Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 21 Feb 1946

Vol. 99 No. 11

Adjournment Debate—Clara Housing Scheme.

I addressed the following question to the Minister for Local Government to-day:—

"To ask the Minister for Local Government and Public Health if he will state whether the County Manager for Offaly has been repeatedly requested, during the past 18 months, to arrange for the carrying out of certain repairs and improvements in connection with a housing scheme at Clara; whether any report has been submitted to his Department in connection with the matter, and, if not, if he will order an inspection or inquiry by the Department, with a view to ascertaining the reasons why the county council and their contractor have failed to provide suitable and healthy housing accommodation for the 144 tenants concerned."

The Minister replied:—

"As regards the first part of the question the reply is in the negative. Since receiving the Deputy's question I called for a report from the local authority on the statements made therein. I have just received the report to-day and, pending full consideration of it, I am not prepared to intervene in the matter."

I subsequently pressed the Minister— I thought it was a reasonable request to make—to ask one of his engineering and medical inspectors to carry out an inspection or an inquiry for the purpose of finding out whether the allegations made by the tenants of these cottages were well founded and the Minister refused to agree to that request. I think the position of these tenants is fairly fully summarised in portion of a letter which I received from the secretary of the Cottage Tenants' Improvements Committee, on the 3rd December last.

On a point of order. This matter is to a certain extent sub judice in so far as it is under my control.

What did the Minister say?

In so far as it is under my control, this matter is to a certain extent sub judice. Certain complaints, I understand, have been made. The county manager has forwarded a report to me. I received that report this morning, as the Deputy has explained to the House. I have not had an opportunity to consider it, and I do not think the case should be prejudiced until I have had that opportunity. The Deputy is endeavouring to do that now and I submit it is not in order because, I may point out to you, among other things, that the Deputy has made what is virtually an accusation against the contractor who built these houses. He has alleged that the houses have been improperly built. That statement, if made outside this House, would not be privileged but, made inside the House it is. It quite obviously affects the reputation of an honourable citizen, I presume.

I have made no such accusation.

He made no such accusation.

And the Minister is endeavouring to prevent me from quoting the grievances of my constituents in this House. Surely that is not a point of order.

That is the policy of the Minister.

I am making this point of order: the Deputy is now, under the cloak of the privileges of this House, proceeding to read an ex parte statement, a statement regarding alleged defects in houses which I have stated are under investigation. I think, Sir, that that would be most irregular.

I should like to point out that the Deputy gave notice to raise this matter on the adjournment to-night, and I believe permission was given to him to raise the matter, and I think it must be raised.

I am not objecting to the matter being raised.

He is wasting time.

I am objecting to the Deputy reading an ex parte statement.

Sir, would you please ask this Minister not to usurp your position and to respect the ruling which you have so wisely given.

I am in this position——

The following letter was addressed to me by the Clara Cottage Tenants' Improvements Committee:—

"At a meeting of the above on Sunday, representing 144 families on the new housing scheme, Clara——"

The Deputy will please sit down while the Chair is standing. I have given a ruling in this matter. I think the Deputy is quite in order in dealing with the matter as he has got permission to do so. It would be for the Chair to judge if he is proceeding in any way out of order.

The Minister should have manners.

I want to put to you an aspect of this matter which I have not been able to put.

"At a meeting of the above on Sunday——"

Deputy Davin. I will not take anything from your time but I think the Minister ought to be given an opportunity of stating his point.

He has nothing to say.

He is raising a preliminary objection to matters which the Deputy is about to raise.

Why did he not raise it to-day at question time?

Let the Minister speak.

The Minister is wasting time.

Will Deputies please keep quiet until the Chair has had an opportunity of judging on the matter?

On a point of order— you have already ruled on the point.

I have ruled on one point, that was, that Deputy Davin got permission to raise the matter and the Chair will permit him to do so. The Minister raises the question of the irregularity of bringing in what he calls an ex parte statement. I have not judged upon that so far. I want to hear what the Minister has to say before I do judge and, before that can be judged and decided, would the Deputy please give the Minister an opportunity of saying what he intends to say?

May I point out to you, Sir, that before I gave notice to raise this question, I asked the Minister a reasonable question—would he order or request one of his engineering and medical inspectors to visit the area and report to him on the matter, and he declined to do so.

He said no.

I did not decline to do so.

You did.

I said I would not take any action in this matter until I had considered the report. I am not going to pre-determine, to suit Deputy Davin's convenience, what my final judgment on a matter of this sort may be. I think it would be very wrong but, apart from that, I want to put this to you, Sir—if these complaints are well founded I may have to take action which will involve, perhaps, some people in considerable expense and perhaps in an action for breach of contract. I submit that it is most improper, when a Minister has said he has not had time to consider the report, to try to force a Minister's hand in these circumstances, as the Deputy is trying now, by endeavouring to get these things on record here and into the Press.

If I make an irrelevant statement, it is your duty to hold me up. I am not going to make an ex parte statement. I visited the scheme myself.

If this position goes on——

I protest against the Minister using eight minutes of my time in asking for a ruling.

It is an old game of the Minister's.

This is Belfast obstruction, Falls Road obstruction.

The Deputy must not use language like that.

It is Falls Road tactics.

The Chair wants to rule on this matter in a fair way. The Deputy has permission to raise the question, and I see no reason why he should not be permitted to carry on and raise the question that he intends to raise. If he is irrelevant or out of order, the Chair will rule. It will be for the Minister to raise a point of order.

May I put this to you, Sir——

Am I to proceed?

The Deputy was entitled, perhaps, to raise this matter on the adjournment, since any Deputy may, on giving notice, raise any matter, but I am not in a position, or I was not in a position to put to the Chair what my attitude in relation to this matter would be until I knew the line the Deputy would take.

This is Parliamentary blackguardism. That is all it is.

I will not allow the Deputy to accuse the Minister of blackguardism. The Deputy ought to withdraw that remark.

He has already, with great respect to you, taken 10 minutes of the time at my disposal to raise an important question that my constituents ordered me to raise.

And thereby shortened my time also.

The Deputy has used the word "blackguardism" and the Deputy ought to withdraw it.

In deference to your wishes, I will do so.

I should like to point out to the Minister and to the Deputies that I think Deputy Davin ought to be permitted to make a statement. If the Minister is not in a position to deal with it properly, I think that is a matter for him. The Chair cannot judge upon facts. I can only deal with the question which is permitted to be raised here, and the Deputy must get permission and time to raise it.

If the Minister refuses to respect your ruling, you should deal with him the same as you deal with me in the same circumstances.

I move that the Minister should be removed from the House when he will not obey the Chair. Why should not the Minister be removed from the House?

I was going to put this to you, Sir——

I move that the Minister be removed from the House for disobeying the Chair.

Am I entitled to proceed?

I will have to put this to you, Sir. I am sorry to have to ask your indulgence.

I move again that the Minister be removed from the House for disobeying your orders.

As the Chair knows, the Minister is not bound to attend for a question on the Adjournment.

I suggest that the Minister should go out and allow me to state my case, because he has no answer and he knows that.

The Minister is not bound to attend for a question on the Adjournment.

Then you can leave the House. You should be ordered out of the House.

Are not Deputies entitled to put their case? The Minister should not be allowed to take up the time allotted to a Deputy.

The Deputy can put his case and then we can hear the Minister's objection afterwards.

I think you ought to understand my position.

I cannot deal with that now. The Minister is putting in objections of an a priori character. I must ask the Deputy to proceed.

If the Deputy proceeds on the lines he is taking—

I insist that the Minister leave the House. I have already moved that he be put out for disobeying your order.

Deputy Flanagan will please sit down. We cannot have three Deputies talking together. The Deputy may be put out himself for being disorderly. The Chair is trying to arrange this matter. The Deputy will not be allowed to dictate to the Chair what the Chair is to do.

The Minister is dictating to the Chair.

I will not take any suggestions from any Deputy as to what I am to do. I am ruling that the Deputy must be heard. If the Minister has any objection to make, he can make them after I hear the Deputy.

I have an objection to make now. I submit to you, Sir, that there is not a quorum present.

Deputy Davin can go ahead.

May I submit to you, Sir, that a quorum is not required?

The Standing Orders lay down that at all sittings of the House a quorum shall be present. I am putting it to you, Sir, that there is not a quorum present.

I submit that it is not necessary to have a quorum, that officially the House is not sitting.

Why did Deputy de Valera run away? Let him come back now.

I never anticipated this type of blackguardism.

The Standing Order, I think, is No. 38, on page 15.

Deputy Corry is also absent from the House.

The House is not adjourned. The House does not adjourn until 10.30.

In the circumstances, I shall have the bell rung and a count taken.

Notice taken that 20 Deputies were not present.

On a point of order. The Minister sent members of his own Party out because he has no defence to make. He turned to Deputy de Valera and told him to go out.

It is blackguardism.

An Ceann Comhairle resumed the Chair.

May I point out——

There is not a quorum present.

The Minister ordered his dupes and "yesmen" out of the House.

House counted and 20 Deputies being present,

The Deputy may now proceed.

Am I entitled to make my case? The Minister has held me up from proceeding to state my case.

Will the Deputy state his case now? He has five minutes to do it.

May I put this to you, Sir?

On a point of order?

Yes. Now that the House is properly constituted, the Deputy is proceeding to repeat an ex parte statement in relation to a matter which I shall have to consider in my capacity as Minister and give, I hope, a fair and correct decision. The Deputy is endeavouring to force my hand in that regard. If my decision goes one way, a certain citizen of this country may be mulcted in damages and may be involved in heavy expenses. I said to-day in relation to this matter that I received a report this morning, that I had not time to consider it, and that, in these circumstances, I did not propose to intervene at this stage. I have to intervene later. My intervention may mean, I repeat, that a certain citizen will be mulcted in damages and perhaps heavy legal expenses. I submit that it is an abuse of the privileges of the House to try to place on record an ex parte statement reflecting upon the integrity and the capacity of a citizen of this country. If the Deputy proceeds on that line, I am afraid I shall be compelled to withdraw from the House. The Deputy knows that I only attend here by courtesy on a question on the Adjournment.

On a point of information. May we know how long this discussion can proceed?

It is a matter for Deputy Davin to decide. He has lost 15 minutes of the time allotted to him.

The House rises at 10.30.

I intend to go ahead. I stated that, in my opinion, the complaints of the cottage tenants concerned are fairly and accurately summarised in a letter which I received from the chairman of the Clara Cottage Tenants' Improvements Committee, dated 3rd December, 1945. The letter is as follows:—

"At a meeting of above on Sunday representing 144 families on the new housing scheme, Clara, I was instructed to write to the five T.D's. for Leix-Offaly and respectfully request them to visit Clara on Sunday, 16th December, at 2 p.m., and meet a deputation of the tenants and be fully informed and see for themselves a housing scheme that was started and never completed and that ranks as one of the worst and most congested schemes in the country. This scheme cost thousands of pounds and the houses are only about 18 months occupied, and we are told by the county manager that it will cost £13,000 more for the improvements we have suggested. We have been in direct contact with county manager, county engineers and council officials. We have held protest meetings and the local clergy have expressed their view and still no progress has been or will be made."

Will the Deputy make his case?

The letter proceeds:—

"No fencing of plots; no out-offices of any kind; no public lighting of scheme; no fireplace in two rooms; cracked walls and smoking kitchens; bad roads, etc., etc. We ask you as our public representative to come to Clara and be fully informed of position that exists in a so-called up-to-date and modern scheme."

I said that the position, which I saw myself, is fairly and accurately summarised in that letter, and I politely and, I think, reasonably asked the Minister, before I gave notice to raise this question on the Adjournment, to request one of his engineering and one of his medical inspectors to go to Clara and find out for themselves what the position was there. If I had received the assurance from the Minister that he would respond to that simple request, I would not have raised this matter here on the Adjournment to-night. The position in regard to the 144 tenants is not only dangerous but disgraceful. It is dangerous to the public health of the tenants and their families, and it is a disgrace to those responsible sanctioning an expenditure of tens of thousands of pounds and failing to see that the scheme, as sanctioned by the Minister's Department, was properly carried out.

Is the Minister responsible for that?

That is briefly the case, and if I cannot elaborate on that——

I just wanted to ask if the Minister is responsible.

——the Minister's obstruction here to-night is the cause of my failure to elaborate my point.

The Chair asked the simple question as to whether the Minister is responsible in that matter.

Of course he is.

The Minister is responsible. Did he not sanction the expenditure of the money, did he not approve of the plans for the scheme? I accuse him and those others who are responsible for having failed to carry out the scheme as sanctioned.

The Minister must get ten minutes to reply.

The Minister was speaking for 15 minutes. I have got to say what I have to say.

The Deputy will sit down.

May I point out to you, Sir, on a point of order, that the Minister, by his obstructionist tactics, prevented me from elaborating the case. He took up 15 minutes before you came in.

The Minister to reply.

The Minister was speaking for 15 minutes. It was agreed between Deputy Davin and myself that Deputy Davin should speak for seven minutes and I would speak for seven.

The Minister must be allowed to say something. The Deputy will sit down.

The Minister does not want to say anything.

On a point of order, I might remind you——

To remind the Chair is not a point of order.

Well, I will not put it that way. When the Minister was continuously interrupting, An Leas-Cheann Chomhairle said to the House that the time so taken up by the Minister would be allowed to Deputy Davin and, if he gave his word to that effect, I think——

The Orders of the House are that the House must rise at 10.30 p.m. The Minister to reply.

I have an obligation to my constituents to raise this matter before the Minister.

The Deputy did not ask the question and is not involved.

The question is in my name and that of Deputy Davin. If the Ceann Comhairle reads the Order Paper, he will find that the question is in the names of Deputies Davin and Flanagan; and I am as much associated with it as Deputy Davin is, because I am one of the Deputies for the constituency.

The House stands adjourned.

The Dáil adjourned at 10.25 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Friday, 22nd February, 1946.

Top
Share