asked the Minister for Local Government what plans there are for the provision of housing in the Ringsend-Irishtown and South Dock Wards of Dublin in view of the fact that these areas are very remote from any of the new housing areas around the city outskirts and in view of the urgent need for housing in these areas especially for workers whose employment is in these areas, many of whom are on shift work and for whom no public transport is available to bring them to and from work if they move to the outskirts of the city.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Dublin Housing.
33.
Dublin Corporation have recently completed 22 flats and are preparing plans for another 20 flats in the South Dock Ward. In areas immediately adjoining the ward they are providing 14 flats by conversion of existing houses, and have prepared plans for another 72 flats. They also have work well advanced on a scheme of 168 flats within a half mile of the boundary of the ward, and have submitted tender proposals for six houses at Irishtown.
No details are available in my Department at present of other proposals which may be in formulation by the housing authority for these areas. It is, of course, a matter for the housing authority, in the first instance, to initiate any such proposals.
Therefore there are no proposals to build more than perhaps 200 dwellings in this area and none at all in Ringsend-Irishtown?
Is there anywhere to build them?
Yes. If the Minister would have a look at the place he would see that very quickly.
Sites must be obtained before dwellings can be erected.
One site could be purchased from Haughey and Boland without difficulty.
That has nothing to do with me whether it can or not.
The Minister asked were there sites.
There are no sites in the area available to the local authority.
I am saying that there are sites available.
These are all the sites that are available to the local authority in the area. In so far as Haughey and Boland are concerned, there is also land in the possession of the Leader of the Deputy's Party which is up for sale by public auction.
In Ringsend-Irishtown?
The Minister should go and buy it.
No. The Minister would not be capable of buying it. The Minister has not sufficient money to deal with Deputy Cosgrave's property or to give Deputy Cosgrave anything like the price he is trying to extract for it.
What about the land at Clondalkin.
What about the unfinished estates in Glenageary.
What about the land in Clondalkin?
That is a dirty smear.
What about what land in Clondalkin?
The Minister is involved in it.
I am not involved in any land in Clondalkin.
My question related to Ringsend and South Dock Wards.
The Deputy here has alleged I am involved in land in Clondalkin. That statement is false and I would ask the Deputy to withdraw it.
Since the Minister has denied the statement, it is usual for the Deputy to accept the Minister's denial.
I have nothing to add to what I said.
True to form, too ignorant.
It is up to the Minister to deny it. No question of order arises.
I want to categorise the statement made by Deputy Belton as a deliberate, concocted falsehood.
"A deliberate falsehood". That, of course, is out of order.
A deliberate falsehood concocted by Deputy Belton out of the viciousness of his own mind.
That is out of order.
That is disorderly and the Chair should ask the Minister to withdraw it. We shall now see whether the Chair deserves the confidence placed in it last week. Would the Chair now ask the Minister to withdraw the disorderly remark made by him?
This began with an interruption by Deputy P. Belton and I asked Deputy P. Belton, in view of the fact that the Minister denied the allegation made, to withdraw his statement. Deputy Belton refused to do so. I do not see why, then, I should turn to the other side of the House and ask the Minister to withdraw what he said.
One is in order. The other is out of order.
On a point of order. I submit that, under the rules of order of this and all other establishments, which recognise order, there is no obligation on a Member to withdraw a statement simply because another person says that it is not accurate, but it is disorderly to accuse another Member of that assembly of uttering a deliberate falsehood or a deliberate, concocted falsehood and I respectfully suggest that you, Sir, should now discharge your duty and call upon the person who made the disorderly remark to withdraw that remark.
I am calling Question No. 34.
I said last week that you were unfit and I say it again—a disgraceful Chair.