asked the Minister for Education why he did not state in a reply on 30th October that a tender had been accepted for the building of a new school at Stabannon, County Louth, and that the contractor had withdrawn.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Louth School Tender.
The answer given by me to the Deputy on the 30th October, 1956, was a complete answer to the question asked by him.
Is the Minister aware that I asked him what the situation was in regard to this new school and that it was only on the following day, in answer to a supplementary question in relation to another question, that ho informed me that one tender had been accepted but the contractor had backed out? Why did he not give me on the 30th what was dragged out of him in relation to another question on the 31st? Is it because the Minister is ashamed of the whole procedure?
Order!
The Deputy asked what is the position of the new school at Stabannon, County Louth, and I gave him the answer to that question.
The Minister did not. Anybody can read the answer.
Here is the answer, if the Ceann Comhairle will permit me to read it again. The Deputy "asked the Minister for Education what is the present position regarding the building of a new school at Stabannon, County Louth." The answer he was then given was:—
"Tenders for the erection of the proposed new national school at Stabannon, County Louth, were received by the Commissioners of Public Works, but it will be necessary for the Commissioners to reinvite tenders."
Note the "but" in that.
Order!
"It has, however, been found necessary——"
"It has, however," and "but"—in relation to what?
"It has, however, been found necessary to defer the reinvitation of tenders because of the fact that the Commissioners' existing contractual commitments in respect of expenditure of grants on school building and improvement in the current financial year will fully exhaust the amount provided in the Estimates, under Vote 9." The Deputy asked then what was the present position. I told him what the present position was. On the following day he asked another question and he got the answer straightaway. It was not my function to give him that answer but, in the fireside chat that the Deputy initiated on the following day, he got quite an enormous amount of information from me. On the 30th he got a complete answer to the question he asked. As far as any implication or suggestion in the Deputy's question now is concerned—a question put a fortnight after he got the information in reply to a specific question that he introduced in a fireside chat on Deputy Blaney's question—I do not understand what the implication or suggestion is. The Deputy has taken a fortnight to ask the question. I know that he got a straight answer to the question he asked on the 30th. To the supplementary question he asked on the following day, the 31st, he got a straight answer also.
Are the taxpayers in this district not entitled to be informed when their representative puts down a question asking why a school, which is urgently needed, is not proceeded with, that the situation was that a contract had been accepted and the contractor had backed out?
Why did the Deputy not ask that question?
The Minister told me in the reply on the 30th that it was because existing contracts had ended.
I did not.
Has the Minister not just read that out? We have our ears as well as our eyes.
Order!
The Deputy was told, as I said——
In a fireside chat.
——that tenders were received by the Commissioners of Public Works, but it would be necessary for the commissioners to reinvite tenders. I then gave the Deputy information as to why the reinvitation of tenders was being postponed. It was postponed because of financial circumstances. But the school would probably have been built by this had the person who tendered and who had been accepted gone ahead and did the work. That person withdrew. When I am asked what the present position is, I tell the Deputy what the present position is. If taxpayers and ratepayers expect certain things, then the least the people who elect Deputies are entitled to is that, when they want information in a House in which they can get information if they ask questions, those questions will include the information required. The Deputy was told the present position. That was the position then. That is the position now.
Question No. 18.
Did the Minister want to demonstrate the slipperiness of the Coalition, because, if so, he did it?
Order! I have called Question No. 18.
Is it not a fact that the Deputy is making political capital out of the parish of Stabannon, where he never stood since the last election?
Order!
With your permission, I want to raise this question on the Adjournment because of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply.
I take it, Sir, that before anything is raised on the Adjournment you will be able to find out exactly what it is and what particular Minister, if any, is responsible for it.
That is what I intend to do.
If the Minister is so dumb, there is nobody else in the country that dumb.