Deputy Therese Ahearn gave me notice of her intention to raise on the Adjournment the subject matter of the serious delay in the commencement of the community school in Cashel, County Tipperary.
Adjournment Debate. - Cashel (Tipperary) School Project.
I thank you, a Cheann Comhairle for giving me permission to raise this important matter on the Adjournment. The history of the proposed community school in Cashel is a long, unsatisfactory and troubled one, riddled with broken promises, delays, postponements, disappointments and, above all, inaction. I raised this issue on the Adjournment on Wednesday, 14 February 1990. On that occasion the Minister assured me that she was "working with great attention on this case". She also said "the matter is urgent, the school is needed and the present accommodation is completely unsatisfactory". She concluded with the simple statement, "progress reported".
Since that time — I say this with a degree of anger, frustration and, above all, disappointment — there has been progress in only one area, and that is, the progress of time. Now, ten months later, there has been no improvement in the situation, no hope given in any response from the Department of Education and definitely no sign of a community school being opened in Cashel.
I have not rested my case since February. On Tuesday 6 March last I tabled a parliamentary question asking the Minister when the proposed community school would commence and the reasons for the delay to date. Another parliamentary question was tabled on the same date by me, and by Deputy John Bruton, asking the Minister to outline the nature of the legal formalities which would have to be completed before work on the community school would start, when the works would be completed and if a model contract for the design, finance and construction scheme had yet been finalised. In reply to those questions the Minister stated that is was hoped that the necessary approval of the contract would be forthcoming soon.
On 4 April I telephoned the Department of Education and was told that all the legal difficulties had now been resolved. In May the Minister wrote to me saying that she had sanctioned the procedure for the selection of developers and hoped I would be pleased with the information. Innocently and somewhat naively I was tremendously happy with her response. It seemed Cashel Community School was at last imminent. Sadly, more of the same was to follow.
The summer months brought no joy to those interested in the community school for Cashel. Delay followed delay, due firstly to difficulties experienced by the developers in obtaining necessary information from the quantity surveyor involved. The closing date for tenders was July but this had to be extended to August and extended yet again to 26 September. On this day, 21 November 1990, no progress can be reported.
The sad saga of Cashel community school has continued since 1979. So many times we were near to success, only to be pushed back again by a change in Department policy, by inaction, by lack of urgency on the part of the Minister and her Department and by a simple lack of interest and of a meaningful determination to ensure that this project would commence.
I cannot overstate the anger and frustration of parents, teachers, students and school managers in Cashel. Continuous delays and postponements have resulted in a mounting tide of impatience and intolerance. For too long Cashel has waited and Cashel now wants action. I appeal to the Minister for immediate action on Cashel community school and I ask that the promises so freely given should now be generously honoured.
I am glad to have the opportunity of discussing this matter in which you, a Cheann Comhairle, have a deep interest, as have other Deputies, particularly Deputy Davern. There is no doubt that the delay by Deputy John Bruton in the appointment of his front bench has led to great declamatory occasions in this House and we look forward to many more of them in the weeks ahead. It is well to get the facts straight so that Deputy Ahearn will know where the blame lies, rather than denouncing the Department in such a delcamatory way.
The project at Cashel was one of three second level building projects included in a pilot scheme which I initiated for the procurement of school buildings on a design, finance and build basis. The purpose of the pilot scheme was to examine the feasibility of funding from sources other than State funds. I would like Deputy Ahearn to listen and lay the blame precisely where it should be laid. Tenders for the three projects involved in the pilot scheme were invited from selected developers in June. Tenders were received within the specified time in respect of the other projects at Newcastlewest and Newbridge College. In the case of the Cashel project, however, at the request of the developer the closing date for receipt of tenders was extended twice, the final date being 26 September 1990.
Then in stepped the Construction Industry Federation who requested a further deferral of the closing date on behalf of the developers. We informed them that because of the urgency of the Cashel project it was not possible to grant a further extension of time, in addition to the two deferrals already allowed. The developers were informed at the same time as the CIF that because of the urgent need for the new school no further extensions of time would be granted for the submission of their tenders. However, as it transpired, no tenders were received at the due date. With due respect to Deputy Ahearn, we cannot proceed to build without getting a tender. That is axiomatic in any contract.
Since then my Department have had discussions with the CIF regarding the failure of the developers to submit tenders. It emerged during the discussions that a difficulty was encountered by the developers with regard to their use of the bill of quantities prepared by the consultant quantity surveyor. There is drama within a drama. It is quite apparent to me where precisely the blame lies and the Deputy must also be aware of this. Discussions are continuing with the CIF and the quantity surveyor concerned with a view to getting agreement which will satisfy both the developers and the surveyor and so enable the project to proceed. Every possible effort is being made by my Department to have those discussions concluded as soon as possible.
I went to Cashel and met the group in early September. I met the managers and principals and following that I arranged for the Secretary of the Department to meet the CIF. He discussed with them the proposals from the surveyor. There was another meeting with the surveyor and the CIF on Monday, 19 November. Pending a satisfactory resolution of this unforeseen problem I am not in a position to indicate how soon the project will proceed. There is as yet no tender. I am anxious to have the school provided as soon as possible. Further arrangements will be expedited when the present difficulty, which is of a local nature, is resolved. I have asked my Department to endeavour to find a solution to the problem as a matter of urgency. Our hands are tied and it is quite extraordinary that in the other two pilot projects difficulties such as have been encountered in Cashel have not been met. Deputy Ahearn is sitting beside a Deputy who is concerned with one of those projects. We will keep pushing but we need a response. Most of all we need a tender.