asked the Minister for Local Government and Public Health whether he is aware that the furnishing of Kanturk Hospital was paid for out of the rates collected from the ratepayers of Kanturk Rural Districts, notwithstanding the fact that an award was made for the erection and furnishing of hospital buildings, etc., as compensation for the burning of the old Kanturk Workhouse and Hospital; and if he will state why the furnishing of the new hospital was not paid for out of the award; and if he is further aware that the destroyed furniture, etc., of the old workhouse and hospital was included in the compensation claim.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Kanturk Hospital Furniture.
The Deputy would appear to be misinformed on the matters referred to in the question. The Kanturk Hospital was furnished at the expense of the ratepayers of the North Cork County public assistance district, and not of the Kanturk rural district. A grant was made by the Minister for Finance of approximately £18,000 for the building of the hospital. The Minister for Finance refused to give a grant towards its furnishing.
Will the Minister state if compensation for the destruction of the furniture was paid? The award was made, and I would like to know why the building only was reconstructed but no effort was made to replace the furniture.
There was no award made in this case at all. It lay with the State to make a claim for compensation in respect of the building. It lay with the local board of guardians to make a claim in respect of the furniture. There is no information that any claim was made by the local authority in respect of furniture that may have been in the premises at the time of its destruction. A claim for compensation was originated by the State for the building. That claim was withdrawn and the matter was subsequently settled to the extent of £18,000. There was an arrangement with the Minister for Finance and £18,000 was given for the building of the hospital. Representations were made to the Minister for Finance about the furniture, but in consideration of the fact that the State was giving £18,000 compensation for the destruction of the building it was felt that the local people ought to supply the furniture, and the charge came on the North Cork Board of Assistance.
When was the demand for compensation withdrawn? Was there any application made by the Minister for Finance or the Department to have the claim withdrawn pending settlement?
It was a question of the State against the State, and it was thought that a satisfactory conclusion could be arrived at by direct negotiations with the Minister for Finance without going through the procedure of a compensation claim.
It was very cleverly managed. The claim for compensation was withdrawn, and the Minister, as usual, did not fulfil his obligations.
That is not a supplementary question.