asked the Minister for Local Government and Public Health if it is a fact that certain of the houses on the MacHale Road site at Castlebar have been condemned or are to be demolished; if so, what number of houses was erected on this site, and how many of same have to be demolished; what is the total estimated cost of demolishing the said houses and removing the materials, and who will be responsible for this expense; if it is proposed to erect a similar number of houses in substitution for those to be demolished, and what is the total estimated cost of these new houses; whether it is proposed to defray the whole or any part of the cost of this new work; and, if so, out of what fund will the subvention be made; and whether the housing board were consulted about and approved of the original houses and the substitute houses; and, if so, whether their opinion on this matter was unanimous or not.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Demolition of Castlebar Houses.
The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. Eighty houses were erected on the site referred to, and 24 of those had to be demolished, at an estimated cost of £1,000, which will be borne by the local authority. The local authority propose to erect 24 new houses at an estimated cost of £5,090. The reply to the concluding portion of the question is in the negative.
Might I ask the Minister is it not a fact that the necessity for demolition arose from the fact that this building scheme was pressed through too fast, the houses being erected before the drainage was carried out, and that that was done at the instance of the Minister himself? In the circumstances, does the Minister not think that the Government and not the local authority should bear the cost?
It is not right for the Deputy to say that it was done at the instance of the Minister himself. That is not correct.
Did not the Minister go down and encourage it to be hurried on?
No.
Might I ask the Minister to answer the rest of my supplementary question. Does the Minister not think that, in the circumstances, this extra cost should be borne by the State and not by the local authority?
I do not think that the State has any responsibility for what happened. Therefore, the cost should not be borne by the State.
Is not the Minister aware that even at the present moment the people who are living in those houses on MacHale Road, Castlebar, are unable to pay the rents, and some of them are under notice of eviction? If this extra £5,000 is put on, is it not obvious that it will be impossible even to keep the rents at their present rate?
Arising out of the Minister's reply, does he not recollect that his personal attention was directed by a member of the housing board to the impending catastrophe in this housing scheme? The only result was that he sacked the member of the housing board, and allowed houses to be erected which have now fallen down.
It is true, as Deputy Dillon says, that a member of the housing board did give it as his opinion that the site was not a suitable one. It is equally true that the chief engineer and other engineers in my Department said that the site was excellent and was in every way suitable. I took the advice of the chief engineer in the Department.
In view of the fact that the Minister himself declined to go down and inspect the site, although offered an aeroplane, I understand, wherein to go, does he not see that the fact that he gave his sanction to the continuation of this scheme clearly removes liability for the catastrophe from the local authority on to his own Department, whose engineers are responsible for having allowed this scheme to be put through?
Would the Minister give us the name of the engineer that he refers to? Was not the chief engineer suspended, and did not the Minister restore him to office again?
The local engineer was suspended.