asked the Minister for Education if he is satisfied with the present state of the general structure of the old school building in St. Michael's Convent, Finglas. Dublin.
28.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Dublin Schools.
27.
asked the Minister for Education the present position regarding the proposed extension to St. Michael's Convent, Finglas, Dublin.
Mr. R. Burke
With the permission of the Ceann Comhairle, I propose to take Questions Nos. 27 and 28 together.
A proposal from the manager of the school for an extension to the premises and the replacement of existing unsuitable accommodation was approved by my Department and the manager has been authorised to proceed to the stage of preparation of working drawings and detailed specifications.
Can the Minister say when was the proposal approved?
Mr. R. Burke
On 19th June the manager was informed that the next stage could be proceeded with.
Is the Minister answering Question Nos. 27 and 28 together?
Mr. R. Burke
Yes.
Could I have the Minister's views on the present state of the general structure of the old building?
Mr. R. Burke
I take it that if permission has been given to replace it it must be in a somewhat unsatisfactory state.
Apart from deductions of that nature, would the Minister assure me that he is happy for the safety of the girls who are attending school in this structure?
Mr. R. Burke
I have no personal knowledge of the structure.
That is the question the Minister was asked. The Minister was asked to get this information.
There are inspectors who can obtain this information for the Minister.
Let us not engage in argument.
Riding roughshod how are you.
The Minister has been asked a specific question, as he was on two instances in this Order Paper, and it is not good enough for him to say that he has not got the information.
It is a matter over which the Chair has no control.
Mr. R. Burke
Deputy Lynch should be patient. In February, 1973 the manager submitted a report by a local fire officer expressing the view that the older section of the building, which is to be replaced, constituted a serious fire risk.
The Minister tried to suppress that deliberately.
Mr. R. Burke
I did not.
The Minister succeeded in suppressing it until we got it out of him.
Mr. R. Burke
I reject categorically the suggestion of the Deputy.
We had to screw the information out of the Minister.
Why was the Minister messing if he was not trying to suppress the information?
Mr. R. Burke
The Deputy, as a former Minister, knows that it is not always possible quickly to put one's eye on all the points made to him.
On a point of clarification, there were two specific questions. One referred to the present state of the existing school and the other referred to a proposed extension. The Minister, in his reply, referred solely to the question dealing with the extension and when he was subsequently asked to comment on the state of the existing structure he said he had, personally, no knowledge. I submit that this is another example of the Minister for Education misleading this House and telling lies to this House.
Mr. R. Burke
I said I had no personal knowledge——
The Minister would like to mend his hand.
Mr. R. Burke
I said I had no personal knowledge of the school in question.
The Chair is now asking that we pass on to the next question.