asked the Minister for Health if he is aware of a recent referendum in Clonmel, County Tipperary, regarding the siting of the welfare home; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Clonmel Welfare Home.
3.
I am aware of the referendum to which the Deputy refers and of its result. I think it might be useful if I outlined some of the recent history of the proposal to site a welfare home in Clonmel.
On 15th February, 1974, the SouthEastern Health Board made a proposal to my Department to demolish the building, which contained the domestic economy school in Clonmel, and to build a welfare home on the cleared site. While this proposal was being considered in my Department, another site became available at Gallows Hill, approximately a quarter of a mile away. This latter site had recently been purchased by Clonmel Corporation, who were prepared to make part of it available to the health board as a site for a welfare home.
My Department had doubts about the suitability of the Morton Street site for a welfare home, and when the site at Gallows Hill became available, I asked them to prepare reports for me on the suitability of both sites.
The medical, architectural and administrative officers from my Department who inspected both sites opted firmly in favour of that at Gallows Hill. They did it for two main reasons.
In the first place, they felt this site is environmentally far more suitable for a welfare home. It is on open and pleasant grounds, proposed for development as an amenity area. It is less than a quarter of a mile from the Morton Street site and environmentally far more attractive, in their view. Their report described the Morton Street site as "locked-in", with poor environmental amenities, and surrounded by a laundry, car-park and national school.
Secondly, their advice to me was that the cost of providing a welfare home at Gallows Hill would be considerably less expensive than at Morton Street. They estimated that the difference in cost would be of the order of £23,000. I accepted their advice, and in June, 1974, indicated my approval of the Gallows Hill site to the health board. I did so on the grounds of the environmental suitability of the site and of cost. Since that date I have received a deputation from the health board and have received the result of the referendum to which the Deputy refers. Both indicate that there are some people in Clonmel who wish me to reconsider my decision.
If it were only a question of the environmental suitability of the site, I could consider changing my decision in deference to the wishes of the health board. However, the additional cost of building at Morton Street was estimated at £23,000 in June, 1974, when my decision was made. I am now informed that the difference in cost could have increased to approximately £31,000.
As the Deputy is aware, I have a responsibility to safeguard public funds and to make the most efficient use of the financial resources available to me. I think he will agree that I would not be fulfilling that responsibility were I to approve a proposal to build a welfare home in Morton Street, when a similar home can be built for an estimated £31,000 less, within a quarter of a mile at Gallows Hill.
The Minister stated there were some people in Clonmel who did not agree with his decision but is he aware that at a public meeting the Morton Street site was approved by 600 votes to 9 votes? In the referendum almost three to one were in favour of the Morton Street site. Does the Minister realise the huge number of people in favour of the Morton Street site?
I realise there are quite a number of people in favour of the Morton Street site but as far as the referendum is concerned—I do not deny the right of the people of Clonmel to carry out such a referendum—there was a 35 per cent turn out. Therefore, it does not appear to me that a majority of the people want it. I may be wrong in that but my main consideration was that to develop the Morton Street site would cost another £31,000 and that is no mean figure.
Is the Minister aware that it is the percentage of those who cared about the siting of the welfare home at any stage who were in favour of Morton Street? The Minister must be aware that in deciding on such a home consideration must be given to the amenities available for old people. Is the Minister aware that the Morton Street site is convenient to churches, the main shopping area, public houses and booking offices, amenities which are not available at the Gallows Hill site? Is the Minister further aware that the Gallows Hill site would mean that the old people would have to cross the main Waterford-Limerick intersection and that it is just beside a new shopping complex? It would create a tremendous traffic hazard for these people.
That is the opinion of the Deputy. I suppose it is important for these people to be near the amenities he described, including the betting office, but one would imagine that the distance between Morton Street and Gallows Hill was considerable. I gather that the distance is 394 yards and that the amenities and environment are far better. It is my view, that of the architect, engineer and medical officer that it is a better site. I have seen the Morton Street site and if I were a patient in a welfare home I would prefer it to be on Gallows Hill. The Deputy must have regard to the fact that £31,000 is quite an amount of money and that the Southern Health Board could make quite a lot of use of it if it was at their disposal.
There are 14,000 people in Clonmel. I should like to ask the Minister if he is aware that he will not have the service of the Sisters who are at present at Morton Street if he moves to Gallows Hill? Will the Minister throw away this advantage?
I have been informed that there is this possibility but I have responsibility for accountability of the funds at my disposal. That is the over-riding factor and I think the Deputy must recognise that.
I am a little bit suspicious of what is the over-riding factor. I think it might be the influence of certain councillors.
No, I would not accept any suggestion like that.
Would the Minister meet a deputation from the welfare home committee?
I have met sufficient.
A deputation from the people who are actually concerned in this?
I met some deputations on this matter and have given them my view. Would the Deputy be prepared—although he is supposed to ask questions, and that is his right— to comment on the undoubted advice that it would cost £31,000 more? The Morton Street site was turned down before Gallows Hill was even mentioned. My advisers told me that the Morton Street location would be unsuitable for a welfare home.
Question No. 4.
Would the Minister now meet a deputation from the Morton Welfare Committee who would be in a much better position to put the points to the Minister than I am?
I did explain to the deputation from the health board——
I am talking about the town itself.
And to the nuns as well.
Question No. 4.
Would the Minister meet them?
The health board is the body responsible.
Would the Minister meet them? I am meeting them on Friday evening. Could I tell them that the Minister would be agreeable to meet them?
No. The Deputy can pick it out from the reply, plus the supplementaries.