking openly to the board of management.
Deputy Shatter, please allow the Minister to respond.
I have answered much of that question earlier. In respect of my refusal to meet with the board of management, I do not refuse to meet with people. I receive invitations from many people, including perhaps all the Deputy's party colleagues, to meet with various deputations. The Deputy should not come into this House and seek a headline by stating that I refused to meet the board of management.
The Minister has not agreed to the meeting which was requested.
Please allow the Minister to reply without interruption.
A refusal would mean a reply from me stating that I refuse to meet with them.
The Minister did not have the courtesy to reply.
We had a building in that community which was causing tremendous concern because it was falling into disrepair. We have a very good community response to the use of the building.
That is untrue, a total of £100,000 of Dublin County Council money was spent on the building.
We had an offer to facilitate the people involved in one wing of the premises which contains a school hall, an administration office and a series of other rooms.
They should be based in Crumlin where they want to be based.
Deputy Shatter is being grossly disorderly.
It might be helpful if the Deputy visited the premises to see what is going on there rather than seeking to ignore the needs of a school that was burned out earlier in the year.
The manner in which the Minister has treated the community and adjacent schools is a disgrace.
That is all I will say about this school having regard to the interesting developments taking place there.
That disposes of Questions for today.
I submitted a Private Notice Question in regard to the closure of the Larbaun plant in Westport with the loss of 60 jobs but I understand it was not deemed urgent. Can the Chair offer an explanation?
I will make inquiries and offer the Deputy an explanation.
Thank you.
