I wish to share time with Deputy John McGuinness.
Private Members' Business. - Carlow Housing Development: Motion (Resumed).
The following motion was moved by Deputy Browne(Carlow-Kilkenny) on Tuesday, 16 December 1997:
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 Robert 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 in Carlow;
(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 the 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.
Debate resumed on 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.
—(Minister of State at the Department of the Environment and Local Government.)
Is that agreed? Agreed.
In an Adjournment debate in the first week in December the Minister of State explained his thinking on the use of public parks for development. The proposal to build houses in Carlow has been the subject of more time in this House than many more pressing issues of public policy. The matter was also discussed at the sub-committee on the environment this morning. At the same time we are trying to find time for a general housing debate, but it seems it will be some time before such a debate is taken.
The Minister of State has given good account of his stewardship in important areas of public policy for which he is responsible. He made it clear he was motivated in this matter by his desire to give equal weight to the two areas of his brief, the need for social housing and the need for a positive urban renewal policy, where, in the case of the Carlow development, a conflict arose. I congratulate the Minister on his concern for this issue. I support his view that public parks and designated recreational areas should not be lost to development unless there are special reasons for doing so, as the Minister believes there are in this case. I have a particular interest in this matter vis-à-vis my constituency, to which I will refer later.
I cannot understand why the Opposition has continued to push this matter relentlessly in recent weeks. A full explanation was given in the Adjournment debate when the Minister detailed the background and the concerns about the development for Shaw Park. He expressed his reluctance to make available public funds to provide housing at this location, which is a public park. He gave details of the arrangements he had put in place to find a solution to allow housing to go ahead while retaining the public amenity. It should have been obvious to the Opposition that the Minister had an open mind on the matter and was considering all the factors in making a proper decision on the matter.
The Opposition, however, chose to ignore the facts and rushed to put down a motion, which constitutes an unjustifiable attack on the Minister. Some of the personal remarks directed at him last night were unacceptable. The time taken up with this matter could have been used for a broader, more inclusive debate. Some speakers last night seemed to be more interested in embarrassing the Minister and the Government than providing social housing in Carlow. I do not know whether Deputy Hayes contributed to the budget debate last week, but he was more interested in scoring points on the budget than in the Carlow development.
After last Friday's meeting the Minister was made aware, through his officials, that further delays in finding a suitable alternative site would cause hardship to members of the co-operative which is promoting the development. Deputies will agree it is to the Minister's credit he gave priority in making his decision to the expectations of a group of people who came together in a co-operative venture to provide housing to meet their own needs and who had the determination and sense of purpose to pursue that objective. The Minister acted correctly in ensuring the views of all the parties involved and the relevant information was available to him before making a decision on the matter.
I was amazed last night listening to Deputies refer to the procedures operated by local authorities and by the Department. Some of the speakers were former Ministers who are aware of the procedures. I have never been a Minister but I am a member of a local authority and I was amazed at some of the comments made. It seems the Department had total control over many projects and gave limited approval at every stage. I believe in local government and would like local authorities to have total control, but that is not the case. Deputy Hayes should become better acquainted with the procedures used in this regard.
Even when local authorities receive letters of approval, one of which was read out last night, they must go through the planning process and the public consultation process. There is no point setting up a system and then totally ignoring the process. The Minister has a duty to ensure the range of social housing measures is developed to its full potential so that housing is available to those who require it but cannot afford it. He must ensure towns and urban areas continue to have living and recreational space for the local communities. As Minister responsible for housing and urban renewal, he must ensure an appropriate balance between those two aspects.
Local authorities, in planning the location of social housing schemes, must take account of the impact of their decisions on the urban area as a whole. Public amenities such as parks and recreational areas are essential components of urban life. They are generally well established hubs of a thriving local community. Only in exceptional circumstances should those areas be sacrificed for development, even for social housing.
I am glad to speak on this issue, which is about open space. People should be careful in making statements on this matter. Planning is at present under way for a huge project in my area of Ballymun. Everybody favours the redevelopment of Ballymun. The previous Government made an announcement in that regard earlier this year and funding has been provided for the project, but it takes much more space to build 2,800 houses than it does to build the same number of flats. This is causing a major problem.
I am pleased the Minister feels strongly about the retention of public open spaces because that may be a divisive issue in the case of Ballymun. While I am not trying to spike the planning process because it has many positive aspects, some of the proposals that have been put forward would mean building on many green areas. If the most elaborate, or the worst, of those schemes is implemented it would mean removing one concrete jungle and building another in its place. I am sure that will not happen. Internal bureaucratic disputes between Dublin Corporation and the adjoining local authority, which has other land available close by, will have to be resolved. Otherwise, what we all dreamed of for Ballymun could end up in tears. I am interested in the principle on which the Minister of State fought the Carlow issue and will note it for the debate that may take place on the Ballymun project in the coming months.
(Carlow-Kilkenny): The Deputy should not push it too far.
I accept Deputy Browne has a different perspective and I apologise for hijacking his motion, but this matter concerns my constituency. I welcome the stand of the Minister of State on the matter. I did not prompt him on the question of open spaces, but he has set a precedent.
He gave way on the issue.
He did and this should be done only in exceptional circumstances. Obviously, he believes such circumstances exist in Carlow. I am pleased the Minister of State feels strongly about the retention of public open spaces. I am delighted I will have a friend in high places if the Ballymun project does not work to our satisfaction.
As the Deputy is not in the Minister of State's party, he will not listen to him.
This is a good Government, with great co-operation between the parties.
We are all part of the housing policy on infill developments that has existed since 1991. We must accept that problems exist and that some of the infill developments have not been welcomed because they deprive people of amenities.
New housing developments will make a significant contribution to the areas in which they are located. Substantial public funds have been invested in the provision of social housing. The range of options open to housing authorities affords them a measure of flexibility that was not available in former years. It is essential that authorities avail of the opportunities provided by the social housing programme to ensure housing schemes not only provide good living standards, but contribute to the integrated development of the areas in which they are located. The Minister's recent announcement regarding major improvements in the general social housing provisions were widely welcomed. I accept we would all like a larger provision, but it shows the Minister is committed to social housing. Authorities must take careful stock of the resources available to them in terms of sites. It has been suggested that parks and other similar recreational areas often become the focus of anti-social behaviour and, therefore, become unusable. This may be the case, but it may be a mark of the low esteem in which parks are held by some local authorities that they do not devote the necessary resources to maintain them. The same argument could be made about the local authority of which I am a member. Proposals are made every week to extinguish the right of way on public laneways. We cannot close open spaces because of anti-social problems. That is not the answer. The gardaí have a role to play. Too often they believe it is their job to police the streets and when a problem arises in a public park somebody else must deal with it. We cannot draw rigid lines on these matters. Otherwise, all our open spaces will be built on and in a few years' time we will realise our mistake.
Local authorities are not the only culprits in this matter. Much of the land owned by the Church or other institutions, which acted as the green lungs of many suburban areas, is being brought by private developers for housing development. We will end up with houses everywhere and not a blade of grass. We must resolve the problem in a balanced and organised way.
There was a reference to the growth of infill housing in urban areas. Local authorities increasingly recognise the value of providing small, well designed housing schemes in the heart of urban areas where communities are settled and services and amenities are provided, but this must be done in a balanced way. The Minister has shown great concern on the Carlow issue. He took some time to make his decision, but the housing will go ahead. I am pleased he has shown concern for the provision of open spaces and I support the amendment.
This debate is a waste of parliamentary time. The people of Carlow and the public are not interested in the schoolyard horseplay in which the Opposition is engaging. The public are tired of its "I caught you out" puerile nonsense. If the Opposition believes it is providing a worthwhile service by doing this, it knows little about what the public and those who elected them expect.
There is no case to answer. The Minister has taken a decision with which the people of Carlow are happy. They are delighted they got what they wanted and if they had to fight a little for it, the victory is sweeter. I can only assume from the antics of the Opposition that it is unhappy the people of Carlow got what they wanted. Far from dealing with a constructive debate, we are forced to listen to the baying of a badly trained and poorly controlled pack who have lost the scent and are making as much noise as possible to cover their bemusement.
The direction the debate has taken is a pathetic attempt by the Opposition to discredit a Minister of State, a Member of the Seanad and the Government. It is fed partly on misinformation, half truths and because of the political goal to discredit, the movers of the motion have lost sight of the core argument, the provision of houses by a self-help group and the local authority on a site which is largely derelict and not used by the people of Carlow as an amenity. The decision of the Minister of State — the only one on file — to sanction the project is a victory for local democracy and a firm display of people power. The public will not thank the Opposition for its disgraceful attempt to discredit the Government and its abuse of this worthwhile project.
Tongue in cheek.
I enthusiastically endorse the development of Shaw Park as part housing and part open space. It will relieve a housing problem and develop an open space that will be welcomed in the growing urban centre of Carlow town. There is great public support for the project. It should be encouraged on a large scale throughout the country and substantial funding should be directed to that area.
Why did the Minister reverse his decision?
The housing lists are growing and this Government should launch a national housing programme to deal with the crisis over the next five years. Local authorities, self-help groups and voluntary housing organisations have a role to play in tackling this problem. Substantial Government funding should also be provided.
Today's decision spells victory for local democracy and the Carlow Friendly Housing Co-Op Society, but it also underlines the poor state of our local democracy. The practice of going to central Government with a begging bowl must be brought to an end. County structures should be strengthened, financed and empowered to deal with all local matters. Community structures are becoming more important, particularly as issues are directed and controlled by Europe. I encourage the Minister to have a firm belief in local government and to direct that all local matters be dealt with at that level. If that had happened, this distasteful political charade would not have taken place.
An Bord Pleanála was mentioned during this debate. It should be restructured as we approach the new millennium. The planning process must be an integrated part of local government. No body should be able to dictate or overturn a local authority's decision, particularly when a county development plan outlines the general thrust of the development required by that county. Any interference from outside the county by an unelected big brother undermines the ability and desire of local bodies to take control of their affairs. It also means that people shrug their shoulders when asked to become involved as they believe they have no say and do not matter.
I support the Minister in his efforts to protect green spaces and amenity areas in our cities and towns. We must take this a step further and deal with issues at the planning stage. We must ensure that all planning applications for large housing schemes include cosmetic and functional green areas and that developers, in partnership with the local authority, develop the infrastructure needed by a modern local community as the project proceeds and not, as in this case, as an afterthought. The heart of all our urban centres must be restored and green areas developed. The thorny question of public liability insurance for parks and open spaces must also be dealt with.
We must cater for the needs of our young people by continuing to substantially fund community centres which can be used as meeting places. This will help our young people to become involved in various types of activities which will encourage their personal development and create more positive opportunities in life.
I would put a word in the Minister's ear to achieve this necessary development. The public knows how our system works and this is reflected in the attendance at our clinics. The arguments put forward during this debate are naive and a poor cover up for an attack on the Government. I wish the housing programme in Carlow every success and I assure the people of my full co-operation as a Member of the Oireachtas for that constituency.
The Deputy did not help them up to now.
The Deputy knows little about it. I commend the Minister for his action on this issue. I have always respected him as a political figure who has championed all that is best in local government.
I want to share my time with Deputies Sargent, Hogan and McGrath.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
That last contribution was the worst Fianna Fáil doublespeak I have ever heard. Deputy Noel Ahern said we need a debate on social housing. The difficulty is that no legislation has been published on which we could have a debate, although it has been promised.
Who was the last Minister for the Environment?
The Minister for the Environment and Local Government undertook to publish the traveller accommodation Bill during this session, but that did not happen. That shows the Minister's lack of concern in this area.
The State has a fundamental duty to provide housing. The social housing budget for 1997 is £220 million, which is a considerable responsibility for any Minister. Targets were set by the last Government of 7,000 housing starts which included a range of options. There was trepidation in the community when the new Government came into power because the social housing programme collapsed during the last Fianna Fáil Progressive Democrats Government.
When did that programme start?
I welcome this Government's commitment to continue to provide an increased level of housing. However, it is important to remember that housing policy does not happen by accident and it is not only about numbers.
What is so disturbing about this scandal is not just the sleaze attached to the Progressive Democrats but also the clear contempt the Minister has for his responsibilities in Government. The sequence of events we are debating reveals a cynicism towards his responsibilities which is as breathtaking as it is despicable. Last night the Minister came into the House and tried to flimflam the Deputies and thereby the public. He constructed a fairytale to justify the unjustifiable. Fortunately, the political system is not made up of cynics. It also produces people like Deputy John Browne who does not make the most noise in this House but who has shown a quiet yet strong determination to see that justice is done. I thank him for the work he has done not just for the people in Carlow who are affected but also for the social housing programme and its future.
At the beginning of the year I, as Minister of State at the Department of the Environment, gave a general allocation to Carlow Urban District Council. This housing authority, which must live up to its responsibilities, produced a project which is a model of its type. It meets all the criteria of today's social housing policy, including social mix, infill and reaching cost targets. I wish all local authorities were as successful in ensuring they were below the cost ceilings. The council also dealt with the problem of dereliction at a particular site. There was no need for me, for example, to look at this file because it was such a good project. It went through the system and the Department responded by sending a letter on June 9 stating there were no objections to the proposal and the council had the go-ahead.
I subsequently left the Department — I hope in good order — and a new Minister came in. At some point after that, the chairman of his party spoke to the Minister of State, Deputy Molloy, and suddenly he developed an interest in open space. This is a Pauline conversion because I recall there was a legacy from his previous time in the Department, when it was known as the Department for Local Government, for all to see in Galway — the road between Galway and Furbo which was developed and is now cited as an example of how ribbon development can destroy the environment.
He suddenly discovered open space in Shaw Park, Carlow, and, contrary to what Deputies may think, he informed the House last night: I know Shaw Park. I have good memories of a day in 1971 when I had the privilege of opening a swimming pool there.
The year 1971 is over a quarter of a century ago; Ireland was not even in the EEC; wives were the chattels of their husbands; Mary Kenny was still a feminist and babies were born who are now having babies themselves. We need to get a grip on reality just as Carlow UDC did. It had to tackle the reality of its housing programme and the problems that they, and many other local authorities, face with modern experience rather than some trip down memory lane.
I refer to the county engineer's letter to the Department concerning Shaw Park. He 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. Non maintenance of these areas subsequently has resulted in the degradation of the amenities of the park and it no longer functions as a town park, an 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 rooms and service buildings have been vandalised and the pool itself has become a hazard area and an area which attracts anti-social behaviour.
The local council recognised that the open space needed to be developed and upgraded and that housing was a useful mechanism to meet not only the need to which it was obligated but also to ensure the open space was made safe.
We must remember the people affected by the decision made by the Minister of State and the obstacles he put up. He did not put them up for the Opposition but for ten families who were trying to make a home for themselves, which is very difficult nowadays, with the assistance of the State but ultimately taking responsibility for their housing needs even though their incomes are not lavish. It is not easy and with the best will in the world very often families such as these fail to achieve their objectives. What disturbs me most about this series of incidents is not the sleaze, the stroke politics, the nod and the wink, but the failure to acknowledge just how complex and difficult social housing programme objectives are and to ensure policy is appropriate to modern day needs. Local authorities often fail to reach their targets and young families often fail to avail of the sites for sale scheme and build homes. Voluntary housing associations often are unable to develop their full potential because, for example, they cannot get land.
There are many examples of difficulties in regard to the social housing programme. The Minister of State, rather than attending to those difficulties, has created the major difficulty and would have ensured a blockage which would have meant people would not have been able to either house themselves or be housed by the local authority, were it not for the fact Deputy Browne stood his ground and refused to go away until he saw justice done.
One of the key issues relating to social housing is good management by local authorities and in this regard any local authority would find it incomprehensible that a Minister would interfere and manipulate a local authority in this way, at the same time as a senior Minister is promising wonderful things for local authorities, for example, that local government will be put on a constitutional basis. What conflict of thinking exists where one can have, on the one hand, a promise of upgrading local government and, on the other, manipulation of the worst kind by a Minister in the ordinary, standard work of a local authority?
Did the Deputy ever block an application from a local authority?
Deputy Ahern made a good point about the problems with which many local authorities deal. I pay tribute to him because in Opposition and Government he has always shown a great interest in social housing and he knows just how difficult it is — and I suspect he agrees with many of the points I am making — because of the area he represents. The challenges that exist in Ballymun are enormous and need all the resources of a dedicated Minister. There is no doubt civil servants are dedicated in this cause, but I have my doubts about the Minister of State. However, if that project is to succeed it requires drive and political will to ensure it realises its full potential.
He knows maintenance, vandalism, dereliction are problems of the 1990s and that we must ensure progress is made in dealing with these issues. It must be ensured there is good estate management, resources are given to local authorities and a cultural change is adopted by local communities, by the various agencies that deal with them and by local authorities.
It is very good for politics that the debate has taken place even though it is unusual for a specific item to have taken up Private Members' time in this way. I have found it depressing, not that the debate should have taken place, but that we have had to debate this issue at a time when major issues in social housing need to be addressed. I have already cited the example of the traveller accommodation Bill on which considerable work had already begun when I left office. I appreciate a former Minister of State should not be in the business of knocking a current one simply because there is always a feeling that one could have done it better but I do not feel that.
Social housing is an integral part of the quality of life not just for those who live in local authority estates or benefit from local authorities in providing houses for themselves, but in the nature of communities as a whole, how we integrate and ensure social mix is one of the biggest challenges. Far from ensuring the social mix is realised and supporting it, we have a Minister who tried to divide, separate and, in effect, destroy a project that deserved and should have got his support.
Ba mhaith liom mo bhuíochas a ghabháil as am an Teachta McManus a roinnt agus an Teachta Browne as an rún seo a chur ós ár gcómhar. I support the motive behind Deputy Browne's motion as it is important that social housing is recognised as taking priority in almost all cases. In the case of Carlow, there is no doubt there was considerable local support for this development and, to that extent, the position seems clear when local democracy is taken into account.
Did the Minister of State, Deputy Molloy, articulate a general principle last night? I sympathise with the principle he articulated that the preservation of amenities should not be overtaken by development pressures. That principle is a good start when it comes to looking at the context in which development takes place. Is the Minister of State on top of his brief in relation to other issues? He is not if he truly believes what he said last night of a small town park, referred to by Deputy Browne.
A park in Swords, County Dublin, just over an acre in size, has mature trees 150 years old and is facing an old castle which is being developed as a tourist amenity. In every sense this park is crucial in terms of open space and amenity value in what is known as the fastest growing town in Europe. That park was opened by a former Minister and Deputy, Ray Burke, ten years ago. Since l995 Fingal County Council has removed seats and supervision from the park and locked it at night. I sympathise with Deputy Ahern that the net effect is to encourage those who are athletic to leap over the walls and to prevent those who are enforcing the law or parents from keeping an eye on what their youngsters are doing. To that extent Fingal County Council has set about a policy which culminated in September l995 when the county manager, now retired, proposed that the park become a building site.
It was up to the Minister to intervene and he did not.
Does the Minister of State believe what he said in his speech last night? Consistency is not a bad thing. That park is not for houses but an office block. If it were for houses we could have a valid debate on the merits of social housing. The council, which has copious amounts of land in the area on which to build, has decided to take over that park.
Is the Minister of State who is examining the position in Carlow aware of the situation in other areas? Does he believe what he said or is he simply saying it to justify the decision he has taken, regarding housing in Carlow? I ask whether the Minister of State needs to be informed more fully. I hope he is listening to the debate on the monitor even though he is not present. A decision was taken to locate civic offices in a small town park. In a report presented to the councillors, the manager stated it looked at only one other site. No list of alternative sites was given. This decision was presented as a fait accompli. There was no consultation and the county officials were not invited to the Minister's office. If one were to ask the people of Swords whether this is what they want, they would respond in the negative.
On hearing about this motion, I was astonished at the bizarre turn of events and the statement delivered by the Minister of State. I regard social housing as much more important than the building of an office block, while the Minister has a problem with social housing rather than an office block.
I welcome this debate. It was not a waste of time as it is important to look behind the motivation of decisions taken, look for the criteria and the policy underlying them and hope it is consistent. If housing can be debated more fully then we have done a good day's work.
I agree with Deputy McManus's call for traveller accommodation legislation. This embarrassing faux pas highlights the lack of real democracy here. In l994 we had the election of town commissioners and UDC members, thereby establishing democracy. The decision in relation to Swords was taken by councillors elected in l991. Since then elections have been postponed until now and may be postponed again until l999.
Why did the Deputy not remain on the council?
Democracy which is an issue here has been flouted at county council level. That matter needs to be addressed.
I wish to share my time with Deputy McGrath.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
I am not surprised the Minister of State with responsibility for housing, Deputy Molloy, has interfered in the local democratic process in the manner in which he did, for the provision of housing in Carlow, but I am surprised, given his long political experience — since his election to Dáil Éireann in l965 — that he would make such a crucial mistake in this instance. His many years of political experience should have told him otherwise.
It is difficult to comprehend that the Minister of State, a former Minister for Local Government and a former Minister for the Environment and who should be able to interpret Government procedures and regulations better than most, should expect us to believe he had the best interests of Carlow at heart, in particular those who had legally binding contracts and were approved for housing when he intervened.
Since there are 500 people are on the housing list in Carlow it is difficult to explain why the Minister of State, Deputy Molloy, refused funding to Carlow Urban District Council given that it had gone through the various procedures outlined in the l994 local government legislation and that his colleague, Senator Gibbons, chairman of the Progressive Democrats, objected to that development in conjunction with his local residents and neighbours. Carlow Urban District Council found that his case did not stand up. Like others he had the opportunity to appeal to An Bord Pleanála but did not do so. The Minister of State, Deputy Molloy, cited open space and amenity value as the reasons he was concerned about the housing development proceeding at Shaw Park. He made great play of this. However, in his objection to the development, Senator Gibbons cited completely different reasons. The Minister of State, Deputy Molloy, intervened in Carlow Urban District Council to stop this development, mainly because political intervention was required to satisfy Senator Gibbons's concerns about the project going ahead.
The House should consider why the Minister of State decided at short notice and with considerable speed last Friday, 12 December, to reverse his decision. On that day officials of the Department visited Carlow to discuss the matter with officials of the urban district council. Later that evening the Minister of State changed his story. I wish that many other matters could be addressed with the same speed and efficiency.
The Minister of State has demonstrated clearly that it is pay back time for the 26 families concerned. I am not surprised at his actions given that he is a first cousin, once removed, of Fianna Fáil. As we all know from past examples, when it comes to political strokes and cronyism there are no better artisans than those associated with the friends of Fianna Fáil. Through his membership of Fianna Fáil, the Minister of State would have learned enthusiastically, in his ministerial role, how to do things such as this. He delivered for one of his own, Senator Gibbons.
The Deputy's party is whiter than white.
If the Deputy wishes, I can deal with the question of his credibility on this issue also. The Progressive Democrats have been to the forefront, particularly in the past three to four years, in calling for high standards in high places and in highlighting the need for transparency, openness and accountability. It is clear the Minister of State did not know the difference between right and wrong. It took a phone call from his party leader to put him right.
Does the Deputy believe this?
The Progressive Democrats have been lecturing other political parties for years on accountability. In 1995 the Minister of State was quick to lecture me. It is ironic that it is he who is involved in this instance and that he has failed to take the honourable course. The previous Government demonstrated the true meaning of accountability. The Progressive Democrats who were formed to break the mould entered the 28th Dáil in a taxi. Given the Minister of State's performance they will leave in a skip.
I hope the Deputy is proud of his contribution. He should be ashamed of himself.
I thank my colleagues for sharing their time with me. I congratulate Deputy Browne for tabling the motion and working so hard to have the decision on this project reversed. The 16 local authority houses and the ten co-op houses will be a monument to him. It is appropriate that the development should be called Browne Park when finally built. Perhaps he will be asked to cut the tape.
(Carlow-Kilkenny): God forbid.
I am surprised at some of the contributions which have been made to this debate. Deputy Noel Ahern said the Minister of State had set a precedent. I do not know to which precedent he was referring. Does he want open spaces retained or does he believe that one should jump in, feet first, and make a decision on a matter about which a colleague or friend has spoken to one without considering the consequences and then reverse it?
While I appreciate Deputy McGuinness is a new Deputy and I wish him many years of happiness in the House, I was surprised at some of the phrases used by him. He said we were engaged in school yard horseplay. I am sure that will go down well in Carlow. He also described the debate as distasteful. He should read the Official Report covering the period of office of the previous Government to see how his party behaved in Opposition. Many over the top remarks were made. The book How to behave when in Opposition, which is compulsory reading in Fianna Fáil, has been put on the high shelf in Mount Street in the hope it will not have to be used for a while.
For a long while.
I am amazed at the actions of the Minister of State, a man I admire. I am surprised he finds himself in difficulty. He was a Minister when I was a mere student and has long years of experience as a Minister and Member of this House——
I am surprised the Deputy believes this propaganda. It is a reflection on him.
(Carlow-Kilkenny): The Minister of State is past his sell by date.
I am surprised the Minister of State took the word of the chairman of his parliamentary party so easily without considering the wider consequences. I am disappointed but not surprised the Minister, Deputy Dempsey, perhaps because of his naivety, did not oversee what was happening.
I support the amendment and fully endorse the sentiments expressed by my colleague, the Minister of State at the Department of the Environment and Local Government, in his contribution to this debate and when the matter was raised on the Adjournment on 4 December. It is irresponsible of the Opposition to be pressing the issue in this almost reckless way. The base allegations which have been made against the Minister of State are without foundation. His motives in handling the Carlow case have been beyond reproach. Yet, the Opposition persists in this ridiculous attempt to smear a Minister of State who is carrying out his responsibilities diligently and successfully. He has given a full explanation of his thinking in relation to the use of public parks for development of any kind. He has done so not once but twice. The Opposition refuses to accept that the issue, although centring on a small housing development in Carlow, has important policy implications which the Minister of State with responsibility for housing and urban renewal is entitled and bound to raise.
The Minister of State gave serious and detailed consideration to the issues raised in the Carlow case. He expressed his concerns about the use of a public park as a site for housing and arranged for intensive discussions at local level to see whether a solution could be found which would preserve and develop Shaw Park for the purpose for which it was intended and which would allow the housing development to go ahead. I will read the notes which the Minister of State wrote on the departmental file at the time as an indication of his thinking.
What Deputies seem to have forgotten is that the Minister of State made his decision as soon as his officials reported to him on the outcome of the local discussions between all the parties. He gave the housing schemes the go-ahead on the basis that alternative sites would be some time in coming onstream and that the members of the co-operative society who had already spent a considerable time promoting part of the housing development would suffer personal hardship as a result of further delay.
It is particularly unworthy of the Opposition that it should have tabled its motion last week having been informed in the course of the Adjournment debate a few days earlier that the Minister of State was arranging a meeting in an effort to reach a satisfactory outcome. It is sad that it did not have the good grace to await the outcome of this meeting before mounting this further pointless debate. The Minister of State is to be congratulated, not criticised, for making his decision in this case within minutes of the conclusion of the meeting last Friday recognising that sometimes human considerations have to take precedence over policy. The Opposition should recognise the futility of attempting to score political points and begin to address the more serious political and social issues facing us.
The housing development proposed for Shaw Park in Carlow may be small in scale but in its location and the nature of the housing to be built there it is more than a housing scheme in the traditional sense. It gives effect to many of the principles of social housing policies now widely accepted as encouraging more innovative housing design and lay-out, better use of in-fill and difficult sites, a better social mix and the participation of the voluntary and co-operative sector in the provision of social housing.
The provision of housing has become a more complex task for local authorities and is no longer a matter of merely providing a sufficient number of houses to meet current needs. There are many examples in our cities of the manifestation of former thinking on the matter, the results of which we have all lived to regret. Local authorities must have regard to the impact of their housing decisions in other policy areas, on the urban fabric, including local amenities and on local communities. In providing social housing local authorities are more than builders of houses, they influence the shape and composition of communities and urban areas.
This is happening at a time when there is intense competition for land and an apparently insatiable appetite for developments of all kinds. It is in this context that local authorities must guard against the temptation to avail of the easy option and use public parks and recreational areas for housing.
I understand that local authorities have to work within the constraints of their housing programmes and capital allocations but they must also weigh carefully the balance of advantage and disadvantage in losing a public recreational resource to housing or any other form of development. This is the nature of the issue which has emerged in relation to Shaw Park in Carlow.
The Minister is responsible for two aspects of this issue, housing and urban renewal. In his approach to the Shaw Park housing development he has demonstrated his desire to achieve the solution which will give complementary expression to both. The entirely satisfactory and humane outcome to the Carlow case does not take from the validity of the position the Minister has adopted in relation to the use of public parks for housing or other development. In particular I noted the Minister's endorsement of the role of social housing in counteracting social exclusion and renewing urban areas. Increasingly local authorities are 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 brings life to what may be a rundown area.
The Minister has also paid tribute to the contribution of the voluntary and co-operative sector in the provision of public housing. I have always believed in the virtues of enterprise and self-reliance and that those qualities can only bring benefits to the community as a whole. The voluntary and co-operative sector encourages people to have a greater sense of responsibility for their houses and housing estates and helps to develop a sense of co-operation and partnership among local communities. The greater the participation of the voluntary and co-operative sector in the provision of social housing, the less will be the reliance on local authority housing and on the Exchequer to meet social housing needs.
I am particularly impressed by the efforts of co-operative groups to supply their own housing. Dedication and commitment are required of a small group of people over what may appear to be a long period of time to bring a housing scheme into being.
I endorse what the Minister said last evening about the need for greater encouragement by local authorities of the efforts of groups such as the Carlow Friendly Housing Co-operative Society. Such groups should be able to rely on the practical support of local authorities and on the development of good working partnerships in the supply of housing. Carlow Urban Council and county manager are to be congratulated on the support they have given the Carlow co-operative society with its project.
I reiterate my support for the Minister's stance on this issue and reject the insinuations of the Opposition that he acted less than correctly in this matter. The Minister has never made it other than completely clear that his position is motivated by his strong belief that the preservation of valuable local amenities should not be overtaken by the pressure to develop, even if such development is desirable social housing.
I want to deal now with the position of Senator Gibbons. In 1993 Mr. Gibbons was not a Senator — he was appointed to the Seanad in September last — or councillor but a private citizen. As well as being a graduate in agricultural science, he also holds a masters degree in landscape architecture and perhaps knows as much about that topic as anybody else in this country. In 1993 he spoke to the county engineer in Carlow about the nonmaintenance of this park, which was being allowed to run down, and made suggestions to him. In or around March 1996 he spoke to the county manager, who is also the town manager, and gave him sketch plans of suggested landscaping of the park to restore it to a vibrant amenity for the citizens of Carlow who, at that stage, could no longer use it. By mid-1996 the county manager came up with a review of the development plan which included a proposal to change the use of this park to that for a housing scheme. In August 1996, in the context of the publication of the review of that development plan, three people including Mr. Gibbons, who live in the locality, signed a letter to the manager about the matter. At the same time a public meeting was held in Carlow to protest at the proposal to abandon this park and a petition against the proposal to abandon it and use it instead for housing was signed by 40 of the people who attended.
In July last, some months before Mr. Gibbons was appointed to the Seanad, he spoke to the Minister of State at the Department of the Environment and Local Government whom he met at some function and asked him whether he was aware of the proposal to abandon the park. The Minister of State was not aware. As far as I know he did not know anything about it at that stage. He requested a report which he received from officials on 25 July. He wrote on that report on 28 July as follows:
Runaí,
I am concerned that public open space, in this case a public park, is being utilised as a building site, thus eliminating what was a valuable public amenity. I would not be keen to approve public funding for such a development. Your comments, please.
R.M.
Subsequently, the Minister of State requested a further report on the matter, requesting that the Carlow county manager be written to and consulted about the matter. The county manager was written to on 13 August last expressing the views of the Minister of State. The matter was considered further and another submission made to the Minister of State in November. On that submission the Minister of State wrote:
I am very much opposed to the loss of public open space and decry its use, as in this case, for housing. County managers should be spoken to and assistance offered to help them find an alternative location for these very worthwhile housing schemes.
R.M.
I have as much experience, if not more, than Deputy Molloy in Cabinet. Were I handed this file with this information I would write what he wrote. I fully subscribe to what he wrote; he is absolutely right. Because land is very expensive, if we find ourselves in circumstances in which local authorities have to resort to their own public amenity land in order to execute housing or other development, very soon we shall have little or no public open spaces. It is one of the unfortunate features of many of our cities and towns that we lack adequate public amenities. In Limerick, for example, I am tragically aware of the appalling position where we lack sufficient amenities of this kind. During the time I was a member of Limerick Corporation in the 1970s, I had frequent discussions, and indeed arguments, with the then city manager urging him not to build thousands of houses through the NBA without providing amenities. Unfortunately, I was overruled and tragically we now know the cost in social terms of the desire at that time of a local authority to build houses at any cost. We also know its cost in Ballymun and indeed in other places to a smaller degree.
The Minister of State, Deputy Molloy, asked his officials to accompany the county manager and look at alternative sites. The manager showed them two sites; one was potentially open to flooding at times of extreme weather and was thought unsuitable for that reason. The other site was two miles outside the town and, therefore, was not suitable. That was reported last Friday, the day of the meeting, to Minister Molloy and he said that, in those circumstances, the proposal in Shaw Park, as an exceptional measure, should go ahead. There was no U-turn. No decision was made that had to be reversed.
(Interruptions.)
Deputy O'Malley, without interruption.
I have read out exactly what the Minister of State said and the legitimate and laudable concern he had that local authorities would not utilise their own public parks for housing or other development.
There is a grave danger at a time like this, when land prices are high and when there is a demand for housing, that local authorities will take the financial soft option. If they do that they are condemning those living in cities and towns who come after us to a situation where there will be completely inadequate public housing.
It is worth noting some of the comments made by Deputy McManus in the House. On RTE radio this morning she accused the Minister of State of telling a lie when he said she had no hand, act or part in this matter and was never involved with the file. That has since been checked with officials and Minister Molloy is correct. The Minister of State, although accused of telling a lie, was not the one telling a lie and it was interesting to hear Deputy McManus confirm tonight that she had never dealt with the file.
It would be particularly regrettable if local authorities were to be allowed the option of allowing their own parks to fall into disrepair and disuse to convert them into development for some other purpose. That is somewhat akin to landlords and property owners who, until legislation was passed recently, used to allow houses — often valuable and historic houses — to fall down so that the local authority would be forced to make a demolition order allowing them to clear the site and build. It would be very regrettable if local authorities were in effect allowed to do the same with their own public amenities. Public space and public parks are there not just for the enjoyment of the present generation but for the future.
I hope the policy so clearly enunciated by the Minister of State, Deputy Molloy, will be taken on board now by all local authorities. I am particularly conscious in my own city where Limerick Corporation currently has proposals to encroach on public open space to allow development. I am very much opposed to that and I am glad that the Minister of State, Deputy Molloy, is also opposed to it. If there is any value out of this debate and this motion, it is not from the unworthy motives for which it is put down but because it has been used now, by some of us at least, as a vehicle through which the proper approach to this form of planning and social policy can be enunciated, hopefully taken on board and followed by local authorities throughout the country.
(Carlow-Kilkenny): Ba mhaith liom ar an gcéad dul síos mo bhuíochas a ghabháil le gach duine a labhair sa díospóireacht seo.
In particular I want to thank the Members on this side of the House, Deputies Hayes, Creed, Howlin, Stagg, McManus, Sargent, Hogan and McGrath.
I admired Deputy O'Malley for his integrity. He once said he stood by the Republic but I regret that he does not seem to be standing by democracy.
He is standing by the truth.
Deputy Browne, without interruption.
(Carlow-Kilkenny): I will deal with that. Deputy O'Malley has fallen into the same trap as the Minister of State by waffling on about open spaces and parks.
I want to deal with the amendment the Minister of State, or someone on his behalf, tabled. It states: ". . 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". The go-ahead was given last June. The Minister of State rescinded that order so he has now backed down. People voting for this motion are saying that the Minister of State made a dog's dinner of this issue.
The Government amendment goes on to state: ". . 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". That is acceptable and normal, and I do not need a lecture from the Minister of State or anyone else. When housing development was planned for a play area in Pollerton, I led the campaign against it and we prevented the houses being built. I have as much respect for open spaces as the Minister of State.
The Government amendment continues: ". . commends the promotion by local authorities of integrated social housing developments involving different types of housing including local authority, voluntary and co-operative".
That is a good one.
(Carlow-Kilkenny): Carlow was praised for what it did in that regard. It has a mixture of private and public houses. The Minister of State did a somersault on that and he is being blamed again for not accepting this motion. People voting on the motion are condemning the Minister of State and that is a strange set-up.
The Minister of State began his contribution last night as follows: "It has been nauseating listening to Fine Gael spokespersons who displayed sheer hypocrisy and naked political opportunism". He seems to have as much respect for the English language as he has for democracy. Does the Minister of State honestly think that opposing his undemocratic decision is naked political opportunism and sheer hypocrisy? He went on to state:
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.
The Minister of State is losing the run of himself. Can he live with his conscience? He should look after himself and not mind us on this side of the House.
The Deputies' arguments are a falsehood so that is not the truth.
The Minister of State did a somersault.
(Carlow-Kilkenny): In his contribution the Minister of State waffled about open spaces. I warned him on the Adjournment on 4 December that I did not want to hear that argument. That has nothing to do with this issue. I accept as much as the Minister of State the need for open spaces.
That is what it is all about from beginning to end. It is all about open spaces.
(Carlow-Kilkenny): The Minister of State should take his medicine. Deputy O'Malley came in here and gave chapter and verse. The Minister of State had not been long in the Department when he looked for the file. It is amazing. When I asked the Minister of State, under the democratic system that exists in this House, the number of orders he had overturned since he became a Minister of State, he did not have the backbone, the manners or the decency to answer the question. He could not find the answer for me. In less than six months he could not recall the number of orders he overturned. Is that democracy? Of course, there was only one. I do not know why Deputy O'Malley opened the file and it is a revelation to me to know I can go to the office of the Minister of State and see files. Is that true?
The Deputy can get them in the skip.
(Carlow-Kilkenny): Am I right in saying I can go to your office and read files?
I ask the Deputy to address his remarks through the Chair.
(Carlow-Kilkenny): Will you find out if I can go to the Minister of State's office to read notes on the file.
The Leas-Cheann Comhairle has no function in that matter.
I will give the Deputy the notes if he wants them. I gave them to Deputy O'Malley. The Deputy does not want to know the truth.
(Carlow-Kilkenny): The Minister of State has been economic with the truth. Yesterday on “Morning Ireland “ he said twice that no decision was made.
There was no decision.
(Carlow-Kilkenny): A decision was made and I can quote the Minister's words on an Adjournment Debate. The plans for local authority housing were discussed and agreed at local level between the local authority and the Department's technical inspectorate——
That was on the design.
(Carlow-Kilkenny):——and design approval issued in June 1997.
There was a great deal more than that involved in the decision.
(Carlow-Kilkenny): Does the Minister of State mean that money was paid out before the houses were started? Approval was given. That is what always happens.
A decision was made on the design. The Deputy does not understand the way it operates.
(Carlow-Kilkenny): The Minister of State can use whatever words he likes but nobody believes him. The letter from his Department which was on file before he took office indicates there were no objections to the proposals submitted. The message was, “carry on boys as long as you do not go over the limit”. That indicated approval. If the Minister of State wants to keep telling us approval was not given he will need an adviser to explain what is truth and what is not truth. This is unbelievable.
There is no dispute about what happened before the Minister of State came into office. The proposal was cleared locally by the urban district council following the various processes. The Minister of State has a great interest in local government. He stayed on in Galway as a Minister and would not step down for the former Taoiseach, Mr. Haughey.
That housing proposal was approved nationally as indicated in the letter to which I referred. The Minister of State ignored local and Government democracy and took offence at our raising this matter here because he thinks this is a cheap stroke. Two changes took place, Mr. Gibbons who is present in the gallery became a Senator and Deputy Molloy became a Minister of State. He interfered and looked for a file that surprisingly concerned Carlow. He admitted speaking to the Senator who admitted speaking to the Minister of State, but neither will admit what they were talking about. I asked the Minister of State specifically to make a statement last night and he did not.
I said it several times.
(Carlow-Kilkenny): They probably discussed the weather. The House deserves a statement from the Minister of State on what took place.
This is pathetic.
(Carlow-Kilkenny): The Minister of State called for a re-examination. This is important, and I referred to it last night. The manager's report gave the Minister of State a detailed account of the position. It showed that Shaw Park was derelict, but talking objectively about park space for housing is one thing and talking about Shaw Park is another. Shaw Park is secluded, is approximately 30 yards in off the main road and is surrounded by houses. It is not suitable for an unsupervised park. I will not go into the details of the other point. When houses are built there will be supervision there. There is adequate space in Carlow and this development is needed. There are 12 acres available in Graiguecullen and 13 in Hanover Park. We want that land developed. I would agree with anybody who would advocate more park space for Carlow. People travel to Kilkenny to avail of a park there, but we want them to stay in Carlow and spend their money there.
More hypocrisy.
(Carlow-Kilkenny): Did the Minister of State say “more hypocrisy“?
(Interruptions.)
(Carlow-Kilkenny): He should look in the mirror.
Without the Fine Gael motion nothing would have changed last Friday.
(Carlow-Kilkenny): The Minister of State explained there was a new swimming pool and the other proposal was abandoned.
There were legal difficulties involved and half the park——
Without this motion the world would have remained unchanged.
On 28 November he said the Minister is not disposed to approve funding for the new houses.
(Carlow-Kilkenny):——is still reserved for a play area under the supervision of the houses. That was all told to the Minister of State in response to his request. Deputy O'Malley whom I respect has talked about officials going to Carlow and being shown a flooded area considered unsuitable for building. Is that not why Shaw Park was originally picked? The officials did not only discover that when they went to Carlow. Was it not crazy for the Minister of State to try to hide his bluff by talking about a flooded area and a site two miles out of Carlow town? Surely local knowledge counts. How could I objectively talk about a park in Galway or Roscommon if I did not know anything about it?
The Minister of State ignored all the advice and in his letter he said the Minister is not disposed to approve funding for the new houses. In an Adjournment Debate he said he was not disposed to make funds available. He had an open mind about Carlow. He was going to send his officials and all hell would break loose when he would say "no" to that proposal, but unfortunately for the Minister of State we tabled this motion last Thursday. Instead of blaming my party members for doing that, he should compliment us for keeping an eye on this, as his leader advises eternal vigilance to protect democracy. I will quote what she said later if time permits. It is important we have done that for the Minister of State. Because this motion was accepted the Minister of State's duplicity was questioned by his leader and by the Taoiseach.
I am interested in the truth which is a much more valued commodity.
(Carlow-Kilkenny): The Minister of State was told to cop on at that stage but he is still spoofing about open spaces and an open mind and that is balderdash.
More lies.
(Carlow-Kilkenny): Nobody believes him, not even members of his party and, without wishing to embarrass anyone, not even some of the Members who spoke tonight. I compliment my colleague who did a marvellous taighaid a dhá thaobh. I have never heard a better speech in that he went two ways at the one time and did not fall over. I will not name him.
A constituency colleague.
(Carlow-Kilkenny): Last night the Minister of State had a half hour to make his contribution. His leader sat beside him and after 20 minutes of waffle he sat down and I was amazed that his leader never said a word and ten minutes were sacrificed. In Opposition she blasted out standards to us across the floor of the House. As reported in Column 365 of the Official Report of 16 November l994, she stated, “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 of State's leader has said nothing on this so far. What will she do to live up to her own standards? Will she ask the Minister of State to take the rap and the responsibility for getting this wrong or does she think that only applies to us lesser mortals in the other parties? She also stated, “Democracy is a very fragile thing and sometimes many people take it for granted. They do not do that in other countries. ..” She went on to explain what happens in other countries and asked what would have happened in Ireland. I asked last night what will happen in Ireland? Do we only apply standards abroad or do we only apply standards to others? As reported in Column 368 of the Official Report of 16 November 1994 she stated, “They [other democracies] know that democracy is a fragile thing and that we need eternal vigilance to ensure it is preserved.”
We need to preserve the truth.
(Carlow-Kilkenny): When we exercise eternal vigilance for a short time here we are accused of cheap political antics. It is unbelievable what the Minister of State has done.
The Deputy is pathetic.
(Carlow-Kilkenny): The Minister of State should have respect for the English language. If he thinks this is pathetic how would he describe his own performance of interfering in a decision that was already made with no basis for doing so.
The Deputy's case is based on a falsehood.
(Carlow-Kilkenny): You were not in office a wet day when you looked for the file and wanted to overrule that decision.
The Deputy should address his remarks through the Chair.
(Carlow-Kilkenny): I apologise to the Chair but the Minister of State has upset me.
He has upset his own party as well as ours.
(Carlow-Kilkenny): What the Minister of State did is undemocratic.
If Michael McDowell was here now what side of the House would he support on this issue?
(Carlow-Kilkenny): What the Minister of State did was an insult to local democracy which he apparently loves, because he would not step down when he was in Galway. It is amazing that he does not accept this decision now. What he did is an insult to the high standards set by his leader in Opposition. It is also an insult to his former leader, Deputy O'Malley, who foolishly came in here tonight to make a speech that did nothing for a man of such high standing. It is a pity having stood by the Republic that tonight he did not stand by democracy. He waffled about open spaces and so on which have nothing to do with the motion before us. In simple language the Minster of State used stroke politics that have blown up in his face.
That is a case based on a falsehood.
(Interruptions.)
Amendment put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 73; Níl, 64.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies S. Brennan and Power; Níl, Deputies Sheehan and Finucane.
Question declared carried.
|
Tá |
|
|
Ahern, Dermot. |
Cowen, Brian. |
|
Ahern, Michael. |
Cullen, Martin. |
|
Ahern, Noel. |
Daly, Brendan. |
|
Ardagh, Seán. |
Davern, Noel. |
|
Aylward, Liam. |
de Valera, Síle. |
|
Brady, Johnny. |
Dennehy, John. |
|
Brady, Martin. |
Doherty, Seán. |
|
Brennan, Matt. |
Ellis, John. |
|
Brennan, Séamus. |
Fahey, Frank. |
|
Briscoe, Ben. |
Fleming, Seán. |
|
Browne, John (Wexford). |
Flood, Chris. |
|
Byrne, Hugh. |
Foley, Denis. |
|
Callely, Ivor. |
Fox, Mildred. |
|
Carey, Pat. |
Hanafin, Mary. |
|
Collins, Michael. |
Harney, Mary. |
|
Cooper-Flynn, Beverley. |
Haughey, Seán. |
|
Coughlan, Mary. |
Healy-Rae, Jackie. |
|
Jacob, Joe. |
Moynihan, Michael. |
|
Keaveney, Cecilia. |
Ó Cuív, Éamon. |
|
Kelleher, Billy. |
O'Dea, Willie. |
|
Kenneally, Brendan. |
O'Donoghue, John. |
|
Killeen, Tony. |
O'Flynn, Noel. |
|
Kirk, Séamus. |
O'Hanlon, Rory. |
|
Kitt, Michael. |
O'Keeffe, Batt. |
|
Kitt, Tom. |
O'Keeffe, Ned. |
|
Lawlor, Liam. |
O'Kennedy, Michael. |
|
Lenihan, Brian. |
O'Malley, Desmond. |
|
Lenihan, Conor. |
O'Rourke, Mary. |
|
McCreevy, Charlie. |
Power, Seán. |
|
McDaid, James. |
Roche, Dick. |
|
McGennis, Marian. |
Ryan, Eoin. |
|
McGuinness, John. |
Smith, Brendan. |
|
Moffatt, Thomas. |
Treacy, Noel. |
|
Molloy, Robert. |
Wade, Eddie. |
|
Moloney, John. |
Wallace, Dan. |
|
Moynihan, Donal. |
Walsh, Joe. |
|
Wright, G.V. |
|
Níl |
|
|
Allen, Bernard. |
Hogan, Philip. |
|
Barnes, Monica. |
Howlin, Brendan. |
|
Bell, Michael. |
Kenny, Enda. |
|
Belton, Louis. |
McCormack, Pádraic. |
|
Boylan, Andrew. |
McDowell, Derek. |
|
Bradford, Paul. |
McGahon, Brendan. |
|
Broughan, Thomas. |
McGinley, Dinny. |
|
Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny). |
McGrath, Paul. |
|
Bruton, Richard. |
McManus, Liz. |
|
Burke, Liam. |
Mitchell, Gay. |
|
Burke, Ulick. |
Mitchell, Jim. |
|
Carey, Donal. |
Mitchell, Olivia. |
|
Clune, Deirdre. |
Moynihan-Cronin, Breeda. |
|
Connaughton, Paul. |
Naughten, Denis. |
|
Cosgrave, Michael. |
Neville, Dan. |
|
Crawford, Seymour. |
Noonan, Michael. |
|
Creed, Michael. |
Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín. |
|
Currie, Austin. |
O'Keeffe, Jim. |
|
D'Arcy, Michael. |
O'shea, Brian. |
|
De Rossa, Proinsias. |
Penrose, William. |
|
Deasy, Austin. |
Perry, John. |
|
Deenihan, Jimmy. |
Quinn, Ruairí. |
|
Durkan, Bernard. |
Rabbitte, Pat. |
|
Farrelly, John. |
Reynolds, Gerard. |
|
Ferris, Michael. |
Shatter, Alan. |
|
Finucane, Michael. |
Sheehan, Patrick. |
|
Flanagan, Charles. |
Shortall, Róisín. |
|
Gormley, John. |
Stagg, Emmet. |
|
Gregory, Tony. |
Stanton, David. |
|
Hayes, Brian. |
Timmins, Billy. |
|
Higgins, Jim. |
Upton, Pat. |
|
Higgins, Joe. |
Yates, Ivan. |
Motion, as amended, put and declared carried.