During my speech on the Vote for the Minister's Department, we had an intervention by the Minister to the effect that if local authorities were not prepared to do their work they could get out. I subscribe to those sentiments, provided always that a fair and impartial and independent investigation is made into the working of the local authority. If there is found to be incompetence or dereliction of duty on the part of the local authority, they should go. With many new social services in recent years, efficiency and economy in local administration are needed now more than ever, and, in order to be efficient and effective in their work, the local authority needs the co-operation and assistance of the Minister and his Department.
On this matter that I raised by way of Parliamentary Question to-day, I think the attitude of the Minister and his Department is a very serious reflection on the work and efficiency of the local authority in the town of Carlow. For quite a long time the citizens of that town had been complaining of the condition of the water, and I myself had personal experience of it, because I had occasion to go into the local hotel for food, and I heard strangers in that hotel commenting time and time again on the shocking condition of the water in an important provincial town like Carlow. It suffered off and on from discoloration and bad taste for a long period, to my personal knowledge. After the suspension of this man, I noticed a marked improvement in the water during the period when the temporary caretaker was in charge of the waterworks. Now I must say that I do not know this man, Mr. Curran, and neither do I know his substitute. I am satisfied that there was nothing personal whatever in the action of the local authority. They were unanimous in their decision to have this caretaker suspended. At a great many of their meetings they had had serious complaints as to the condition of the water.
I cannot understand the reply made by the Parliamentary Secretary, when he suggested that investigation was made of the one specific complaint in regard to the night of November 10th. In the case of a man in that type of job, I think the local authority would be unreasonable to suspend him for one offence, but there had been a series of charges against him, and complaints had been made by the people of the town generally over a period. Finally, they decided that the matter had reached a head on this particular occasion, when the town of Carlow found itself without water on the morning of 11th November. Those complaints went very far back. I have here an extract from the report of Professor Purcell, who was consulting engineer to the local authority at the time. The report is dated 18th November, 1935. Here is what he said:—
"I regret to report that when I visited the filter house on the 12th October, I found the inspection bowls in a dirty condition and the pipe for delivering the raw water to the inspection bowl choked and out of action, although it only took 15 minutes to clear it and get it working again.... Curran, the waterworks caretaker, states that the steel filter shells have not been painted since they were handed over in 1928. While they are in good condition, they require a thorough scraping and painting with a suitable bituminous paint. I wrote about this to the borough surveyor in August, 1934. The metal window sashes also require painting badly. Some of the timber hatches over the manhole openings are in a neglected and rotten condition, and one is dangerous and should be renewed. I could not open the door into the clear water tank as a swarm of bees had been left in peaceful possession. The washing of the mechanical filters does not appear to have been done regularly and in the way that it should be, but in the absence of the proper records it is difficult to say much on the point."
That is from Professor Purcell, an eminent engineer here in the City of Dublin, who was responsible for recommending the appointment of this man in the first instance. I was speaking to Professor Purcell on the matter within the last few days and he said: "Unfortunately, I was responsible for recommending his appointment in the first instance, and I am satisfied that he has not proved a success." Now, Professor Purcell had no ulterior motive; in fact he would be most anxious that the man he recommended to this position should prove a success, but he gives it as his opinion that he had not made a success of the job. The engineering inspector consulted nobody in the town, not even the county medical officer. He consulted no member of the local authority. He consulted only the borough surveyor, and the borough surveyor, as well as the caretaker, had been reprimanded by the local authority because he had failed to keep the waterworks in a proper condition. On 14th November, 1941, the local authority passed the following resolution:—
"That, in view of the repeated complaints regarding the water supply made by members at meetings of the council for a considerable time past, culminating in the complete failure of the water supply to the town on Tuesday morning, 11th inst., we are now satisfied that the borough surveyor has not discharged his duties with regard to the supervision of the caretaker of the waterworks, and that the whole condition of the waterworks and the water supply reflects great discredit on him as an engineer, and we consider that the samples of water submitted here by him to-night are proof of this."
In view of this resolution, I think the Parliamentary Secretary could not hold at all that the Minister's duty lay in investigating a particular incident only, the failure of the water on a particular night. As I said before, I do not think the Parliamentary Secretary could seriously suggest that the man's competence or incompetence could be judged by one particular incident in regard to his work as waterworks caretaker.
One particular incident might happen to the best man in the world, but there had been a series of incidents, and time and time again he had been warned by the local authority that he failed to do his job. As far back as 1935, the report of an eminent independent engineer like Professor Purcell, that a swarm of bees had been left in peaceful possession of the filter house door, and that he could not get in until he removed the bees, shows whether or not this man was doing his job. The borough surveyor in his defence—he had to defend himself as well as the caretaker —suggested that there was a peat development over the water in-take in Ardeteggle Bog, and that as a result a lot of mud and peat had been disturbed and came down. He suggested that there was heavy rain that night, and that a good deal of storm water flowed into the waterworks and choked the filters.
The local authority is not at all satisfied that that is so and the statement made by the borough surveyor to the Minister's inspector conflicts in more than one instance with the report. made to the local authority. It is stated, for instance: "Mr. MacDermott, when questioned by the council at the meeting on 14th November, said that he had knocked up the caretaker and got him to open the filter-house." In his report to the Minister's inspector he said he opened the filter-house with his own key, so that obviously he was not stating facts.
Apart altogether from that aspect, there are many other points contained in resolutions, which I do not want to weary the House with, but I suggest that the Minister should not make a decision as to this man's capability or efficiency or as to whether he was performing his duties properly, without an investigation over a considerable period, and, in my opinion, the best way in which that could be done was to inquire of the county medical officer as to the condition of the waterworks prior to the suspension of this man and subsequent to his suspension. There is no doubt that if he made any independent inquiries from such a man as the county medical officer, or any responsible person in the town, he would have got ample evidence to show that an improvement was effected by putting a temporary man on the job and that, in fact, no further complaints were made.
Fancy an inspector investigating the work of a waterworks caretaker approximately four months after he had been suspended. The man was suspended on 14th November, 1941, and the inspector investigated his work on 4th March, 1942, and the Minister made his decision in May. He commented on the good appearance and condition of the waterworks generally when the waterworks had been in charge of a new man for four months. Does the Parliamentary Secretary seriously suggest that the competence or incompetence of Curran could have been judged by the condition of the waterworks four months after his suspension? I suggest that the temporary caretaker had cleaned up the whole job, that he took an interest in his work and satisfied his employers that he was prepared to give close attention to the filters, the settling beds and the general condition of the waterworks. The result was that not only the local authority but the people of the town were satisfied that, by reason of the fact that a new man had been put on the job, a very great improvement had been effected in the condition of the water.
I do not know the men involved at all. I am satisfied that the local authority were anxious, because of pressure from the townspeople, to do something to effect some improvement in the water. I have already referred to the Minister's statement during the debate on the Vote for his Department that where a local authority was not prepared to do its job, he would simply give it the boot. Where a local authority is prepared to do its work, it should get every assistance and encouragement from the Minister and his Department, and where a suspension is ordered by a local authority, a very thorough examination ought to be made by any inspector sent down. I must pay this compliment to the Minister: I feel he is sincere in his anxiety and his intention to make the Departmental machine more efficient and more effective, and to speed up decisions by the Department. I give him credit for that without any hesitation, but I want to say to him that he has here an opportunity of carrying that out, if he is satisfied that I am now making a prima facie case for a further investigation.
I hope the Parliamentary Secretary, on behalf of the Minister, will accede to the local authority's request and to my request. It is not yet too late to have a fuller investigation into this case. I think it is a scandal and it would be an injustice to the ratepayers of Carlow to be asked to pay a man who, as is clear to any man with an open and impartial mind, was incompetent in his work and who is now reinstated. The ratepayers are asked to pay the temporary man for practically eight months and to pay all arrears of wages, the charge being approximately £70, involving a rate of 2d. in the £ on the local ratepayers. That is the net result of the anxiety of the local authority to do its duty and to see that an employee, a most important employee—the man in charge of the water for the town—does his job.
There is no personal animosity of any sort on the part of any individual against this man. His father held this position before him and every member of the local authority was anxious that, for the sake of his father, he would do his job properly. They gave him every opportunity of doing so, but they were finally driven to suspending him. I am satisfied that the visit by the Minister's inspector four months after the occurrence was not the proper way to investigate what occurred, and I appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary to accede to the request of the local authority for a further investigation.
