asked the Minister for Local Government and Public Health whether he is yet in a position to indicate when it is proposed to pay the reconstruction grant to Mrs. E. Kelly, Claregate Street, Kildare, in respect of the reconstruction of her house which was authorised by an inspector from his Department.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Reconstruction of Kildare House.
The case is not an isolated one. There are several others and it has been necessary to investigate them fully so that the legislation required will be comprehensive. These investigations have taken somewhat longer than was thought, but I hope to make a definite announcement in the very near future.
This case was brought to the notice of the Minister on 29th October last, when, after an authorisation to carry out reconstruction work, the Department refused to pay the reconstruction grant to this woman. The matter was again brought to the notice of the Parliamentary Secretary on 4th February when he intimated that he hoped to be in a position to make a definite statement on the matter at the end of March. This is the middle of April and this poor woman has got herself into difficulties, arising out of the authorisation she got from the Department to proceed with the reconstruction work. Would he now say that this woman may assume that this grant will be paid to her so that she can meet the liabilities in which she has been involved as a result of the Department's authorisation?
I cannot give such an assurance, because, in order to deal with this case, it will be necessary to introduce legislation, and in order to ensure that cases of a like nature may be covered by the legislation, it is necessary to make a fairly full investigation. If the Dáil passes the legislation, when introduced, the woman, if she proves her case, will, I hope, be able to secure the grant.
What does the Minister mean by saying "if she proves her case"? Does the Minister not realise that it is a most outrageous thing for his Department to authorise this woman to commit herself to an expenditure of £40 and for the Department then to repudiate the inspector's recommendation? Surely the Minister will do something to meet such a situation which involves the honesty and the administration of his Department?
On that matter, I am doing everything possible to rectify this situation. The difficulty arises out of the fact that the Committee of Public Accounts reported that the grant in a case was made ultra vires the Act. There is no idea of repudiating any commitment into which the Department entered, but the Minister and the Department are bound by the law as it stands at the moment, and in order that this commitment may be fulfilled and honoured, it is necessary to amend the law. The drafting of the legislation in this regard has to take its turn and we have to be sure that the legislation will be effective for its purpose.
Will the Parliamentary Secretary say at this stage, in order to relieve this woman's anxiety—she is a widow, with no resources—that the the legislation will meet her case and enable her to get the grant so that she may discharge her liabilities?
I have indicated that we are introducing legislation to cover this case and other cases.
Is it clear——
Question No. 30.
I ought to be allowed to ask a supplementary question.
Thirty questions have taken up 50 minutes.
We were well employed.
That is a matter of opinion.
The Minister was never a good Parliamentarian, but we will make him one yet.