The matter I wish to raise on the Adjournment is the delay in commencing work on the construction of residential units for multi-handicapped children in Saint Mary's Dominican Convent, Cabra, tenders for which were submitted to the Department of Health in February 1980.
I should begin by explaining that I am not referring to the entire complex in Saint Mary's in Cabra. I am referring specifically to what is primarily a residential school for female children who are profoundly deaf — so deaf that it is difficult to teach them to speak — and who in addition have another handicap as well. They are either visually impaired, mentally handicapped, physically handicapped, emotionally disturbed or have some other problem. In short they are the classic vulnerable children to which we as a society give so much in the way of verbal commitment, so much in the way of lip service but from what I have seen of that particular college, damn little else.
For the record I should like to give an account of the history of this particular problem. Later I will describe the present conditions in that school. In December 1973 the first application was made for residential accommodation for about 30 to 40 pupils. In October 1974 architects were accepted by the Department of Health. I emphasise that I am talking about almost ten years ago. In January 1975 the school were informed that provision had been made for the scheme in the 1975 building programme. In April of that year a copy of the draft brief was available. In August 1975 a schedule of accommodation was submitted to the Department of Health and in September 1975 there was a meeting with the Department officials regarding the schedule of accommodation. In October 1975 it was agreed to proceed to line drawings. In August 1977 a quantity surveyor's costings were provided and also a report on recommendations for mechanical and electrical installations.
In November 1977 a letter was received stating that sketch plans were all in order, that the engineer's report had been accepted and that work would proceed to working drawing stage. In February 1978 the school was informed that the Minister was prepared to make a grant available for carrying out the scheme. In October 1978 revised costings were submitted by an architect. In January 1979 a further revision of costings was requested. And so on until October 1979 when a bill of quantities was submitted. Finally in November 1979 the bill of quantities was considered to be in order and a decision was given that tenders might be invited and submitted. Finally in February 1980 tenders were submitted. In April 1980 to the astonishment of the staff in the school in question, a letter issued from the Department of Health stating that in view of constraints in public expenditure that year, it was necessary to examine the position of all schemes. It went on to say that the matter was being kept under review in the light of outgoings in respect of schemes in progress. In the gobbledegook which passes for bureaucratic English, that means "no". Letters were written to the then Minister, Deputy Woods, with regard to the present position. I am not for one instant trying to pin the blame for this entire debacle on the present Minister. In November 1980 the then Minister acknowledged the letter and in December 1980 in a letter from him regret was expressed at the difficult financial situation that year which precluded commencement of work. The Minister said that the matter was being kept under review. I have learned that being kept under review means that you are a long way down the queue, because in the nature of politics if any decision can be announced, even a holding decision, it will be announced. In July 1981 a further decision was given that no capital was available that year, the implication being perhaps that it would be available the following year. The school were notified that it was not possible to know when funds would be available in 1982 but that the project would be given special consideration. I hate to think what would have happened to the project if it had not got special consideration, since they had been waiting, at that stage, for nine years. In January 1982, after a further meeting in the Department the school were informed that no funds had been allocated to the project in that year. I emphasise that we are talking about children, girls between the ages of 5 and about 16. They are obviously classically among the most vulnerable in our society. They are the sort of people to whom many of us pay lip service and pronounce at length about our commitment to them.
I received a communication from the staff of that school, as did many Members of the Oireachtas, inviting me to visit it. I say this temperately but with absolute conviction: I have seen many things in my work with various voluntary organisations that have upset me; I have seen many things that have made me angry but I have seen nothing — and I repeat nothing — that has upset me more or made me more angry than the conditions under which that school is being operated. The staff of the school have performed a magnificent service to the children in spite of — not because of — the commitment of our community. They waited ten years for a school which is situated on the third floor of a Victorian building. It is meant to cater for people who, among other things, are physically handicapped. There are no facilities for the handicapped. To take a wheelchair to the top floor of the building would require carrying it three flights of stairs. It means, for instance, that if there is a period of sunny weather, and we are talking about 30 potentially difficult children, the time it takes to get them down those stairs safely can often mean that by the time they get down, the weather has changed and all that can be done is bring them back upstairs again with the result that days can pass without those children getting out into the open air because of the situation to which we as a society have confined them.
I want to refer to some matters which I put in a letter to the Minister on 31 March this year. I informed him that in two former classrooms which had been evacuated, the ceilings had caved in, that water was coming in through the roof, that the floor boards creaked and felt insecure to walk on, and that poison had been laid on the floors because of infestation by either mice or rats. I said at the time that it was probably rats but it could well have been mice. In any case, there is rodent poison on the floors in this school where we have confined some of our most vulnerable children. The canteen is one section of a large room another section of which is the sitting room and another section of which is the bedroom. The beds are separated by partitions and no more. I went on to say in my letter that in that canteen water was pouring down the walls and was being soaked up by towels which are continuously replaced. This is when it rains. I went on to say that the water comes down over electricity circuits and that the obvious fire hazard was incredible; the space is so inadequate that all children between the ages of five and 16 must play in the same room, must sleep in the same room and by and large must eat in the same room. This is obviously bad educationally. It is not a large room. It is the only substantial space they have. It is in use from 5.00 p.m. to 1.00 a.m. each day. These I repeat are multi-handicapped children, many of whom are physically hyperactive. There is no privacy while the bed space is there. More seriously, classroom space is severely restricted. In one room three classes go on simultaneously. These are classes for difficult children requiring specialist attention and these are separated by minimal partitions. As an educational environment for normal children the situation is impossible: for children with the level of handicap they have it is absolutely appalling. The only bath is in the canteen room. The classrooms and the other principal rooms are on the third floor of the building. Children spend the whole day running up and down the stairs if they are able to and in fact one child who is handicapped and who badly needs that school has had to be refused admission because of the fact that there are no facilities for wheelchair children. We have no idea of how these children could be evacuated quickly in the case of fire.
The one outdoor pre-fab classroom that has been provided has so much moisture on the walls that the children's drawings cannot be sellotaped on to them because they will fall off due to the dampness. It is quite obvious to me that teaching staff in that school, the nuns and the lay teaching staff, have made tremendous efforts in spite of the handicaps that we as a community have placed in their way, to do something about the situation. It was one of the most distressful and harrowing visits I have ever paid to any institution and people know the sort of institutions and accommodation that I have been associated with. It was extremely upsetting. I left the place, and I do not exaggerate, almost in tears. That is why I raise the matter here.
This matter was first raised in 1973. It is almost ten years since it was indicated to the staff of that school that they would be getting new premises. It is three years since the tenders were submitted. I put it to the Minister that there is no justification for withholding the sort of sum of money that is involved. It is £750,000 which ironically is about the estimated cost of this infernal referendum we are about to have. It is a small sum of money in terms of Departmental expenditure. It is not just and it is not right. If there must be savings in Government spending this is not the area in which to effect them. I know we will be told about priorities and about needs and so on. I do not accept that this is so far down in our list of public priorities as not to justify the expenditure. I do not want to hear any talk from the Minister about the problems of public finance because I do not accept that that is a necessary constraint in this area. There must be other areas of expenditure. I can give him a long list of areas that could well be cut back in various other Departments, not necessarily his own. This Government are supposed to be compassionate and reforming. Neither do I want pious aspirations. These people have waited for ten years. If the Minister honestly believes that it cannot be done, will he tell that to these people and not be promising them something at a later stage. They are entitled to more than that from us.
In conclusion, I would say to the Minister that I have seen few things in the last ten years that have upset me more than the condition of this school. I am not standing up here for theatrical or other effect. I am standing up here because I am extremely angry and extremely upset. It is almost six weeks since I wrote to the Minister but I have heard nothing since though I am sure he has been trying to do something about the matter. Normally six weeks would seem a short period of time but when people have waited ten years, six weeks is far too long. I would appeal to the Minister to indicate to the people concerned what he proposes to do. If he proposes to do nothing can we have that said explicitly and clearly so that at least the people working in this institution can know where they are going and can begin a proper campaign to persuade our society that our multi-handicapped children deserve not just the minimum that we can give them but the best that can possibly be made available to them.
