Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 16 Dec 1997

Vol. 485 No. 2

Private Members' Business. - Carlow Housing Development: Motion.

Mr. Browne

(Carlow-Kilkenny): I move:

That Dáil Éireann

(a) condemns the action of the Minister of State at the Department of the Environment and Local Government with special responsibility for housing, Deputy Molloy, in his unprecedented decision to overturn on 2nd December, 1997, a decision made by Carlow Urban Council and approved by the Department of the Environment in June, 1997, to build 26 houses

(b) requests the Minister of State to make a comprehensive statement on his contacts in the matter with Senator Jim Gibbons, Chairman of the Progressive Democrats Parliamentary Party;

(c) questions the undermining by the Minister of State of decisions properly and democratically taken by Carlow Urban District Council and approved by his Department;

(d) calls on the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Leader of Progressive Democrats, and on the Minister for the Environment and Local Government to make statements on the issue;

(e) calls on the Minister of State to account for his actions in the matter; and

(f) calls on the Government to overturn his rescinding decision and to make funds available for the completion of the project.

With the permission of the House, I wish to share time with Deputies Hayes and Creed.

This morning the Minister of State at the Department of the Environment and Local Government, Deputy Molloy, gave an interview on "Morning Ireland" during which he was asked by Mr. David Hanly why he had changed a decision which had already been made. He said a final decision had not been made. That is in sharp contrast to a reply I received on 4 December to an Adjournment debate matter when he told me the plans for the local authority housing were discussed and agreed at local level between the local authority and the Department's technical inspectorate and design approval had issued in June 1997. The Minister cannot have it both ways. On 9 June 1997 Ms Patricia Ballantine from the housing construction section of the Department of the Environment and Local Government wrote to the town clerk. The letter stated:

I wish to refer to your letter and submission of 19 February 1997 concerning the above [housing scheme at Shaw Park, Athy Road, Carlow] and to say there are no objections to the proposals submitted. The Council are reminded that if the current estimated all-in cost (based on the tender amount) is within the unit cost ceiling the Council are free to accept the lowest valid tender without seeking the Department's approval as outlined in the Department's circular N1/97 paragraph 6(i). However if this is not the case, all tender details and tender analysis are to be submitted for approval. The Council are asked to submit details of site costs on the enclosed form.

That letter gave the council permission to continue with the housing scheme. The Minister's statement on the radio this morning contradicts what he told me in the House and the contents of the letter from the Department.

This motion was tabled because of the Minister's unprecedented decision to overrule a democratic decision made by Carlow Urban District Council and approved by the Department of the Environment and Local Government. This was gross interference in something which did not concern him. This is not a debate about open spaces, about which the Minister professed his love during the Adjournment debate on this issue. Carlow Urban District Council advertised in the usual way, received objections from people and then decided to build the houses following the manager's recommendation. It was advised to build a mixed scheme of ten co-op and 16 local authority houses.

Senator Gibbons objected to this development on the grounds of invasion of privacy, trespass and damage to property. He was entitled to do that in a democratic society. However, we are now getting information about open spaces, although Senator Gibbons did not mention them in his objection. Senator Gibbons is chairman of the Progressive Democrats' parliamentary party and he had a word in the Minister's ear. Democratic decisions are being turned on their head to keep the boys in jobs. The Minister and the Senator agreed they discussed this matter but neither seems to have asked the other about stopping this development. Senator Gibbons said he did not have to power to ask the Minister to stop it. I am sure he had the power to ask him but whether the Minister had the power to do so is another matter.

I refute the Minister's statement that my allegations and insinuations were contemptuous. I have defended the democratic system which elects us. In 1975 the Minister made contemptuous allegations and insinuations about Mr. Jim Tully. The then Taoiseach, Mr. Liam Cosgrave, said it should be made clear that there was not a scintilla of evidence to justify such unscrupulous allegations against him. The Minister wants to put my defence of democracy on the same level as his actions then. Justice was done in that case. A rocket was fired and the Minister was sent from the Front Bench to outer space. I hope the Tánaiste will fire another rocket in these circumstances.

The Tánaiste was strong in her defence of democracy during a debate on a confidence motion on 16 November 1994. In the Official Report, 16 November 1994, volume 447 at column 365, she stated:

One person's standards are perhaps different from other people's standards but there are basic community standards, basic values by which ordinary people expect us to live. Those of us who represent the people in this House are honoured and we have a duty to live and work by normal decent values. People do not want saints in the Dáil .. ; they want ordinary people who are prepared to adhere to ordinary standards and they want people to take the rap and the responsibility when they get it wrong.

The Minister does not claim to be a saint but he is not an ordinary person prepared to adhere to ordinary standards. He wants extraordinary standards which is why he interfered in decisions already made and tried to stand democracy on its head. Is he prepared to take the rap and responsibility now that he is wrong? He backed down once this motion was tabled because wiser heads prevailed in Government who would not tolerate what he was trying to do.

The Tánaiste also said during the debate on the confidence motion that "democracy is a very fragile thing and sometimes many people take it for granted. They do not do that in other countries". She explained that the Premier of Denmark was suspended and the Premier of Western Australia jailed. She asked what would have happened in Ireland. What will happen now that the Minister has behaved badly and shown low standards in high places? I do not take democracy for granted; it should defended. The Tánaiste also said during that debate that other democracies "know that democracy is a fragile thing and that we need eternal vigilance to ensure it is preserved". We must have "eternal vigilance" to ensure that undemocratic decisions do not go unchallenged.

It was decided to build on Shaw Park in Carlow, which is 5.27 acres. The Minister said he was in Carlow in 1971 to open the outdoor swimming pool. Much water has gone in and out of that swimming pool since then. It has been closed for the past three years. A new indoor swimming pool was built in Graiguecullen at a fraction of the normal cost due to the wonderful work of two priests, Fr. Fingleton and Fr. O'Connell. It is open from 7 a.m. to 11 p.m. and is making money. The outdoor pool might have been all right 26 years ago or if we had six months of good weather. Shaw Park contains only 5.27 acres, Graiguecullen park has 12 acres across the river from it and Hanover park contains 13 acres. I agree with Senator Gibbons and the Minister of State on the need for parks in towns and Carlow badly needs to develop a park. The land at Hanover and Graiguecullen parks is being developed under the urban renewal scheme and we cannot advance fast enough. Carlow people are going to Kilkenny to enable their children to amuse themselves in parks.

It is vital we have a park, but we are arguing about 5.27 acres, half of which will be developed for housing. The site is regarded as derelict and is located behind a row of houses, one of which is owned by Senator Gibbons. It is secluded and considered unsafe for young people. The idea is that with half of the land developed as a playground under the supervision of those in the houses, it will be a much safer place. Half a loaf is better than no bread and I support calls for a park in Carlow.

After all submissions were made, the county manager encouraged the council to proceed with the scheme. In a letter to the council he stated:

1. Construction of a new swimming pool in Graiguecullen, to which the council is an annual contributor for operating costs, made the former swimming pool in Shaw Park obsolete and necessitated its closure. There is little prospect for any future use of the pool, in my view, because it is unlikely that Carlow could sustain two swimming pools. Since closure, the pool site in Shaw Park has become an area of hazard and would have to be dealt with by the Council for safety reasons, either by way of demolition or filling in the swimming pool area.

2. Because of its backland location Shaw Park has not functioned properly as a park for a considerable time and has been a cause for concern because of vandalism and other undesirable activities continually taking place in the area.

3. The construction of houses is a practical and beneficial use for the area and is very much in conformity with the Government's current policy on Social Housing and housing location.

This is a reference to the fact that ten co-operative houses were being built by people who had permission and were brave enough to get loans and build their houses amid urban council houses.

The fourth argument was that "a considerable area of land will still remain for amenity use and it is intended to arrange for an upgrading of this remaining space to make it pleasant and provide an attractive connection between the Athy Road and the Barrow River. "

He continued:

In the overall thinking in relation to the provision of parks in Carlow it is unlikely that the Urban District Council will have sufficient financial resources to maintain three park areas in a town the size of Carlow. The second phase of Hanover Park is now about to commence and it is intended to complete this work as soon as possible which will provide the town with a highly attractive park in a very central area. Following on from that it would be the intention to upgrade the Graiguecullen Park which is pleasantly located beside the Barrow River. Provided they are maintained properly, Carlow as a town would then be very well served by park provision. Because it will not be possible to maintain more park area than the Hanover and Graiguecullen Parks, it is important that a suitable alternative land use be made of the former Shaw Park.

In the circumstances, it is recommended to Council that the development proposals for Shaw Park be allowed to proceed.

The county engineer then gave his views on why it should go ahead. He referred to a summary of the submissions, some of which justifiably argued against the idea of building houses in Shaw Park. This is democracy at work as people are entitled to argue against it. He stated:

A number of those who wrote on this matter complained at the loss of the park and, in particular, the swimming pool. As previously outlined, the park has not functioned properly in its original state. This proposal still retains portion of the area as a park. It will be possible to maintain this to a higher standard because of the reduced area involved. The presence of houses in the areas as previously mentioned will also ensure that the occurrence of vandalism in the area in the hours of darkness will be minimised.

He goes on to explain that the privacy of houses, etc., will be protected by building a two metre wall. One submission complained about the lack of water which occurred when the swimming pool was in use. It was not a serious problem. He also referred to another submission that more houses be built and he did not want that either. He concluded:

I feel this is a worthy proposal in conformity with the zoning guidelines of the present UDC plan and draft plan. It acknowledges the failure of the park in its current form and while still retaining portion of the site as a park also provides a well designed in-fill housing scheme. The privacy considerations of the residents on the Athy Road can also be met successfully with a two metre boundary wall.

The council made its decision and received approval on June 9 and was told not to come back unless the cost per unit was over the limit. The ten couples involved in the co-operative bought their sites. They even drew lots for them and knew exactly who their neighbours would be. They hired a contractor and waited for the project to begin.

The UDC would build were it not for the Minister of State's letter in August. He focused his periscope on Carlow for some strange reason and decided to take a special interest in it. I do not believe his interest was in open spaces because he would not have known about them had he not been contacted by his colleague, Senator Jim Gibbons. What took place between them and what did they discuss? Both say they did not ask each other about the housing scheme. Senator Gibbons in an interview with Michael Godfrey in The Nationalist said he did not ask the Minister to stop it as it was not in his power to do that. This is strange language, but perhaps he meant something else.

Mr. Gibbons said in Carlow people asked him on becoming a Senator to make representations to stop the housing development or to have it reviewed. This is where democracy goes out the window. If he thinks a democratic decision made by the urban council and approved by the Department can be rescinded just because he becomes a Senator and his colleague becomes Minister with responsibility for housing, there is something awfully wrong with the attitude of the Progressive Democrats Party and it appalls me.

Those involved could have appealed to An Bord Pleanála, which is democracy at work. They did not do so when the decision to build the houses was made. It is backdoor politics if one can skip over the democratic system and go directly to a Minister. The Minister of State's talk about open spaces is a fig leaf, an attempt to cover his shame. He is still stark naked because he has no defence for what he did.

He wrote to the county manager in August expressing regret. The county manager replied and explained the position in detail, which is why it is unforgivable for the Minister of State to have done what he did. The Minister of State could have at least read the county manager's letter, dated October 28, and which was addressed to one of his officials, Ms McGuinness. It stated:

I write in connection with your letter, received on the 18th August last..

The options available, which are very limited in Carlow at present, are still under consideration to see how quickly a viable alternative scheme could be put in place if necessary.

While the concern raised by the Minister is valid and was considered locally it may be helpful in his fuller consideration of the situation to be appraised of the context in which the proposals evolved for the two schemes at Shaw Park.

Apart from other open spaces which are shown coloured green. .there are three parks in public ownership. These are, Hanover Park, Graiguecullen Park and Shaw Park, which are outlined in red and blue on the map.

Shaw Park contains 5.27 acres, Graiguecullen Park 12.50 acres and Hanover Park 13.15 acres.

Shaw Park is located in a backland situation and also contains the formerly used outdoor Swimming Pool which was closed three years ago when a new indoor pool was opened in Graiguecullen. The pool in Shaw Park had become derelict, is in a generally dangerous condition and subject to continued vandalism which is common in this park area because it is banklands and without any visual social control.

A strategic review of policy for parks in Carlow Town took the view that with a relatively weak financial base, the UDC would not be able to sustain adequate maintenance for three public parks of the size indicated above. The agreed policy which emerged from this review was that the Hanover Park and the Graiguecullen Park would be up-graded to a very high standard by the use of Urban and Village Renewal Schemes and that these Parks will subsequently be maintained to a very high standard and become important amenities for the citizens of Carlow. The review also resulted in the inclusion of relevant statements relating to Shaw Park in the Carlow Urban District Development Plan, extracts of which are enclosed for information.

It was within this background that a housing design emerged for Shaw Park. It is also important to note that the process has been in train for a considerable time and was brought to approval stage with the Department in June last. (See letter .). A résumé of the steps taken in relation to the scheme is shown on the enclosed Housing Officer's note to the Town Clerk ..

Apart from the provision of 16 local authority houses, a proposal was also developed to allocate sites for 10 houses at Shaw Park to the Carlow Friendly Society Co-Op. This had support of Councillors and the enclosed letter dated 24th July 1996 from Councillor Walter Lacey [the only Progressive Democrat councillor in the town] the then Chairman of Carlow UDC is apposite. Following negotiations for disposal of the 10 sites, the Society completed its registration of a Co-Op and proceeded to have plans drawn up to obtain planning permission for the development of the 10 houses. The formal procedure for the disposal of the sites was also undertaken and disposal was approved by UDC by Resolution on the 27th May 1997. Planning Permission for the Co-Op houses was issued on the 25th July last and a copy of this. is enclosed ..

Given the circumstances which now exist, there would be considerable legal difficulties and other serious considerations including financial costs, if the Carlow UDC were to attempt to withdraw from the contractual obligations already entered into with the Co-Op given the stage to which matters have already advanced.

If the Minister read that and did not act I do not know what he was thinking about.

In a situation where the 10 Co-Op houses have to proceed because of the legal realities which exist, the exclusion of the local authority element will leave a very unsatisfactory development situation prevailing in Shaw Park. The Council would then have to address this problem having regard to policy already determined and included in the Development Plan as adopted.

Perhaps the Minister might further consider the matter in the wider view of the content of this letter and my own recommendation is that the local authority scheme should, in all the circumstances, be allowed to proceed.

It should be noted also that considerable adjustments were already made to the housing design to accommodate adjoining existing residences and the Council will provide adequate boundaries etc., to ensure that the development does not impinge on the existing amenity levels of adjoining properties. Out of the total area 5.27 acres in Shaw Park, an area of 2.35 acres will remain and will not be built up. It is intended that this area will be properly landscaped and used for local amenity purposes.

As the implications which may arise from non-completion of the local authority element of the development in Shaw Park are likely to give rise to considerable difficulties at a number of levels, I will be glad to supply any additional clarification required or to attend any meeting considered necessary regarding the proposals.

Had the Minister read that letter he would have realised he was going astray. Last week he asked two of his officials to meet local authority officials in Carlow — another fig leaf to cover his nakedness — who decided there was nothing wrong with what was proposed. The Minister magnanimously said, in the exceptional circumstances, he would give the go ahead now. There are no exceptional circumstances except the Minister's decision to overrule the original decision. If the Fine Gael motion had not been submitted to the Minister of State last Thursday no decision would have been made and he would have insulted democracy. I regret having to say this today but as a democratically elected Member, it is important that like the Minister's leader, the Tánaiste, Deputy Harney, we honour and respect democracy. What the Minister of State did was an insult to democracy.

Mr. Hayes

This entire episode is a sorry one. It involves a Minister of State who has poked his nose into the legitimate decision making process of a local authority and who has flagrantly abused his position by sorting out the interests of his friend and party Member. Despite the spin the Minister of State, Deputy Molloy, is trying to put on recent events, the public and the people of Carlow will not buy his story. This affair which undermines the essence of local government smacks of the worst possible practice in politics — looking after a friend or a relative.

Just three weeks ago the Progressive Democrats influence in Government paid back its wellto-do and elitist electorate. We are now seeing the same principle of pay-back time copied by the Minister of State, Deputy Molloy, in his dealings with a member of his party. The budget and the controversy we are discussing could well signal the final re-entry of the Progressive Democrats to Fianna Fáil. This would be a logical progression given that the practices of Fianna Fáil in Government have now been copied by its PD partners. There is one law for ordinary members of the public and another for party colleagues and hacks.

This controversy undermines the process of decision making. It makes redundant the notion that local government will decide local matters. Given the interference in this matter, there is a complete betrayal of the principle of local autonomy by the Minister of State. The Government programme, An Action Programme for the Millennium states that key priorities will include a continuing house construction programme by local authorities and voluntary groups. This priority puts emphasis on local authorities to make decisions. The actions of the Minister of State have not only undermined this priority but have shown a complete disregard for the Government programme and the primacy of the local authority housing department.

I would have expected more from the Minister of State given his preaching about high standards in office in recent years. After only six months in the job all those principles which he previously espoused are in the skip.

The Shaw Park affair needs to be examined by this House. Fundamental questions must be answered by the Minister of State about his involvement in this entire fiasco. A decision of Carlow UDC and Carlow Friendly Co-Operative Society has been turned on its head by the actions of the Minister of State. Why should the Minister who so vehemently opposed the construction of 26 dwellings in Shaw Park now inform the House that he is in favour of the development going ahead? What has changed the Minister's view which was so implacably opposed to building on public amenity space? The Minister of State informed the House on 4 December 1997 as reported in the Official Report at column 368:

It should not be necessary to sacrifice a public park or other designated recreational areas to housing.

Why has he performed a somersault on this issue given that last Friday the entire project was given the go-ahead? The Minister explains there were exceptional circumstances. Following the meeting with his officials and local authority officials from Carlow, will the Minister explain what precisely are the exceptional circumstances which have led him to do a U-turn on this matter?

Mr. Crawford

Embarrassment.

Mr. Hayes

Why did the Minister of State change his mind? What forces were at work? On 4 December he said "I am not convinced there are other suitable sites in the Carlow area". Eight days later he had to swallow his words. It is obvious from the swift reaction of his party leader and the way his colleagues in Government have distanced themselves from him that he has been allowed to walk the plank alone. He has, effectively, been dumped.

Despite this we still have to get to the heart of the discussion which took place between the Minister of State and his colleague, Senator Gibbons. What power of persuasion does Senator Gibbons have over his power-wielding colleague? No member of the public would accept the version of events submitted by the Minister of State. Senator Gibbons had a direct interest in the decision-making process. We need to know the extent of his intervention. It is not good enough that a politician can be placed in a powerful position where he can interfere with the legitimate decision of local government. It shows a callous disregard for the balance between local and central Government.

Deputy Browne stated during the Adjournment debate on 4 December that the matter had been resolved successfully by Carlow Urban District Council. The housing mix proposed — 10 co-op and 16 local authority — would have been a much needed addition to the council's housing stock. I understand there are more than 500 people on the local housing list. I am a firm believer in the concept of infill development, particularly in urban areas where we should seek to establish a better social housing mix. Too often there is a Berlin Wall divide between public and private housing. In my constituency we have to live with the problems associated with sprawling local authority housing estates where there are few examples of infrastructural projects. There can be a huge public reaction to the provision of local authority housing beside private residential areas but this equation offers much more stable local authority housing in the long run.

I hope the days of segregating local authority tenants from private home owners are well and truly gone. We are living with the disastrous consequences of that snob attitude. When one looks coolly at this affair one will see that a small number of private residents attempted to block the excellent social housing plan devised by the local authority. They were backed to the hilt by the actions of the Minister of State. He bowed to the snob attitude instead of performing his statutory function in helping the local authority to provide housing. Should we be surprised by this given that there is a Progressive Democrats' Minister of State in charge of housing policy? The reintegration of the Minister of State and his Progressive Democrats' colleagues into Fianna Fail is complete. Low standards in high office are the order of the day for this rag-bag minority coalition.

Mr. Creed

I thank Deputy Browne for sharing his time with me and compliment him for bringing this matter to the attention of the House. It smacks of extraordinary interference in the affairs of local government by the Minister of State with responsibility for local authority housing. Local authorities are continually undermined by their dependence on central Government. In this instance the level of interference is unprecedented.

One should begin with an analysis of the founding principles of the Progressive Democrats, the political party involved. Their foundation stone was high standards in public office and openness and transparency in decision-making. They were launched following the expulsion of Deputy O'Malley from Fianna Fáil for conduct unbecoming. That is what we are witnessing in this instance. In one fell swoop the Minister of State with responsibility for local authority housing has attempted to cut the legs from under the local authority concerned in coming to a democratic decision.

This has been annus horribilis for the Progressive Democrats. They were decimated when the public spoke their mind in the general election in June when their number was reduced to four. There have been recent setbacks, including the Seagate debacle, although the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment was not directly at fault, which was handled in a shoddy manner as well as the controversy surrounding the publication of donations.

What the Minister of State has been engaged in strikes at the heart of the founding principles of the Progressive Democrats. We will wait with bated breath to see how he will extricate himself from this problem. What is at stake is his suitability for office. Can the local authorities with which he has to deal on a daily basis retain confidence in him given that with one stroke of a pen he has attempted to deny local representatives who had followed due process in planning procedure their democratic rights? This calls into question the Government's commitment to increase their powers. It beggars belief that the Minister of State who has long experience as a member of a local authority and of the Oireachtas and who is a former Minister for the Environment should act in such a cavalier and undemocratic fashion to pursue the selfish interests of a party colleague. I do not wish to overstate the matter but I will wait with considerable interest to see how he will extricate himself from this problem. His suitability and credibility are at stake.

Minister of State at the Department of the Environment and Local Government (Mr. Molloy)

I move amendment No. 1:

To delete all words after "That" and substitute the following:

"Dáil Éireann

—notes the decision of the Minister of State at the Department of the Environment and Local Government to give the go ahead to the housing development at Shaw Park, Carlow;

—supports the Minister of State's policy that existing public parks and designated public recreational areas should, as far as possible, be retained for the benefit of local communities and not used for development; and

—commends the promotion by local authorities of integrated social housing developments involving different types of housing, including local authority, voluntary and co-operative. "

It has been nauseating listening to Fine Gael spokespersons who displayed sheer hypocrisy and naked political opportunism.

Mr. Browne

(Carlow-Kilkenny): Nonsense.

Mr. D. Carey

The Minister of State should deal with the problem.

Mr. Molloy

They sought to build their case on a false motive they attributed to me. If they can live with their consciences, so be it but it is not an attitude I admire.

This matter was raised on the Adjournment on 4 December when I explained in full my thinking on the use of public parks for development of any kind. I announced that the housing scheme proposed for Shaw Park in Carlow was to be the subject of further discussions to see if an alternative solution could be found to preserve and develop Shaw Park for the enjoyment of the citizens of Carlow. As Deputies know, following discussions at local level I made my final decision on the matter on that day when I gave the scheme the go-ahead.

In these circumstances I am surprised the Opposition is continuing to pursue the issue in the House and the media. It is a pointless exercise. It shows the opportunism of the Opposition and its inability to focus on serious political issues. It should have been obvious from my contribution to the Adjournment debate that I was still considering the matter. I could reasonably have expected the Opposition to wait until I had received a report from my officials and made my decision before raising the matter in this way. As Minister of State with responsibility for housing and urban renewal I have two distinct duties in this matter. The first is to ensure that the range of social housing measures is developed to its full potential to ensure that housing is available to those who require it and cannot afford to provide it themselves. The second is to ensure that our towns and urban areas retain an environment centred on their indigenous communities who need both living and recreational space as important components of their lives.

People who live in towns and urban areas generally live in areas of higher density development than their rural counterparts and are very dependent on the provision of different types of open space — public, semi-public and private — each of which complements the different aspects and needs of urban living. The first type is the small neighbourhood square or park, not unlike Shaw Park in Carlow. Traditionally, small public squares with local shops and services or, alternatively, small parks for recreational purposes are found at the heart of such neighbourhoods. This type of space is a resource which can help nurture the creation of specific, identifiable neighbourhoods within the greater urban area. I hope Members will agree that such a resource should be protected and not sacrificed to development.

The housing development at Shaw Park, Carlow, the subject of this motion consists of two separate proposals: one for the construction of ten houses by the Carlow Friendly Housing Co-operative Society on sites being made available to its members by Carlow Urban District Council and, second, the construction of 16 local authority houses on another part of the same site.

The development of the housing by the co-operative society was to be facilitated by the disposal of sites at a subsidised cost to members of the society by the urban district council under the sale of housing sites scheme. The plans for the local authority housing were agreed at local level between the local authority and the Department's technical inspectorate, design approval having been issued in June, l997. This was a purely routine approval of the type issued regularly by the Department without reference to the Minister of State and did not require, nor did it receive formal endorsement by my predecessor.

Members will recall that I explained to the House on the Adjournment Debate on 4 December that I had concerns about the choice of an existing public park as a site for housing. Last August I conveyed to the local authority my reluctance to make public funds available for the provision of housing at this location which was a public park. I should make it clear that I had no objection to the design of the schemes and was impressed at the manner in which the two forms of housing were combined in an imaginative layout. Schemes of this nature are worthwhile. I had no hesitation in commending Carlow Urban District Council on promoting the development of voluntary and local authority housing in close proximity on the same site. My only reservation related to the choice of an existing public park as a site for the housing schemes.

I take particular exception to claims that I took a decision in this case on the basis of personal political considerations, which is simply not true.

Mr. Browne

(Carlow-Kilkenny): How did the Minister know about it?

Mr. Stagg

Who told him?

Mr. Molloy

Approval of the layout and scheme design had already been issued. However, because of my concern at the use of a public park as a site for these houses I was anxious to have alternative possibilities examined. In the course of that Adjournment Debate I stated that, arguably, selection of site was the most important consideration in the provision of new housing. I suggested that the local authority should be able to find an alternative location to enable the housing schemes go ahead. I was anxious that efforts be made by Carlow Urban District Council to ensure that the housing got under way as early as possible but that the amenity of Shaw Park be retained if at all possible.

I arranged for officials of my Department to visit Carlow, to meet the county manager, the town clerk and representatives of the Carlow Friendly Co-operative Society——

Mr. Browne

(Carlow-Kilkenny): A waste of time.

Mr. Molloy

——to explore the options that might be available to enable the housing schemes to proceed, of which I informed the House in the course of that Adjournment Debate. That meeting took place on Friday last. I was anxious that all avenues be explored, and that the views of both the co-operative society and local authority be heard in full.

Mr. Browne

(Carlow-Kilkenny): The Minister knew more than the local authority.

Mr. Molloy

Immediately following the meeting it was reported to me that members of the co-operative society had made a very convincing presentation of their case to have the new housing proceed at Shaw Park, having already spent a considerable amount of time developing their proposal and maintained that some degree of personal hardship would be involved if the scheme was delayed further. The co-operative society had seen how successful other earlier co-operative housing ventures had been in Carlow and wished to follow that success with their scheme. My officials also confirmed to me, following consultation with the manager, that it would be some time before a suitable alternative site for the housing scheme could be identified and developed. In fact the only two sites the manager offered as alternatives was one which he said was flooded — whose level would need to be raised, rendering it unsuitable — and another located two and a half miles outside the town which would not have been suitable either.

Mr. Browne

(Carlow-Kilkenny): They knew that all the time.

Mr. Molloy

In those circumstances I decided to give the go-ahead to the two housing schemes at Shaw Park. Only on receipt of the report from my officials on Friday last did I make the final decision in this case.

Contrary to what Members may think, I know Shaw Park. I have good memories of a day in l971 when I opened a swimming pool there already referred to. As we know, the park was officially named George Bernard Shaw Park in l991.

Mr. Browne

(Carlow-Kilkenny): Very good on history.

Mr. Molloy

Therefore, I was surprised and horrified to learn it had fallen into virtual disuse and lay derelict. I felt it should have been possible to have had it maintained as a valuable local resource. I regard it as an exceptional measure that housing be developed there. Indeed, it is some comfort to me to know that the plans for the site include the retention of a portion of the park as open space for future residents.

I understand there is considerable relief in Carlow that the problem has now been resolved and that good social housing schemes can now proceed. I wish the members of the co-operative society good luck in the future and hope that other groups in Carlow and elsewhere will follow their example and become involved in developing their housing proposals in association with their relevant local authorities.

I should now like to make some general comments on the broader issues raised by this case. As I said, selection of site is probably the single most important consideration in the process of providing housing since any new housing development always will have a significant contribution to make to its locality/neighbourhood.

Substantial public funds are invested in the provision of social housing and the range of options now open to housing authorities affords them a measure of flexibility not available heretofore. Therefore, it is essential that authorities avail of those opportunities provided by the social housing programme to ensure that their housing schemes provide not only good living standards but contribute to the integrated development of the areas in which they are located.

Decisions on social housing at local level must be taken with a view to the overall urban fabric, not least their impact on the availability of public amenities in the area. Normally it should not be necessary to sacrifice a public park or other designated recreational area to housing or other forms of development. I appreciate it is imperative for housing authorities to meet their housing needs within the framework of their programmes and capital allocations. However, they must also weigh carefully the balance of advantage and disadvantage in losing a public recreational resource. It has been suggested that parks and other similar recreational areas often become the focus of anti-social behaviour and, consequently, become unusable. In my view this is a reflection on the management by local authorities of such important local resources. But denying the public as a whole the use of an amenity is not the answer.

I reject utterly the allegations and insinuations made about my motivation in the stance I have taken on this important issue. I expect Members will see the good sense of the position I have outlined and will agree with my desire to maintain a balance between developing good social housing and preserving existing public amenities.

Mr. Browne

(Carlow-Kilkenny): Why did the Minister change his mind?

Mr. Molloy

In current circumstances, in which land for all types of development is highly sought after, is it seriously suggested that I ignore my responsibilities in relation to their preservation for public parks and designated recreational purposes? Our economy is in better shape than ever before and increased development is an inevitable consequence of a high level of economic activity. Open urban space is a necessary resource which cannot easily be replaced. I make no apology for acting to protect such open space, where possible.

Mr. Browne

(Carlow-Kilkenny): Hypocrisy.

Mr. Molloy

Urban renewal policies have been instrumental in transforming many of our towns and urban areas. The maintenance of existing recreational and open space and the designation of new suitable and sufficient areas of open space is an important objective in urban renewal. The implementation of social housing policy can influence the shape of urban areas and promote the growth of local communities. In many ways social housing and urban renewal policies complement each other; they should not conflict with each other.

Mitigation of the ill effects of social segregation associated with the traditional approach to housing provision has been central to social housing policy in recent years. There has been a growing emphasis on the role of social housing policy in counteracting social exclusion, in promoting the development of viable communities and in renewing urban areas. The significance of location, size of development and good design both at the level of the overall scheme and the individual dwelling unit, and associated amenities for the community has been increasingly recognised. Deputies will be aware there has been an upsurge in infill housing in urban areas. Local authorities are increasingly recognising the value of providing small well designed housing schemes in the heart of urban areas where communities are already settled, where services and amenities, including parks, are readily available and where the development creates a new energy in what may be a run down area.

The provision of appropriate open spaces alongside housing fulfils many community functions in providing meeting places, recreational areas, sports and entertainment facilities and general amenity and well being. Open spaces also provide an important environmental function. We have all learnt that trees are the earth's lungs.

Mr. Browne

(Carlow-Kilkenny): What does this have to do with the motion?

Mr. Molloy

From the point of view of sustaining our environment, we must give priority to preserving existing open spaces within the urban fabric and creating new ones. Open space is not empty space. It is the venue for many of those activities which enhance our lives and its location and maintenance deserves high priority.

Mr. Howlin

This sounds like a speech I could have made previously. Did the Minister of State take it from the Internet?

Mr. Browne

(Carlow-Kilkenny): He is waffling.

Mr. Molloy

My Department has issued guidelines to local authorities on selecting sites for housing. These guidelines include specific advice on the importance of providing open space in association with housing. It is worth noting some of the points made. In deciding on the extent and nature of provision for open space within a housing scheme, local authorities are advised to have regard to the size of the scheme, the nature of accommodation being provided, existing needs and provision in the area and the requirements of the development plan for the area. Open space generally should be laid out so that it is attractive and will be used by the residents. Play spaces for small children should be provided close to the dwellings and be overlooked from the dwellings where possible.

Mr. Browne

(Carlow-Kilkenny): What does this have to do with the motion?

Mr. Molloy

Local authorities are advised that where playgrounds are not already available in reasonable proximity to the scheme, consideration should be given to providing such facilities.

I have already mentioned that more and more local authorities are turning to infill development in urban areas to provide housing. This is sound urban renewal practice but it also reflects the need for local authorities to avail of all possible sources of land for housing in the current competitive climate in the land market. Deputies will appreciate that where such infill housing development takes place it will not be possible to develop new open recreational areas alongside the houses. Reliance will have to be placed on existing parks, playgrounds and open space.

Significant thought has gone into the guidelines to local authorities on the provision of landscaping, open space and amenities in conjunction with new housing schemes. It is all the more important that where these facilities already exist, every effort must be made to retain and maintain them.

The growing importance of not relying on local authority housing to meet social housing need is shown in the continuing participation of the voluntary and co-operative sector in housing provision. The sector also encourages people to have a greater sense of responsibility for their housing and their estates and helps to develop a sense of co-operation and partnership among local communities.

With my background as a public representative, I support measures to promote social housing schemes and reduce the pressure on the local authority housing lists. There are many people on the local authority housing list who, with the proper support, could use the social housing schemes to provide houses for themselves. I am especially impressed by the efforts of co-operative groups to supply their own housing. The Carlow Friendly Housing Co-operative Society provides a good example of the dedication and commitment which groups of mainly young people are prepared to invest in a co-operative effort. It is not an easy process; it requires staying power and the focus to see a project through from the initial idea through design and planning to construction. There are many complex features attached to a project of this nature which may often be difficult to bring to fruition. However, as the Carlow housing development shows, there is scope for creating good working partnerships between local authorities and co-operative groups to provide housing.

It is sometimes the case that a single successful co-operative venture can spark off subsequent ventures, establishing a strong local tradition of co-operative effort. There are a number of social housing measures available to assist co-operative ventures. The sale of housing sites scheme, used to facilitate the Carlow co-operative scheme, is one such mechanism. It enables housing sites to be sold at a subsidised cost to individuals or groups who propose to build houses on them. I would encourage local authorities to give greater prominence to these and the other social housing measures which support the voluntary and co-operative effort which is an essential part of social housing provision.

In our headlong rush to develop and grow, it is too easy to underrate basic amenities, such as parks, play areas and recreational facilities. These have long been a feature of the urban landscape but may now sometimes appear to be valuable urban development sites.

Mr. Browne

(Carlow-Kilkenny): What does this have to do with the motion? The Minister of State is waffling.

Mr. Molloy

I feel strongly about the importance of preserving what we have that is a valuable, but which, sometimes, can be an inadequately appreciated public resource.

Mr. McCormack

Why then is the Minister of State proceeding with the development?

Mr. Molloy

I reject the insinuation that my concerns in the case of the Carlow housing development were motivated by political or considerations other than those which I have just outlined. My position on this issue is valid and is motivated by a strong belief that the preservation of amenities should, as a general rule, not be overtaken by development pressures, even the provision of social housing.

I commend the amendment to the House and I hope this episode will be heeded by local authorities and that communities will see that, in me, they have a champion for the retention of the open spaces——

Mr. McCormack

Why is the Minister of State proceeding with the development?

Mr. Molloy

Given high building land prices there is tendency to seek to take the easy option and to use open spaces. That is happening in this case.

Mr. Stagg

Fifteen houses in Carlow.

Ms McManus

A concrete jungle.

Acting Chairman (Mr. Briscoe)

The Minister of State listened to Members on the other side. Allow him to speak without interruption.

Mr. Molloy

In view of the special circumstances, I have agreed to this development. However, I consider these locations to be of absolute value and it is a retrograde step to seek to convert them into building sites. They are valuable spaces which future generations will thank us for preserving. As a general rule, they should not be used as building sites but retained and, where possible, improved and developed so that people can enjoy them.

There will be continued acceleration in urban dwelling. The move from the land to the cities is constant. We do not want to end up with housing areas which do not have recreational spaces. The spaces in this area are valuable and deserve to be preserved. That is part of the Government's housing policy.

Mr. McCormack

Why is the Minister of State proceeding with the project?

Mr. Howlin

I wish to share my time with Deputy Stagg.

Acting Chairman

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. Howlin

The motion may appear to refer to a local matter and be of no great national significance. However, on closer inspection it goes to the root of our democratic systems and the requirement for openness in public administration. In recent years virtually all parties represented in the House have tried to restore to public office public confidence and understanding that things were done by the book in an open way without fear or favouritism. We enacted legislation, including the Ethics in Public Office Act and the Electoral Act. I negotiated with the parties opposite and those in Opposition on those matters. There is a shared view across the parties that there is a requirement on us to act in a very open and transparent way in how we administer the business charged to us by the public. It has been said by some of the Fine Gael Deputies in speaking to this motion that of all the parties in this House the Progressive Democrats set themselves up as being the particular guardians of righteousness in relation to public administration. They were so correct and right and that was a founding principle of their party. They could not be associated with Fianna Fáil because of the disrepute it had brought to the public administration system.

Mr. Cowen

No more than the Deputy's party.

Mr. Howlin

They split from Fianna Fáil and established their own party. We remember temporary little arrangements. The essence of the PD credo was to be unlike that of any other political party. They were going to do things in a righteous way, and what has happened here. The Minister of State with responsibility for housing took a decision that begs questioning in this House. Housing is one of the most important functions of the Department with responsibility for local government and the environment of which I was privileged to be Minister for a period.

I am glad that since 1993 the attitude to housing has changed. Ask any local authority member what was the position on public housing the last time the Progressive Democrats were in Government and he or she will reply that virtually no local authority housing was built at that time. Every Government since 1993 has reversed that position and has worked to provide, to the best of the Exchequer's ability, for those in need of shelter. I am glad to say that two of those Administrations involved the Labour Party, initially with Fianna Fáil, in reversing the trend of the early 1990s——

Mr. N. Ahern

And the late 1980s.

Mr. Howlin

——and more recently with Fine Gael and Democratic Left. Fianna Fáil was in Government in the late 1980s. That policy has been reconfirmed by the Government. That is an acknowledgement of the need and the right of individuals to have decent shelter in the form of proper social housing.

All that was copperfastened by the publication of two programmes for social housing, the first was announced by my predecessor, the then Minister, Deputy Smith, who outlined a range of social housing options which were more extensive than the traditional local authority housing and included issues such as co-operative housing. The second is a more recent updated social housing policy published by the former Minister of State, Deputy McManus and me in our time in office. All of that led to a new focus on housing, the nature of Government and public support for social housing and an understanding of moving away from building masses of houses on a greenfield site to the notion of infill housing. That was laid out in black and white.

For those reasons the proposal from Carlow UDC was particularly suitable. It fits perfectly into the policy enunciated initially by the then Minister, Deputy Smith, and reconfirmed by the policy of the former Minister of State, Deputy McManus, and me during our time in office. Infill housing is a mix of local authority housing and co-operative housing that meets a variety of housing needs. It is supported by the democratically elected local council. It is also supported in writing by the Department of the Environment. On 9 June a letter from the housing construction section of the Department of the Environment to the Carlow town clerk, reference N42/2/43, states there is no objection to the proposal submitted. It also states that the council is reminded that if the current estimated all in cost is within the unit cost ceiling the council is free to accept the lowest available tender without seeking the Department's further approval. The message was to go ahead and to build as outlined, but what happened? There was an unprecedented move. I have no recollection of any incoming Minister upturning the decision of a previous Government in a matter such as this. Often an incoming Minister does not agree with the priority set, and sometimes not even the principles underpinning it, by his or her predecessor. However, the principle of continuity is understood. While we may say we will do something differently in the future I know of no instance where a Minister upturned the validly made decision of his or her predecessor in a matter such as this.

The sequence of events has been ably given by Deputy Browne to the House. A clearly presented, valid and good proposal was put forward by Carlow Urban District Council and Carlow Friendly Housing Co-operative Society to meet the needs of their respective clients in an organised and clear way. Why then did the Minister of State decide in this instance to interfere and stop the development? The Minister's response is that he has a passion, and a long held one as we heard during his long speech, for open spaces. I can only assume that every application submitted to his Department was vetted with the same thoroughness and that every application for funding to his Department that impinged on an open space was subject to the same questioning. Did the Minister consider visiting any of those sites to see the open spaces that might be trespassed upon? I was going to pose a question to him about whether he had visited the proposed site at Shaw Park, but he answered that question in his contribution. He said he did not need to because he was there in 1971 and he has a good memory.

Mr. Molloy

I have a very good memory.

Mr. Howlin

He said he had a good memory of a day in 1971 when he had the privilege to open a swimming pool there. Twenty-six years later the Minister of State saw the file, remembered that park and open space and thought to himself why would he possibly need to visit it or get any information about it.

Mr. McCormack

He might have looked out Jim's back window.

Mr. Howlin

Twenty-six years later he said to the House, and I do not believe it was said tongue in cheek, that he had a good memory of that day. When he saw the file he said to himself that he had to preserve that open space. It seems to be pushing credibility to its limit for anyone to accept that is exactly what happened.

Mr. Molloy

That is exactly what happened.

Mr. Howlin

You asked for a file on the basis that you had a memory of a visit 26 years ago and your passion for open spaces motivated you to interfere in this unique case. Did you ask for any other files?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy should address his remarks through the Chair to avoid interruptions.

Mr. J. O'Keeffe

Jim will fix it.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Let us hear Deputy Howlin without interruption.

Mr. Howlin

If the Minister of State had read the file he would have seen the letters on it. A letter on file dated 22 May 1996 from the county engineer about Shaw Park and that precious open space states:

Shaw Park has not operated successfully as a town park for some time, with the removal of play equipment, on the advice of our insurers, and the closure of the swimming pool. Nonmaintenance of these areas subsequently has resulted in the degradation of the amenities of the park, and it no longer functions as a town park and amenity area as originally laid out in design.

The swimming pool area has become a potential hazard, as manhole covers have been removed, the dressing room and service buildings have been vandalised, and the pool itself has become a hazard area and an area which attracts anti-social behaviour.

The development of a new town park at Hanover will provide an alternative larger and more central town park, which will be more accessible for residents and visitors alike and together with the park at Graiguecullen should cater for the needs of the town for the foreseeable future.

The letter goes on to recommend the use of this part for a new development, including social housing.

If the Minister read the file, he would also have seen the remarks of the county manager in a letter of 28 October 1997 to an official in the housing construction section of the Minister's Department, which states:

Apart from open spaces which are shown coloured green on the enclosed ordnance map of Carlow Town, there are three parks in public ownership. These are, Hanover Park, Graiguecullen Park and Shaw Park, . Shaw Park contains 5.27 acres, Graiguecullen Park 12.5 acres and Hanover Park 13.15 acres.

The letter demonstrates that there are adequate open spaces, amenities and parks and strongly recommends the building of the social housing mix which was advocated.

Although Deputy Browne referred to this earlier, I re-emphasise one important component of the county manager's letter to the Minister's Department. The letter states:

Given the circumstances which now exist, there would be considerable legal difficulties and other serious considerations, including financial costs, if the Carlow U.D.C were to attempt to withdraw from the contractual obligations already entered into with the Co-Op given the stage to which matters have already advanced.

Families had taken out mortgages and prepared to build homes. The sites had been drawn. The families knew where they and their neighbours were going to live. They were on the verge of getting on with an important development in their lives before it was interfered with by the actions of the Minister of State.

Besides the Minister of State's long apology and support for open spaces, he was in high dudgeon at the notion that anybody would suggest that he would do anything untoward. It is acknowledged that Senator Gibbons was an objector to these plans. It is reasonable that suspicion would be aroused that this, unique among the developments which came before the Minister, would be subject to the type of scrutiny and rejection which is evidenced in this case. That suspicion is clearly justified in my view.

A more fulsome, credible explanation is warranted from the Minister of State and from the Tánaiste on this matter and the views which the Progressive Democrats have expressed on the issues of openness and accountability must be taken with a grain of salt from now on.

The long and the short of it is that last Friday a motion was submitted by the Fine Gael Party and the Minister of State was caught out.

Mr. McCormack

The Tánaiste said "back down".

Mr. Howlin

Belatedly, the Minister reversed his position and made the right decision because even he could not come into this House and defend his original decision.

I wondered how he would respond. If he had come in here and made a clean breast of it and said "At the request of a colleague, I reviewed the file. I delayed the development. I was wrong. I have reversed my view and I put things right last Friday", it would have been accepted on this side of the House. What did we get in the Minister's long rambling speech? Brass neck. He came in and told us that he has a love affair with open spaces which motivated him to pick out this particular file and decide he wanted to visit this proposal again. It had nothing to do with the fact that one of the original objectors was the Chairman of the Progressive Democrats Parliamentary Party and a colleague. That strains credibility.

We have a responsibility to restore public confidence in administration. It has been dented enough by the actions of one or two individuals over the past few years. The vast bulk of people elected to this House who serve on local authorities do not always make the right decisions but they do their best. They are not the recipients of envelopes of money and they are not subject to croonyism. Controversies such as this do nothing to restore confidence in public administration; rather they serve to further erode public confidence and foster cynicism about public office. The response we received from the Minister of State only adds to that sense of despair and cynicism.

I ask the Minister to reflect on this debate and, before a vote is called tomorrow night, to come into the House and say "I had a chat with a colleague who said he had a concern about the matter. I made some inquiries, I delayed the development and I was caught out. It was a mistake. It should not have happened. It will not happen again". We could accept that, but we will not accept being treated like imbeciles and the public will not accept it. What the Minister of State said is simply unacceptable and incredible.

Deputy Hayes said that this issue could be logically linked to the Progressive Democrats inspired rich man's budget. The more logical link is with the files in the skip affair. The common thread is the exposure of blatant hypocrisy. Those who lectured others on political donations or righteousness in administrative decisions have been caught out twice in a week. It is time all of us who are committed to the advancement of public administration ceased that hypocrisy, recognised the flaws and mistakes of the past, and tried to be honest and clear with this House and the electorate.

Mr. Stagg

I congratulate Deputy Browne for consistently and regularly bringing this matter to attention until he forced the Minister to reverse his decision. He should get the full credit for that. Deputy Browne has done a good job for his area and for democracy.

This is a naked case of NIMBY — not in my back yard. There is a proposal from a local co-operative housing association for ten houses and from the local authority for ten houses. A suitable site is identified by the local authority and the design, site, etc., is approved by the Department. The proposal is proceeding but objections have been made by a local member of the Progressive Democrats and others living adjacent to the site. The objectors do not want council tenants or members of housing co-operatives living near them. They do not want council or co-operative housing built near their better class homes.

The Minister of State uttered a great amount of waffle about desegregated and integrated housing. However, he took this action, deliberately and knowingly, to support people who did not want council houses built near their homes.

Mr. Molloy

That is not true.

Mr. Stagg

It is true.

Mr. Molloy

That is the Deputy's version of events.

Mr. Stagg

I do not believe the Minister of State's earlier statement.

Mr. Molloy

I know what motivates the Deputy.

Mr. Stagg

What we are dealing with is an unreconstructed Fianna Fáil fixer from the 1970s. That is not to slight that party which has come a long way since that period. The Minister of State reverted to type when he returned to office. He has a hard neck to refer to open spaces and housing integration. That is rubbish. On the last occasion on which the Minister of State held responsibility for housing he left a trail of destruction behind him.

Mr. Browne

(Carlow-Kilkenny): Particularly in Carlow.

Mr. Stagg

Let me reiterate that, because his colleague, who is the chairperson of the Progressive Democrats and a Member of the Seanad, asked him to block this housing development, the Minister of State pulled the relevant file. As a former Minister of State, I know that there was no reason for that file to be sent to the Minister of State. The housing costs for the co-operative were under the set limits and the only reason the file would be sent to the Minister of State would be if an application was made to exceed those limits. Therefore, he deliberately pulled the file. The Minister of State asked for the file because, having failed at local level, Senator Gibbons asked him to block the housing development. The Minister of State decided to co-operate.

Thankfully, Deputy Browne was alert to that situation and pursued it relentlessly to the point where the Minister of State reversed his decision on Friday last. I believe the Tánaiste, with her good arm, twisted the Minister of State's arm and made him change his decision. The Minister of State's contribution contained no reason for that change. All of the reasons for blocking the development are in his speech. The person who drafted it must not have been informed that the Minister of State had changed his mind because the speech is intended to justify the blocking of these two small housing schemes.

As a former Minister of State with responsibility for housing, I was very nervous when the Government was formed and Deputy Molloy was appointed Minister of State at the Department of Environment and Local Government with responsibility in that area. I had a simple and good reason for my concerns. On the last occasion he held responsibility for housing, the Minister of State decided that people living in council houses did not require decent standards and their homes should be made from material called "marine ply " which resembles pressed cardboard. This material did not require foundations, back or front, and there were no parting walls between the attics of adjoining houses, some of which had flat roofs. During the Minister of State's previous reign of terror, 10,000 families were placed in a situation where they suffered greatly because of his decision.

Mr. Molloy

Pure fiction.

Mr. Stagg

It is not fiction, it is fact.

Mr. Howlin

The damage is still being undone.

Mr. Browne

(Carlow-Kilkenny): The local authorities are still trying to fix the houses.

Mr. Stagg

Ten thousand houses were built, without foundations, from material which is slightly better than cardboard.

Mr. Howlin

With no fire walls.

Mr. Stagg

During my period as Minister of State with responsibility for housing, I had the ongoing job of redressing the damage done by Deputy Molloy. Is he aware that, to date, £18 million of taxpayers' money has been spent on rectifying the damage done to just over half of the so-called houses in question? Approximately 4,200 of these houses remain in the same condition as when they were built and people are living in dire circumstances as a result. These houses had no rear entrances or sheds, they had small gardens, small rooms and their front and back gardens were ringed with wire fencing. That is the type of low standard the Minister of State decided at that time was good enough for working class people. Taxpayers' money has been spent since then in an attempt to rectify the problem. Now, the Minister of State has once again been given responsibility for housing.

Mr. Molloy

Some of those houses are selling for £70,000 to £80,000.

Mr. Stagg

One county council — regrettably it was not Kildare County Council — in County Kerry had the bottle to stand up to him and told him to stuff his botháns because it was not going to build them. As a result, this problem did not arise in County Kerry which received proper allocations for houses at a later date.

I tabled a question to the Minister of State shortly after he assumed office asking if it was his intention to revert to these low standards. I was glad he replied that the standards I introduced as Minister of State to ensure that each house was built with proper, sustainable materials, weatherproof windows and doors and central heating would be maintained. I warn him that we will keep a sharp eye on him because if those standards are interfered with he will be back before the House to answer further motions of censure.

The Minister of State's actions were despicable. He was dealing with poor people who were hoping and planning to obtain houses, who had attended meetings and collected money as a form of deposit within the co-operative system. The Minister of State pulled the rug from under those people and did not give a tinker's curse about the effect this would have on them. He did not care, once the NIMBY ambitions of the chairman of his parliamentary party were satisfied.

Mr. Molloy

The Deputy is pathetic. I know what motivates him.

Mr. Stagg

I congratulate Deputy Browne on raising this issue and pursing it to the point where the Minister of State was forced, unwillingly and ungraciously, to reverse his decision.

Mr. N. Ahern

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate. The Minister of State made a full and trenchant report of the naive and unfair accusations which were levelled against him.

Mr. Browne

(Carlow-Kilkenny): The Deputy should not add to the nonsense spoken earlier.

Mr. N. Ahern

I am not familiar with this issue. I listened to Deputy Browne's contribution and he gave a good report from his point of view. I am sure much of what he stated is entirely correct as he perceives it. However, a number of other speakers' comments were disgraceful.

Mr. Stagg

Which comments?

Mr. N. Ahern

A number of the Deputy's comments about the Minister of State's NIMBY attitude. What was the Deputy's approach in respect of the Kill dump?

Mr. Stagg

I was of the opinion it should not be built there.

Mr. N. Ahern

The Deputy abused his position and did not give a damn about the people of Dublin. He should not take a high moral tone here. Despite all his socialist nonsense he ran with the horsey set in Kildare, who have far more money than the people in Carlow. He did everything possible to block a proper modern landfill.

Mr. Howlin

Is it all right to run with the chairman of the Progressive Democrats?

Mr. N. Ahern

I am not saying that. I do not know the details of the Carlow case.

Mr. Stagg

The Deputy should not discuss something he knows nothing about, although I have seen him do it before. He is just here to fill in time.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Ahern without interruption.

Mr. N. Ahern

Deputy Stagg is now engaging in personal attacks against me, as he did with the Minister earlier.

Mr. Stagg

The Deputy admitted he knew nothing about this.

Mr. Howlin

That will not stop him.

Mr. N. Ahern

I do not know the details of the Carlow case but I have much to say about open spaces and similar matters. I urge caution on those who wish to speak on this matter because it will be a huge factor in this major development approved by the last Government.

Mr. Stagg

On a point of order, the time for the Private Members' motion has elapsed.

Debate adjourned.