asked the Minister for Health if he will state with reference to the buildings now being erected with the sanction of the Government on the site which had been secured and reserved by the previous Government for a Garden of Remembrance to the memory of the members of the Dublin Brigade of the Irish Republican Army who laid down their lives in defence of the Irish Republic over the period from Easter Monday, 1916, to May 24th, 1923, (a) the total area of the site occupied by the buildings in question and their appurtenances; (b) the total floor-space contained within the building proper; (c) the total estimated cost of the foundations and site-works involved, including the cost of watersupply and sanitary works and electricity and gas services; (d) the total estimated cost of the superstructures, complete with heating and all internal service installations; (e) the total estimated all-in cost of the buildings and works, including architects' and surveyors' fees and legal fees and expenses; (f) whether any part of the cost of the works will be defrayed by the hospital out of its own resources; (g) whether any grant from the Hospital Trust Funds has been applied for by the representatives of the Rotunda Hospital, and, if so, the amount thus applied for; and (h) whether any such grant has been sanctioned by him and if so, the amount thereof.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Garden of Remembrance.
I am informed that the particulars requested by the Deputy are as follows: (a) 86,800 square feet; (b) 10,431 square feet; (c) £5,056, exclusive of fees; (d) £31,163, exclusive of fees; (e) £39,734; (f) no; (g) and (h) in discussions between my Department and the authorities of the Rotunda Hospital an understanding was arrived at that a grant to cover the entire cost of erection and equipment would be provided from the Hospitals Trust Fund.
86,800 square feet to accommodate buildings covering 10,000 square feet, but they want the whole Garden of Remembrance.
The Deputy would be rendering a good service to national remembrance in this country if he ceased to try to exploit attempts made to provide for the children of this city, who are dying because of want of accommodation by his administration.
Arising out of the Minister's offensive interjection, is it not a fact that the question on the Order Paper has disclosed that there were other sites available than the Rotunda Gardens for these clinics?
At least the children are being provided for and are not being allowed to die for want of treatment.
Is it not a fact that there are sites for which the Rotunda wanted £6,000 a year made available for them?
I submit that the remark made by the Minister for External Affairs concerning children being allowed to die by his predecessor is most offensive and should be withdrawn. I ask the Chair to rule accordingly.
The Chair does not consider this is a matter on which it should so rule.
The Deputy knows quite well——
Am I to understand that the Chair will not ask to have the offensive remark withdrawn?
The Chair has already given a decision.
I do not want the remark withdrawn, but I should like to put this to the Minister: is it not a fact that proposals for the erection of these health clinics were originated, not by the present Minister for Health, but by his predecessor?
I want to press a point of order. The remark made by the Minister for External Affairs was an offensive remark—we regard it as an offensive remark. On many occasions in the past the Chair has ruled that remarks of that kind should be withdrawn. I submit you should make the same ruling on this occasion.
At what stage does the Deputy want to stop the riot?
We do not ask the friend of Mr. Macklin for his advice.
Am I to take it that the Chair is ruling that the remark is in order? I want it put on record that I consider it is a most offensive remark, one that the Chair should have taken notice of.
Is this a vote of censure on the Chair?
The Chair will not have remarks of that kind made. The remark was drawn by a supplementary by the Deputy who put the original question, a supplementary which I did not think was relevant.
The remark was most irrelevant to the supplementary question and was introduced by that party, in my opinion, for the purpose of being offensive.
You have recorded your view.
He did not fix the case.
If I may make this suggestion, in an effort to get away from matters of this kind——
Question No. 38.
The matter is finished now, but if the Minister for External Affairs opens it again, others will have something to say, too.
Question No. 38—Deputy Hilliard.