asked the Minister for Local Government and Public Health if, in respect of his letter (P.H. 1206/5/42) of 15th May, 1942, to the Carlow Urban District Council, he will state (a) the date and the grounds on which Mr. John Curran, waterworks caretaker, was suspended by the local authority, (b) the date on which investigation was made by the engineering officer of his Department, (c) the date on which the Minister informed the council that he had terminated the suspension of Mr. Curran, (d) the total amount to be charged against rates as a result of delay in dealing with the case, (e) whether Professor Purcell, the consulting waterworks engineer, was interviewed by the inspector, (f) what independent inquiries were made outside the local authority officials by the inspector as to the general condition of the water in the town prior to and after the suspension of Mr. Curran, (g) whether in view of the unanimous dissatisfaction of the members of the council and the people of Carlow he will hold a public investigation into the whole matter.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Suspension of Carlow Waterworks Caretaker.
The caretaker was suspended by the urban district council on the 14th November, 1941. The resolution suspending him stated that the council were satisfied that the failure of the water supply to the town on the 11th November was due to the gross negligence of the caretaker. The resolution was received on the 27th November. On the 16th December the council were requested to obtain statements from the caretaker and from the town surveyor on the causes of the failure of the water supply. These statements were received on the 8th January, 1942. The evidence of the surveyor indicated that the failure was due to an exceptional rainfall in the district during the night of the 10th November. The resolution suspending the caretaker gave one instance and one only as the grounds for suspension. Consequently, the investigation was confined to this particular instance. An engineering inspector inspected the waterworks on the 4th March, 1942. As there was no suggestion at any time that the works were not properly designed, the council's consulting engineer was not, therefore, interviewed by the inspector. There was also no question of general complaints as regards the management of the waterworks. The cause of the failure of the water supply on the 11th November was due to the choking of the filters. The question to be decided was the cause of the choking. No evidence on this matter would be obtainable from independent inquiries outside the officials of the urban council. The inspector was satisfied that on the night previous to the water failure there was a heavy storm, and that the storm came so unexpectedly that the resultant failure of the water supply was due to very exceptional causes and not directly to negligence of the caretaker. The inspector reported that, in general, the waterworks were well looked after and, on consideration of the facts ascertained by the inspector as to the occurrence, it was decided to remove the caretaker's suspension. The Minister is satisfied that a public investigation into the whole matter would not serve any purpose. Approval was given to the employment of a temporary caretaker during the suspension of the caretaker at a cost of 10/- a week, but I have no information as to the charge on the rates arising out of the suspension. There was no avoidable delay in coming to a decision in this case.
Is the Parliamentary Secretary not aware that complaints were made about the inefficiency of this officer over a period of years prior to this particular incident, that those complaints appeared on the minutes of the local authority's meetings and that the action of the local authority was taken on general inefficiency over a period and not with regard to a particular incident? This incident, where the town was left without water, completely dry, on a certain morning, brought the matter to a head and the local authority decided to suspend the officer. Is the inefficiency of this officer to be judged on the condition in which the Minister's inspector found the waterworks generally four months after suspension, when the job had been cleaned up by a temporary caretaker? Must the Parliamentary Secretary not agree that the general efficiency of an officer must be judged over a period on the condition of the water prior to suspension and on whether there was any improvement in it after suspension, and that it is only on that general examination of the condition of the water during the period of office of each caretaker that one can draw a proper conclusion?
I have no official knowledge of any previous complaints.
This is a very important matter for the people of the town of Carlow, a Chinn Comhairle, and on account of the very unsatisfactory nature of the Parliamentary Secretary's reply, I am constrained, with your permission, to raise this matter on the Adjournment.