asked the Minister for Local Government if he is aware that, despite the fact that there were certain departures from specification and from normal building practice in the case of two houses (details supplied) at Boston Park, Cork, the full supplementary grant of £275 was paid by his Department and by Cork Corporation in respect of each of these houses; and that despite departures from specification and from normal building practice in respect of another two houses (details supplied) at Boston Park, a deduction of only £2 was made in the supplementary grants paid by his Department and Cork Corporation: and if, in view of a reply of 26th April, he will make a statement as to why such amounts were paid.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Cork City Housing Scheme.
26.
Mr. Barrett
No defects were found in the houses at Nos. 201 and 203 Pouladuff Road and the full State grant was paid in each case. Certain defects were found in the houses at Nos. 9 and 14 Boston Park and a reduction was made in the State grants. The making of supplementary grants is a matter for Cork Corporation. I have nothing to add to the reply given by me on 26th April last.
Could the Minister say what were the certain defects found in the two houses in respect of which a deduction of £2 was made in the grant?
No. As I explained on 26th April last it would not be proper, I think, to give that information in present circumstances.
Could the Minister say why he is too embarrassed to admit that the foundations and the roofs in the four houses mentioned by Deputy Barrett were found to be grossly defective and that the cost of putting the defects right runs into thousands of pounds; and, notwithstanding that, we now have a situation in which a public authority has given grants of the full amount on two houses and only £2 less on two others? How can the Minister justify this?
There is no question of any embarrassment in this matter. In fact, the opposite is the case. This question was first raised by the Taoiseach in his capacity as Deputy for the area concerned and it was only after the matter had proceeded to its present stage of investigation that other Deputies apparently became aware of it. The State provides grants to facilitate people in providing themselves with housing accommodation, but it does not and could not undertake to provide a clerk of works on every building site in the country.
Arising out of that reply, is it not the duty of the engineer to inspect the house to make sure that it is a sound structure before the State grant is paid and is it not clear that, in this case, if he passed two houses as being without defect and two others as being defective only in a minor way, the inspection was either not carried out at all or carried out in a negligent manner?
No. It would not be possible to carry out an inspection in the manner in which the Deputy seems to think possible. The State grants are payable by instalments at different stages of construction and, as I said, the State could not undertake to provide a permanent clerk of works on every house being built and it would not be possible for the inspector to investigate every stage and every detail of the construction of every house.
Question No. 27.
Are we to understand from the Minister that inspections are not carried out of the foundations of houses? Surely that should be a basic requirement? If the foundation is not sound, whatever is built on it cannot be sound.
No. The inspectors of my Department do not crawl under the foundations.
There is no question of anyone crawling, and the Minister is well aware of that. Before public funds are advanced, the State should ensure that a sound house is being built. That was not done here. Is the Minister aware that Deputy Barrett raised this matter three weeks ago and was told then there would be no investigation and there was no report?
He was not told that.
Would the Minister state the approximate cost of remedying the defects in the houses in relation to which there was a reduction of £2 in the grant?
I have no idea what the defects were.
The cost will be about £2,000.
Is the Minister stating there was a reduction of £2 made in the grant, although he was not aware of the extent of the defects?
The reduction in grants is not related to the cost of remedying defects.
Is the Minister satisfied with a situation in which inspection for grant purposes is such that serious irregularities can take place without being detected and it is only when the house has been built for a considerable time that this position is found to exist?
The State could not undertake to give a certificate of adequate completion on every grant house erected: it would not be feasible. The cost of continuous supervision of the erection of the houses would be far greater than the cost of the grants.
Surely there are certain defects, such as defects in foundations and roofs, which ought to be apparent to a reasonably competent and alert engineer?
The Deputy asked that question before.
It is still a valid question and there is no answer to it.
It may not be repeated.
The only way in which one could be aware of details of construction of foundations is by being on the spot when the foundations are laid and the State could not undertake to have a representative available on the foundations of every house in the country.
Would the Minister state on what basis the reduction of £2 was made?
It was made as an indication by the inspector who examined the house that the house was not built in accordance with the specifications.
Further arising out of that reply——
I cannot allow any more supplementaries.
In what respect was it not in accordance with the specifications?
I am not prepared to say.
Why? Would it be too embarrassing for the Government?
No, but because this case is the subject of investigation and may be the subject of prosecution and, therefore, I have no intention of answering the question.
This case has been the subject of investigation for two years and it is not sub judice.
It is, and it is as a result of the activities of members of this Party and not of any member of either of the Opposition Parties.
Would the Minister tell us the date on which the case went to the Attorney General?
This matter was only learned about by the Opposition when the investigation was well under way.
The Minister was very reluctant to give the information last week.
27.
Mr. Barrett
asked the Minister for Local Government the date upon which the alleged irregularities in respect of the payment of grants and loans on houses (details supplied) built at Boston Park, Cork were brought to his attention; and if he will give detailed particulars of the inquiries he caused to be made into the matter.
There were no irregularities in the payment of State housing grants in these cases. Apart from inspections carried out by my Department's inspectors, no further inquiries were undertaken by me. The making of loans and supplementary grants under the Housing Acts is a matter for the housing authority concerned.
Would the Minister consider that regular and adequate inspection was carried out in relation to these properties, having regard to the information now available which shows that grossly defective dwellings were erected, dwellings in respect of which the State has parted with a considerable amount of public money?
I presume all that will come out when the case is heard.
Question No. 28.
Will the Minister say when steps were taken or when steps will be taken to have this matter processed judicially by the courts?
That is a matter for me.
Perhaps the Deputy would address a question on that matter to the Minister for Justice.
The Minister for Justice has, of course, no function in this.
Sir, on a point of order.
What is the point of order?
The point of order is, Sir, that this House readily sustains your discretion in restricting Parliamentary Questions in regard to any matter which is sub judice. I submit to you that, in respect of this particular question, an attempt is now being made to prevent a Deputy getting the appropriate information on the new ground that it may become sub judice. I want to submit——
If the Deputy will wait for a day or two, he will get over that problem.
The Taoiseach, as Leader of the House, will agree with me, I think. I am submitting to you, Sir, respectfully, that to secure the unanimous support of all Deputies in defence of this principle that matters sub judice will not be raised here, it is important to ensure that Ministers who find questions inconvenient will not try to shelter under a non-existent umbrella of sub judice. If it is going to be sub judice in two days, it is open to the Minister to say so, and, in that eventuality, most Deputies here would, I think, normally suspend questions.
I know more about this than anybody else.
If the Minister says it is going to become sub judice, then the Ceann Comhairle will direct us.
It is not now sub judice but it will be very soon.
Very well.
The Taoiseach mentioned two days. We understand that proceedings will be issued in two days.
I said a couple of days.
Before this day week?
If it is not done by next week, then there can be further questions.