(Carlow-Kilkenny): I move:
That Dáil Éireann
(a) condemns the action of the Minister of State at the Department of the Environment and Local Government with special responsibility for housing, Deputy Molloy, in his unprecedented decision to overturn on 2nd December, 1997, a decision made by Carlow Urban Council and approved by the Department of the Environment in June, 1997, to build 26 houses
(b) requests the Minister of State to make a comprehensive statement on his contacts in the matter with Senator Jim Gibbons, Chairman of the Progressive Democrats Parliamentary Party;
(c) questions the undermining by the Minister of State of decisions properly and democratically taken by Carlow Urban District Council and approved by his Department;
(d) calls on the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Leader of Progressive Democrats, and on the Minister for the Environment and Local Government to make statements on the issue;
(e) calls on the Minister of State to account for his actions in the matter; and
(f) calls on the Government to overturn his rescinding decision and to make funds available for the completion of the project.
With the permission of the House, I wish to share time with Deputies Hayes and Creed.
This morning the Minister of State at the Department of the Environment and Local Government, Deputy Molloy, gave an interview on "Morning Ireland" during which he was asked by Mr. David Hanly why he had changed a decision which had already been made. He said a final decision had not been made. That is in sharp contrast to a reply I received on 4 December to an Adjournment debate matter when he told me the plans for the local authority housing were discussed and agreed at local level between the local authority and the Department's technical inspectorate and design approval had issued in June 1997. The Minister cannot have it both ways. On 9 June 1997 Ms Patricia Ballantine from the housing construction section of the Department of the Environment and Local Government wrote to the town clerk. The letter stated:
I wish to refer to your letter and submission of 19 February 1997 concerning the above [housing scheme at Shaw Park, Athy Road, Carlow] and to say there are no objections to the proposals submitted. The Council are reminded that if the current estimated all-in cost (based on the tender amount) is within the unit cost ceiling the Council are free to accept the lowest valid tender without seeking the Department's approval as outlined in the Department's circular N1/97 paragraph 6(i). However if this is not the case, all tender details and tender analysis are to be submitted for approval. The Council are asked to submit details of site costs on the enclosed form.
That letter gave the council permission to continue with the housing scheme. The Minister's statement on the radio this morning contradicts what he told me in the House and the contents of the letter from the Department.
This motion was tabled because of the Minister's unprecedented decision to overrule a democratic decision made by Carlow Urban District Council and approved by the Department of the Environment and Local Government. This was gross interference in something which did not concern him. This is not a debate about open spaces, about which the Minister professed his love during the Adjournment debate on this issue. Carlow Urban District Council advertised in the usual way, received objections from people and then decided to build the houses following the manager's recommendation. It was advised to build a mixed scheme of ten co-op and 16 local authority houses.
Senator Gibbons objected to this development on the grounds of invasion of privacy, trespass and damage to property. He was entitled to do that in a democratic society. However, we are now getting information about open spaces, although Senator Gibbons did not mention them in his objection. Senator Gibbons is chairman of the Progressive Democrats' parliamentary party and he had a word in the Minister's ear. Democratic decisions are being turned on their head to keep the boys in jobs. The Minister and the Senator agreed they discussed this matter but neither seems to have asked the other about stopping this development. Senator Gibbons said he did not have to power to ask the Minister to stop it. I am sure he had the power to ask him but whether the Minister had the power to do so is another matter.
I refute the Minister's statement that my allegations and insinuations were contemptuous. I have defended the democratic system which elects us. In 1975 the Minister made contemptuous allegations and insinuations about Mr. Jim Tully. The then Taoiseach, Mr. Liam Cosgrave, said it should be made clear that there was not a scintilla of evidence to justify such unscrupulous allegations against him. The Minister wants to put my defence of democracy on the same level as his actions then. Justice was done in that case. A rocket was fired and the Minister was sent from the Front Bench to outer space. I hope the Tánaiste will fire another rocket in these circumstances.
The Tánaiste was strong in her defence of democracy during a debate on a confidence motion on 16 November 1994. In the Official Report, 16 November 1994, volume 447 at column 365, she stated:
One person's standards are perhaps different from other people's standards but there are basic community standards, basic values by which ordinary people expect us to live. Those of us who represent the people in this House are honoured and we have a duty to live and work by normal decent values. People do not want saints in the Dáil .. ; they want ordinary people who are prepared to adhere to ordinary standards and they want people to take the rap and the responsibility when they get it wrong.
The Minister does not claim to be a saint but he is not an ordinary person prepared to adhere to ordinary standards. He wants extraordinary standards which is why he interfered in decisions already made and tried to stand democracy on its head. Is he prepared to take the rap and responsibility now that he is wrong? He backed down once this motion was tabled because wiser heads prevailed in Government who would not tolerate what he was trying to do.
The Tánaiste also said during the debate on the confidence motion that "democracy is a very fragile thing and sometimes many people take it for granted. They do not do that in other countries". She explained that the Premier of Denmark was suspended and the Premier of Western Australia jailed. She asked what would have happened in Ireland. What will happen now that the Minister has behaved badly and shown low standards in high places? I do not take democracy for granted; it should defended. The Tánaiste also said during that debate that other democracies "know that democracy is a fragile thing and that we need eternal vigilance to ensure it is preserved". We must have "eternal vigilance" to ensure that undemocratic decisions do not go unchallenged.
It was decided to build on Shaw Park in Carlow, which is 5.27 acres. The Minister said he was in Carlow in 1971 to open the outdoor swimming pool. Much water has gone in and out of that swimming pool since then. It has been closed for the past three years. A new indoor swimming pool was built in Graiguecullen at a fraction of the normal cost due to the wonderful work of two priests, Fr. Fingleton and Fr. O'Connell. It is open from 7 a.m. to 11 p.m. and is making money. The outdoor pool might have been all right 26 years ago or if we had six months of good weather. Shaw Park contains only 5.27 acres, Graiguecullen park has 12 acres across the river from it and Hanover park contains 13 acres. I agree with Senator Gibbons and the Minister of State on the need for parks in towns and Carlow badly needs to develop a park. The land at Hanover and Graiguecullen parks is being developed under the urban renewal scheme and we cannot advance fast enough. Carlow people are going to Kilkenny to enable their children to amuse themselves in parks.
It is vital we have a park, but we are arguing about 5.27 acres, half of which will be developed for housing. The site is regarded as derelict and is located behind a row of houses, one of which is owned by Senator Gibbons. It is secluded and considered unsafe for young people. The idea is that with half of the land developed as a playground under the supervision of those in the houses, it will be a much safer place. Half a loaf is better than no bread and I support calls for a park in Carlow.
After all submissions were made, the county manager encouraged the council to proceed with the scheme. In a letter to the council he stated:
1. Construction of a new swimming pool in Graiguecullen, to which the council is an annual contributor for operating costs, made the former swimming pool in Shaw Park obsolete and necessitated its closure. There is little prospect for any future use of the pool, in my view, because it is unlikely that Carlow could sustain two swimming pools. Since closure, the pool site in Shaw Park has become an area of hazard and would have to be dealt with by the Council for safety reasons, either by way of demolition or filling in the swimming pool area.
2. Because of its backland location Shaw Park has not functioned properly as a park for a considerable time and has been a cause for concern because of vandalism and other undesirable activities continually taking place in the area.
3. The construction of houses is a practical and beneficial use for the area and is very much in conformity with the Government's current policy on Social Housing and housing location.
This is a reference to the fact that ten co-operative houses were being built by people who had permission and were brave enough to get loans and build their houses amid urban council houses.
The fourth argument was that "a considerable area of land will still remain for amenity use and it is intended to arrange for an upgrading of this remaining space to make it pleasant and provide an attractive connection between the Athy Road and the Barrow River. "
He continued:
In the overall thinking in relation to the provision of parks in Carlow it is unlikely that the Urban District Council will have sufficient financial resources to maintain three park areas in a town the size of Carlow. The second phase of Hanover Park is now about to commence and it is intended to complete this work as soon as possible which will provide the town with a highly attractive park in a very central area. Following on from that it would be the intention to upgrade the Graiguecullen Park which is pleasantly located beside the Barrow River. Provided they are maintained properly, Carlow as a town would then be very well served by park provision. Because it will not be possible to maintain more park area than the Hanover and Graiguecullen Parks, it is important that a suitable alternative land use be made of the former Shaw Park.
In the circumstances, it is recommended to Council that the development proposals for Shaw Park be allowed to proceed.
The county engineer then gave his views on why it should go ahead. He referred to a summary of the submissions, some of which justifiably argued against the idea of building houses in Shaw Park. This is democracy at work as people are entitled to argue against it. He stated:
A number of those who wrote on this matter complained at the loss of the park and, in particular, the swimming pool. As previously outlined, the park has not functioned properly in its original state. This proposal still retains portion of the area as a park. It will be possible to maintain this to a higher standard because of the reduced area involved. The presence of houses in the areas as previously mentioned will also ensure that the occurrence of vandalism in the area in the hours of darkness will be minimised.
He goes on to explain that the privacy of houses, etc., will be protected by building a two metre wall. One submission complained about the lack of water which occurred when the swimming pool was in use. It was not a serious problem. He also referred to another submission that more houses be built and he did not want that either. He concluded:
I feel this is a worthy proposal in conformity with the zoning guidelines of the present UDC plan and draft plan. It acknowledges the failure of the park in its current form and while still retaining portion of the site as a park also provides a well designed in-fill housing scheme. The privacy considerations of the residents on the Athy Road can also be met successfully with a two metre boundary wall.
The council made its decision and received approval on June 9 and was told not to come back unless the cost per unit was over the limit. The ten couples involved in the co-operative bought their sites. They even drew lots for them and knew exactly who their neighbours would be. They hired a contractor and waited for the project to begin.
The UDC would build were it not for the Minister of State's letter in August. He focused his periscope on Carlow for some strange reason and decided to take a special interest in it. I do not believe his interest was in open spaces because he would not have known about them had he not been contacted by his colleague, Senator Jim Gibbons. What took place between them and what did they discuss? Both say they did not ask each other about the housing scheme. Senator Gibbons in an interview with Michael Godfrey in The Nationalist said he did not ask the Minister to stop it as it was not in his power to do that. This is strange language, but perhaps he meant something else.
Mr. Gibbons said in Carlow people asked him on becoming a Senator to make representations to stop the housing development or to have it reviewed. This is where democracy goes out the window. If he thinks a democratic decision made by the urban council and approved by the Department can be rescinded just because he becomes a Senator and his colleague becomes Minister with responsibility for housing, there is something awfully wrong with the attitude of the Progressive Democrats Party and it appalls me.
Those involved could have appealed to An Bord Pleanála, which is democracy at work. They did not do so when the decision to build the houses was made. It is backdoor politics if one can skip over the democratic system and go directly to a Minister. The Minister of State's talk about open spaces is a fig leaf, an attempt to cover his shame. He is still stark naked because he has no defence for what he did.
He wrote to the county manager in August expressing regret. The county manager replied and explained the position in detail, which is why it is unforgivable for the Minister of State to have done what he did. The Minister of State could have at least read the county manager's letter, dated October 28, and which was addressed to one of his officials, Ms McGuinness. It stated:
I write in connection with your letter, received on the 18th August last..
The options available, which are very limited in Carlow at present, are still under consideration to see how quickly a viable alternative scheme could be put in place if necessary.
While the concern raised by the Minister is valid and was considered locally it may be helpful in his fuller consideration of the situation to be appraised of the context in which the proposals evolved for the two schemes at Shaw Park.
Apart from other open spaces which are shown coloured green. .there are three parks in public ownership. These are, Hanover Park, Graiguecullen Park and Shaw Park, which are outlined in red and blue on the map.
Shaw Park contains 5.27 acres, Graiguecullen Park 12.50 acres and Hanover Park 13.15 acres.
Shaw Park is located in a backland situation and also contains the formerly used outdoor Swimming Pool which was closed three years ago when a new indoor pool was opened in Graiguecullen. The pool in Shaw Park had become derelict, is in a generally dangerous condition and subject to continued vandalism which is common in this park area because it is banklands and without any visual social control.
A strategic review of policy for parks in Carlow Town took the view that with a relatively weak financial base, the UDC would not be able to sustain adequate maintenance for three public parks of the size indicated above. The agreed policy which emerged from this review was that the Hanover Park and the Graiguecullen Park would be up-graded to a very high standard by the use of Urban and Village Renewal Schemes and that these Parks will subsequently be maintained to a very high standard and become important amenities for the citizens of Carlow. The review also resulted in the inclusion of relevant statements relating to Shaw Park in the Carlow Urban District Development Plan, extracts of which are enclosed for information.
It was within this background that a housing design emerged for Shaw Park. It is also important to note that the process has been in train for a considerable time and was brought to approval stage with the Department in June last. (See letter .). A résumé of the steps taken in relation to the scheme is shown on the enclosed Housing Officer's note to the Town Clerk ..
Apart from the provision of 16 local authority houses, a proposal was also developed to allocate sites for 10 houses at Shaw Park to the Carlow Friendly Society Co-Op. This had support of Councillors and the enclosed letter dated 24th July 1996 from Councillor Walter Lacey [the only Progressive Democrat councillor in the town] the then Chairman of Carlow UDC is apposite. Following negotiations for disposal of the 10 sites, the Society completed its registration of a Co-Op and proceeded to have plans drawn up to obtain planning permission for the development of the 10 houses. The formal procedure for the disposal of the sites was also undertaken and disposal was approved by UDC by Resolution on the 27th May 1997. Planning Permission for the Co-Op houses was issued on the 25th July last and a copy of this. is enclosed ..
Given the circumstances which now exist, there would be considerable legal difficulties and other serious considerations including financial costs, if the Carlow UDC were to attempt to withdraw from the contractual obligations already entered into with the Co-Op given the stage to which matters have already advanced.
If the Minister read that and did not act I do not know what he was thinking about.
In a situation where the 10 Co-Op houses have to proceed because of the legal realities which exist, the exclusion of the local authority element will leave a very unsatisfactory development situation prevailing in Shaw Park. The Council would then have to address this problem having regard to policy already determined and included in the Development Plan as adopted.
Perhaps the Minister might further consider the matter in the wider view of the content of this letter and my own recommendation is that the local authority scheme should, in all the circumstances, be allowed to proceed.
It should be noted also that considerable adjustments were already made to the housing design to accommodate adjoining existing residences and the Council will provide adequate boundaries etc., to ensure that the development does not impinge on the existing amenity levels of adjoining properties. Out of the total area 5.27 acres in Shaw Park, an area of 2.35 acres will remain and will not be built up. It is intended that this area will be properly landscaped and used for local amenity purposes.
As the implications which may arise from non-completion of the local authority element of the development in Shaw Park are likely to give rise to considerable difficulties at a number of levels, I will be glad to supply any additional clarification required or to attend any meeting considered necessary regarding the proposals.
Had the Minister read that letter he would have realised he was going astray. Last week he asked two of his officials to meet local authority officials in Carlow — another fig leaf to cover his nakedness — who decided there was nothing wrong with what was proposed. The Minister magnanimously said, in the exceptional circumstances, he would give the go ahead now. There are no exceptional circumstances except the Minister's decision to overrule the original decision. If the Fine Gael motion had not been submitted to the Minister of State last Thursday no decision would have been made and he would have insulted democracy. I regret having to say this today but as a democratically elected Member, it is important that like the Minister's leader, the Tánaiste, Deputy Harney, we honour and respect democracy. What the Minister of State did was an insult to democracy.