asked the Minister for Finance if any instruction has been issued to the staff in the Valuation Office that they should not discuss valuation cases with Deputies; if he is aware that a Deputy was refused information in regard to the whereabouts of a member of the staff of the Valuation Office and told that he should address his inquiry in writing to the office; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Discussion of Valuation Cases.
19.
There is no instruction in existence that the staff of the Valuation Office should not discuss valuation cases with Deputies. As regards the rest of the Deputy's question, I am informed by the Commissioner of Valuation that a caller, who did not give his name, telephoned the Valuation Office on the afternoon of the 6th November and asked for a certain district valuer; on being told by the switchboard operator that the district valuer was working away from headquarters, the caller asked for his address; the switchboard operator told him it was not the practice of the office to disclose the addresses of officials, and if he would write in to say what was required his request would be transmitted at once to the appropriate official.
Is the Taoiseach aware that the caller happens to be Deputy Coughlan and that he made his identity known to the switchboard operator? Will he, with regard to the reply to the first part of the question, now inform the Valuation Office that representations can be made to this alleged branch of a Government Department? Will the Taoiseach remember and remind them that what he has been informed is absolutely untrue? I did make my identity known and I was told that under no circumstances could a Deputy make an appointment or discuss any valuation question with any officer of the Department of Lands.
My information is that the caller did not make his identity known. He used rather hefty language.
Not half as hefty as yourself and your Ministers. Do not cast your gory locks in this direction.
I am looking at you. I am giving you a chance. I know that the man who answered the telephone was a messenger of 15 years exemplary service and that he acted properly and in accordance with instructions on that occasion and that he insists that the caller did not give his name.
I want to remind the Taoiseach that I have two witnesses from my Party room that I did give my name.
Does this not suggest to the Taoiseach——
The old reliable.
——that when a Deputy follows an officer of a Department—the name of Deputy Coughlan has now been revealed to the House— that he does so for an improper purpose?
I am only taking a leaf out of his own book.
Question No. 20.
On a point of order, if a Deputy makes a definite statement in the House will the Taoiseach not be prepared to accept that statement rather than the statement of somebody who apparently must have made a mistake?
I always accept a statement made by a Deputy in the House.
So the Taoiseach accepts that Deputy Coughlan did give his name?
Yes, but the telephone communication is not always perfect.
Not between you and Deputy MacEntee anyway.
If Deputy Coughlan raised his voice it might be possible that the switchboard operator did not get the name.
My course of elocution was just as detailed as yours.
I am calling question No. 20.