asked the Minister for Local Government whether, having regard to the fact that an appeal to him under Section 18 of the Labourers Act, 1936, as amended, in the dispute between Laurence McGrath, 3. Small-quarter, Ballymacarbery, Clonmel, County Waterford, and the Waterford County Council has been turned down on the grounds that the house in which he lives is in good repair and in a sanitary condition while the position is that there are no sanitary facilities available for this man, his wife or his family, he will consider having the case reinvestigated to satisfy himself that he was not misinformed when giving his decision on the appeal.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Waterford Labourer's Appeal.
The statutory determination made by me in this case was confined to matters in dispute regarding the state of repair of the cottage as detailed by the tenant in his appeal. The cottage is unserviced and no reference was made in the appeal to the sanitary accommodation provided for the cottage. The determination made by me is final.
Does the Minister not agree that any sanitary outoffices in connection with a cottage would be constituted as portion of the cottage and that when the cottage was originally built there were some sanitary services attached to it and those now have fallen down and have not been repaired? In such circumstances, would the Minister not agree that his officers should have reported on that to him, to give him an opportunity of satisfying himself as to whether or not the statutory conditions were fulfilled?
The right of appeal is given to the tenant who, when the repairs to the cottage are executed by the local authority concerned, can write to me pointing out the facts as he sees them and I then call for a report on the allegation as to those defects. I obtained such a report and I have given the determination, as I said in reply to the question. The cottage was not a serviced cottage at any time and no mention of that was made in the tenant's appeal to me.
The Minister does not accept my word?
It is not a matter of accepting anyone's word?
I made a personal visit.
It is a matter of the records here before me. The record establishes what I have said. It establishes the grounds on which the man appealed to me and those grounds were fully examined and reported on and I gave my determination based upon that report.
I am not making any personal complaint, against the Minister. He could not know the facts. I visited the cottage and I am aware that the report made to the Minister was not correct and I am asking if he will get it reinvestigated. It is just as simple as that.
There is no question of reinvestigation inasmuch as once the appeal is determined it is determined and I have not even the right vested in me to redetermine a case of that kind. I am telling the Deputy what is true. If such an important defect as he now speaks about were there, was it not a strange thing that the tenant did not think of it in sending on his appeal to me?
Is the Minister aware that his officer on visiting this cottage said that in his opinion it was in a deplorable condition? There is evidence to prove that.
I had the officer's report before me when giving this determination.
The Minister would need to check up on some of his officers.