BACK

Carlow County - Ireland Genealogical Projects (IGP TM)

Parliamentary Debates
Parliamentary Debates Dáil Éirann extracts.
For Co Carlow 1940 - 1943
1922 - 1924 1930 - 1935 1940 - 1943
1925 - 1926 1936 - 1939 1950 - 1959
1927 - 1929 1943 - 1949 1830
Dáil Éireann - Volume 79 - 05 March, 1940
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Drainage Rates in Carlow-Kildare.
Mr. Davin Mr. Davin
Mr. Davin asked the Minister for Finance whether he has been invited to receive a deputation consisting of the Deputies for Laoighis-Offaly and Carlow-Kildare, together with representatives of the Barrow Drainage Ratepayers' Association concerning proposals for the reduction of the rates at present charged to the landowners in the drainage area and in the counties concerned; and if he will state if he is prepared to meet the members of the proposed deputation, and, if so, when.
Mr. Flinn Mr. Flinn
Mr. Flinn: A request was made by the Barrow Drainage Ratepayers' Association that a deputation should be received to discuss the charges imposed on the ratepayers of Counties Kildare, Leix and Offaly, and on the landowners in the district, by the final award for the Barrow drainage district. These are statutory charges, which cannot be altered except by legislation, and I see no useful purpose which would be served by receiving the proposed deputation.
Dáil Éireann - Volume 79 - 05 March, 1940
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Hospitalisation in County Carlow.
Mr. Norton Mr. Norton
Mr. Norton asked the Minister for Local Government and Public Health if he will state what steps have been taken to proceed with the hospitalisation scheme for County Carlow; and if he will indicate how the matter now stands.
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Local Government and Public Health (Dr. Ward) Francis Constantine (Dr.) Ward
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Local Government and Public Health (Dr. Ward): The planning of the hospital is well advanced, but in view of the high estimated cost I cannot indicate when the work could be authorised to start.
Dáil Éireann 79 Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. Hospitalisation in County Carlow
Dáil Éireann - Volume 79 - 05 March, 1940
Written Answers. - County Carlow Estates.
Mr. Norton Mr. Norton
Mr. Norton asked the Minister for Lands if he will state whether the Land Commission propose to acquire the Farrell estate at Garryhundon, Milford, County Carlow, for division.
Mr. Derrig Mr. Derrig
Mr. Derrig: The Land Commission have no proceedings for the acquisition of the Farrell estate at Garryhundon, Milford, County Carlow, and having regard to the emergency conditions now obtaining they do not propose to take any action for the present.
Mr. Norton Mr. Norton
Mr. Norton asked the Minister for Lands if he will state whether the Land Commission propose to acquire the farm of Mr. P. Dowling, Milford, County Carlow, for division.
Mr. Derrig Mr. Derrig
22
[22] Mr. Derrig: The farm in question appears to be that of Mr. Patrick Dowling at Ballybannon, near Milford. The Land Commission have no proceedings for the acquisition of this holding, and having regard to the emergency conditions now obtaining they do not propose to take any action at present.
Dáil Éireann - Volume 79 - 01 May, 1940
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Kildare and Carlow Lands.
Mr. Norton Mr. Norton
Mr. Norton asked the Minister for Lands if he will state separately in respect of County Kildare and County Carlow, the number of acres of land (a) acquired, and (b) divided, in each county during the financial year 1939/40.
Mr. Derrig Mr. Derrig
2113
Mr. Derrig: Precise statistics are not yet available in regard to the acquisition and division of untenanted land during the financial year ended 31st March, 1940; but in round figures [2113] it is estimated that in County Kildare 2,800 acres were acquired and 1,200 acres divided, and in County Carlow 270 acres were acquired and 250 acres divided during that year.
Dáil Éireann 79 Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers
Dáil Éireann - Volume 80 - 15 May, 1940
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - County Carlow Estate.
Mr. Everett (for Mr. Norton) Mr. Everett (for Mr. Norton)
Mr. Everett (for Mr. Norton) asked the Minister for Lands if he will state whether the Land Commission have initiated or propose to initiate proceedings for the acquisition of the Davis estate at Mortarstown Upper, Carlow, and, if so, whether he will state how the matter now stands.
Minister for Lands (Mr. Derrig) Thomas Derrig
Minister for Lands (Mr. Derrig): No person named Davis can be traced as the rated occupier of lands in the townland of Mortarstown Upper, County Carlow.
Dáil Éireann - Volume 80 - 15 May, 1940
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Carlow Pension Application.
Mr. Everett (for Mr. Norton) Mr. Everett (for Mr. Norton)
Mr. Everett (for Mr. Norton) asked the Minister for Defence if he will state when a decision will be conveyed to Mrs. K. Geoghegan, Barrack Street, Carlow, on the application submitted by her for a pension under the Military Service Pensions Act, 1934.
Mr. Traynor Mr. Traynor
Mr. Traynor: As the referee has not reported to me on the case, I am not in a position to state when a decision will be conveyed to Mrs. Geoghegan.
Dáil Éireann - Volume 80 - 05 June, 1940
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - County Carlow Estate.
Mr. Hughes Mr. Hughes
1484
[1484] Mr. Hughes asked the Minister for Lands if he will state whether the Land Commission have acquired or intend to acquire the Kehoe estate, Kilbride, County Carlow, for the purpose of division, and if already acquired, when it is intended to divide this estate.
Mr. Derrig Mr. Derrig
Mr. Derrig: The Land Commission have not yet acquired the lands of Kilbride on the Kehoe estate, County Carlow, but proceedings are in progress for their acquisition.
Dáil Éireann - Volume 81 - 02 October, 1940
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Rathvilly Lands (Carlow).
Mr. Everett Mr. Everett
Mr. Everett asked the Minister for Lands if he is aware that the lands comprising, about 160 acres, belonging to Mr. Hopkins, Ballybett, Rathvilly, County Carlow, are all sublet on the 11 months' system; and if he will state, in view of the acute congestion obtaining in this district, whether the Land Commission propose to acquire these lands for division.
Mr. Derrig Mr. Derrig
Mr. Derrig: The Land Commission have had an inspection made of the lands of Kilmagarvoge on the Hopkins estate and have decided to take no action regarding their acquisition.
Dáil Éireann 81 Ceisteanna—
Dáil Éireann - Volume 81 - 16 October, 1940
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - County Carlow Hospital Accommodation.
Mr. Norton Mr. Norton
Mr. Norton asked the Minister for Local Government and Public Health if he will state the present position of improved hospital accommodation in County Carlow.
Dr. Ward Dr. Ward
Dr. Ward: I cannot at present sanction any additional works being undertaken at the expense of the Hospitals Trust Fund, in view of the commitments already made, and consequently the proposed works in County Carlow must remain in abeyance.
Mr. Norton Mr. Norton
Mr. Norton: Could the Parliamentary Secretary say when he hopes that that position may be altered to such an extent as to permit hospitalisation schemes there to proceed?
Dr. Ward Dr. Ward
Dr. Ward: I am afraid I cannot give any indication as to when we might be able to undertake them.
Dáil Éireann 81 Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. County Carlow Hospital Accommodation.
Questions
Dáil Éireann - Volume 81 - 06 November, 1940
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Acquisition of Carlow Estate.
Mr. Cogan Mr. Cogan
Mr. Cogan asked the Minister for Lands if he will state when it is intended to complete the acquisition and division of the Young estate, Ballygalduff, Tobinstown, County Carlow.
Mr. Derrig Mr. Derrig
Mr. Derrig: The Land Commission have had an inspection made of the lands of Ballygalduff Upper, on the estate of the representatives of John Young, and the question of acquisition of the lands is at present having their consideration and will be dealt with as expeditiously as possible.
Mr. Cogan Mr. Cogan
Mr. Cogan: Was not part of this estate acquired over two years ago? The estate consists of two holdings, one of which is accessible to the public road and the other inaccessible. The inaccessible holding was acquired two years ago and sub-let. Is that a businesslike transaction?
Mr. Derrig Mr. Derrig
Mr. Derrig: The position is that when the Land Commission decided to institute compulsory proceedings for one portion of the estate of Ballygalduff Upper, containing 118 acres, it was found necessary, on the recommendation of the inspector to prepare a scheme for the remaining portion of the lands, containing 127 acres. This matter is at present the subject of attention.
Dáil Éireann 81 Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. Acquisiti
Dáil Éireann - Volume 81 - 11 December, 1940
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Carlow Mental Hospital.
Mr. Norton Mr. Norton
991
[991] Mr. Norton asked the Minister for Local Government and Public Health whether he has received proposals from the Carlow Mental Hospital Committee to grant an increase in the living-out allowance paid to married attendants; and if he will state whether sanction of the increase has been communicated to the committee.
Dr. Ward Dr. Ward
Dr. Ward: The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The increases have not been approved. The committee have been notified to that effect.
Mr. Norton Mr. Norton
Mr. Norton: Would the Parliamentary Secretary say when the committee was notified, and would he indicate on what grounds he purported to inform the Carlow Mental Hospital Committee that they cannot revise the rates of remuneration paid to their employees?
Dr. Ward Dr. Ward
Dr. Ward: I cannot tell the Deputy just now the date on which the committee was notified, but if he so desires I shall supply him with the information later on. The increases were refused on the grounds that, in present circumstances, the remuneration was considered reasonably adequate.
Mr. Norton Mr. Norton
Mr. Norton: Is the Parliamentary Secretary not aware of the fact that, according to statistics published by the Department of Industry and Commerce, the cost of living has increased by 20 per cent. over the past 12 months; that the Carlow Mental Hospital Committee in this case granted an increase in the living allowances of only 10 per cent. to married attendants; and in view of the fact that the cost of living has increased by 20 per cent., will he say why he considers it equitable to refuse an increase of 10 per cent.?
Dr. Ward Dr. Ward
Dr. Ward: At the time that these salaries and cash allowances were fixed the cost of living was substantially higher than it is to-day.
Mr. Norton Mr. Norton
992
Mr. Norton: Is the Parliamentary Secretary not aware that if these [992] allowances were adequate, or considered adequate, when the cost-of-living index figure was 173, they would obviously be inadequate when it has risen to 206?
Dr. Ward Dr. Ward
Dr. Ward: These salaries and wages were fixed when the cost-of-living figure was 230.
Dáil Éireann 81 Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. Carlow Mental Hospital.
Dáil Éireann - Volume 82 - 06 March, 1941
Ceisteanna.—Questions. Oral Answers. - Slocock Estate (Carlow).
Mr. Norton Mr. Norton
Mr. Norton asked the Minister for Lands whether the Land Commission have acquired or propose to take steps to acquire the Slocock estate, comprising approximately 150 acres, at Craan, Milford, County Carlow, and, if so, whether he will state when the lands are likely to be divided.
Mr. Derrig Mr. Derrig
Mr. Derrig: The Land Commission have no proceedings for the acquisition of the lands of Craan, Milford, County Carlow, on the Slocock estate, but they have had an inspection made of the lands of Boolyrathornan (or Tomard) and Cranavonane on this estate. They have not yet come to any decision regarding the acquisition of these lands.
Mr. Norton Mr. Norton
Mr. Norton: Will the Minister give an assurance that the owner of this holding of 150 acres, which is entirely in grass, will be compelled to comply with the provisions of the Compulsory Tillage Order?
Mr. Derrig Mr. Derrig
Mr. Derrig: That is not a matter for me.
An Ceann Comhairle Frank Fahy
An Ceann Comhairle: That is a separate question.
Dáil Éireann 82 Ceisteanna.—Questions. Oral Answers.
Dáil Éireann - Volume 82 - 02 April, 1941
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - County Carlow Water Supply.
Mr. Norton Mr. Norton
1154
Mr. Norton asked the Minister for Local Government and Public Health if he will state whether agreement has [1154] yet been arrived at between the County Carlow and County Wexford Boards of Health regarding the provision of a water supply at Carrigduff, County Carlow, and, if so, when the supply of water is likely to be provided.
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Local Government and Public Health (Dr. Ward) Francis Constantine (Dr.) Ward
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Local Government and Public Health (Dr. Ward): It is understood that the negotiations between the Carlow and Wexford Boards of Health and Public Assistance in regard to the taking of a water supply for Carrigduff from the pipe-line serving Bunclody are approaching completion. It is expected that an agreement in the matter will be reached shortly. The supply for Carrigduff should be available once agreement is reached.
Dáil Éireann - Volume 82 - 03 April, 1941
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Acquisition of Carlow Estate.
Mr. Norton Mr. Norton
Mr. Norton asked the Minister for Lands, if he will state whether the objection to the acquisition of the estate of Major Alexander, Ballinabranna, Milford, County Carlow, has yet been heard, and if he is now in a position to state whether the lands will be acquired, and, if so, when.
Mr. Derrig Mr. Derrig
Mr. Derrig: The objection to the acquisition of the estate of Major Alexander has been heard by the Land Commission and allowed; consequently the proceedings for acquisition are now at an end
Dáil Éireann - Volume 83 - 04 June, 1941
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Completion of Carlow Houses.
Mr. Hughes Mr. Hughes
Mr. Hughes asked the Minister for Lands if he is aware that the walls of four new houses on the Newtown estate, County Carlow, have been completed for the past seven months and that no further work has been done and if he will examine into the cause of the delay with a view to having the work expedited.
Mr. Derrig Mr. Derrig
Mr. Derrig: The Land Commission are already aware of the position mentioned by the Deputy and are taking steps to expedite the completion of the buildings by the contractor. In present circumstances delays in building operations are to be expected.
Dáil Éireann 83 Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. Completion of Carlow Houses.
Dáil Éireann - Volume 83 - 05 June, 1941
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Coal Deposits in County Carlow.
Mr. Norton Mr. Norton
1577
[1577] Mr. Norton asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce whether he has received representations requesting that the coal deposits at Rossmore, Carlow, should be acquired by the State with a view to the fullest exploitation of the deposits in the national interest; whether he has considered the representations, and, if so, whether he is in a position to indicate what action it is proposed to take in the matter.
Mr. MacEntee Mr. MacEntee
Mr. MacEntee: It has been suggested to me that the coal deposits at Rossmore, Carlow, should be acquired by the State. This suggestion will be conveyed to the company which has been established under the Slievardagh Coalfield Development Act but, as indicated to the Deputy in the Dáil in the debate on the Minerals Exploration and Development Company Bill, I can give no assurance that the suggestion will be accepted by the company.
Mr. Norton Mr. Norton
Mr. Norton: Arising out of the Minister's reply, is he aware of the fact that the former head of the Geological Survey Department estimated that there were approximately 32,000,000 tons of anthracite coal in this area. In view of that report, and of the inferior coal that at the moment we are getting from Great Britain, with the high price that is being paid for it, will the Minister take some steps to have this matter dealt with as one of urgency?
Mr. MacEntee Mr. MacEntee
Mr. MacEntee: I am afraid I cannot accept the hypothesis, upon which the Deputy's supplementary question is based, as to the extent of this coal area.
Mr. Norton Mr. Norton
Mr. Norton: Does the Minister deny that the former head of the Geological Survey Department estimated that there were 32,000,000 tons of anthracite coal in that area? If the Minister dislikes the statement made by the former head of the Geological Survey, will he take steps immediately to have the accuracy of that statement tested?
An Ceann Comhairle Frank Fahy
An Ceann Comhairle: Question 20.
Mr. Norton Mr. Norton
1578
[1578] Mr. Norton: Will the Minister say whether this matter will be taken in hands immediately with a view to exploiting, to the fullest, the coal deposits in that area?
Mr. MacEntee Mr. MacEntee
Mr. MacEntee: I have already indicated that the attention of the company which has been established under the Slievardagh Coalfield Development Act will be drawn to this deposit, but I cannot compel the company to leave the more important work of developing the Slievardagh coalfield in order to attend to this deposit.
Mr. Norton Mr. Norton
Mr. Norton: I am not asking the Minister to neglect the Slievardagh coalfield, but I am asking him to display a little more energy and to develop the deposit in the Carlow area with a view to supplementing our fuel supplies at the present time. Will the Minister do that?
Mr. MacEntee Mr. MacEntee
Mr. MacEntee: Any advice that I have received in regard to the Carlow deposits does not substantiate the statements which the Deputy has been making.
Mr. Norton Mr. Norton
Mr. Norton: Seeing that the Minister has made no actual borings in the Carlow area, will he say how he is in a position, with the lay advice at his disposal, to test the accuracy of the statement made by the former head of the Geological Survey Department?
Dáil Éireann - Volume 84 - 17 September, 1941
Written Answers. - County Carlow Lands.
Mr. Norton Mr. Norton
Mr. Norton asked the Minister for Lands if he will state whether the Land Commission propose to acquire the lands of Mr. Michael O'Toole at Ballynunnery, Fighting Cocks, County Carlow and, if so, whether he will state how the matter now stands.
Mr. Derrig Mr. Derrig
2522
Mr. Derrig: On 13th September, 1938, the Land Commission published a notice of intention to apply to the Appeal Tribunal for leave to resume the holding of Michael O'Toole, containing 181a. 1r. 14p., in the townland of Ballynunnery, on the Swift estate, County Carlow, but owing to statutory difficulties they were not then in a [2522] position to continue the proceedings. The question as to whether proceedings should be continued under Section 39 of the Land Act, 1939, is under consideration.
Dáil Éireann - Volume 85 - 20 November, 1941
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Acquisition of Carlow Estate.
Mr. Hughes Mr. Hughes
Mr. Hughes asked the Minister for Lands if it is the intention of the Land Commission to acquire part of the holding in the possession of Mr. William Burgess, Raheenbawn, Kildarin, County Carlow, for the purpose of division amongst the uneconomic holders in the district.
Minister for Lands (Mr. Derrig) Thomas Derrig
Minister for Lands (Mr. Derrig): The Land Commission do not propose to acquire any part of the holding of Mr. William Burgess, Raheenbawn, Kildarin, County Carlow, for the purpose of division amongst the uneconomic holders in the district.
Dáil Éireann - Volume 85 - 03 December, 1941
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Carlow Lands.
Mr. Norton Mr. Norton
Mr. Norton asked the Minister for Lands whether the Land Commission have completed their inspection of the lands of Boolyrathernan and Crananonane, on the Slocock estate at Milford, County Carlow, and, if so, whether it has been decided to acquire the lands for division.
Minister for Lands (Mr. Derrig) Thomas Derrig
1076
Minister for Lands (Mr. Derrig): These lands on the Slocock estate have been inspected and valued, but owing to the emergency conditions now obtaining, the Land Commission have not [1076] decided the question of their acquisition.
Dáil Éireann - Volume 85 - 04 December, 1941
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Carlow Military Service Pension Claim.
Mr. Hughes Mr. Hughes
Mr. Hughes asked the Minister for Defence if he will say when Mr. Eugene Tracey, Fenagh, County Carlow, who made application for a pension under the Military Service Pensions Act may expect to hear of a decision in his case.
Mr. Aiken (for the Minister for Defence) Mr. Aiken (for the Minister for Defence)
Mr. Aiken (for the Minister for Defence): In the case of the application made under the Military Service Pensions Act, 1934, by Mr. Eugene Tracey, Fenagh, County Carlow, the finding of the referee is that on the evidence before him Mr. Tracey is not a person to whom the Act applies and he was informed accordingly. Mr. Tracey lodged an appeal for revision of the finding but the referee has not yet completed his investigations in the matter
Dáil Éireann - Volume 85 - 04 December, 1941
Written Answers. - County Carlow Estate.
Mr. Cogan Mr. Cogan
Mr. Cogan asked the Minister for Lands if he can state when it is intended to sub-divide the Young estate, Ballykilduff, County Carlow.
Mr. Derrig Mr. Derrig
Mr. Derrig: The Land Commission have instituted proceedings for the acquisition of the lands of Ballykilduff Upper on the Young estate, and the purchase price has been fixed. A scheme for the division of the lands is being prepared but it is not possible at present to say when they will be available for distribution.
Dáil Éireann - Volume 85 - 10 December, 1941
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Carlow Coal Deposits.
Mr. Norton Mr. Norton
Mr. Norton asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce if he will state whether he has brought to the notice of the Slievardagh Coal Development Company the existence of coal deposits at Rossmore and Killeshin, County Carlow; whether he will state if the company propose to take steps to develop the extensive coal deposits in Carlow; and, if so, when the development work is likely to commence.
Mr. Lemass Mr. Lemass
Mr. Lemass: I have brought to the notice of the Slievardagh Development Company the fact that coal may exist in workable quantities in the Rossmore and Killeshin areas, County Carlow. I understand that the directors of the company have at present under consideration plans for examining the area. Until the examination has been completed development work cannot be undertaken.
Mr. Norton Mr. Norton
Mr. Norton: Can the Minister give any indication when the examination is likely to take place?
Mr. Lemass Mr. Lemass
Mr. Lemass: None whatever.
Dáil Éireann - Volume 85 - 04 March, 1942
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - County Carlow Estate.
Mr. Hughes Mr. Hughes
Mr. Hughes asked the Minister for Lands if, in view of the fact that the Vesey estate, Muinebeag, County Carlow, is about to be sold, he will state whether the Land Commission has acquired or intends to acquire portion of this estate for the purpose of division among the uneconomic holders in the area.
Mr. Derrig Mr. Derrig
Mr. Derrig: The Land Commission have no proceedings pending for the acquisition of the Vesey estate at Dunleckney, Muinebeag, County Carlow, and owing to the emergency conditions obtaining they are not prepared to take any action at present regarding the acquisition of these lands.
Dáil Éireann - Volume 85 - 11 March, 1942
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - County Carlow Coal Deposits.
Mr. Norton Mr. Norton
2360
Mr. Norton asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce whether he [2360] has requested the Slievardagh Development Company to examine the deposits of coal in the Rossmore and Killeshin areas of County Carlow; and, if so, whether he is in a position to state whether the investigation has commenced, and how the matter of the development of the deposits now stands.
Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr. Lemass) Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr. Lemass)
Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr. Lemass): The Slievardagh Coalfield Company, Ltd., has been asked to examine the Carlow-Killeshin portion of the Leinster coalfield.
The investigation is still in its preliminary stages, and the matter of development of the deposits will not arise until the investigation has been completed.
Mr. Norton Mr. Norton
Mr. Norton: Will the Minister say whether examination has already commenced on the site?
Mr. Lemass Mr. Lemass
Mr. Lemass: No, in so far as the investigation might lead to the production of coal. In our present circumstances the Deputy must appreciate that the difficulties in maintaining coal production are due to scarcity of skilled coal workers and mining equipment. In so far as they can be made available, they can be best utilised where coal is already being worked rather than in the development of new areas.
Mr. Norton Mr. Norton
Mr. Norton: Will the Minister say whether any borings have in fact been made or commenced in this particular area?
Mr. Lemass Mr. Lemass
Mr. Lemass: I could not answer that question. I do not know.
Dáil Éireann - Volume 86 - 24 March, 1942
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Carlow Military Service Pension.
Mr. Hughes Mr. Hughes
39
[39] Mr. Hughes asked the Minister for Defence if he will state when a decision will be conveyed to Miss Ellen Parr, Staplestown Road, Carlow, in respect of her application for a pension under the Military Service Pensions Acts.
Mr. Traynor Mr. Traynor
Mr. Traynor: The finding of the referee on the application of Miss Ellen (Nellie) Parr, Staplestown Road, Carlow, under the Military Service Pensions Act, 1934, was communicated to her on the 6th March, 1941.
Dáil Éireann - Volume 86 - 21 April, 1942
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Wages of Carlow Council's Workers.
Mr. Norton Mr. Norton
Mr. Norton asked the Minister for Local Government and Public Health whether he has received proposals from the Carlow Urban District Council to grant an increase of 5/- per week to the council's employees, and if he will state whether he has sanctioned the increase.
Minister for Local Government and Public Health (Mr. MacEntee) Seán MacEntee
Minister for Local Government and Public Health (Mr. MacEntee): A proposal to grant an increase of 5/- per week in the wages of certain employees of the council was received. The council were informed that the proposal was not approved.
Mr. Norton Mr. Norton
Mr. Norton: Can the Minister say why it is not approved?
Mr. MacEntee Mr. MacEntee
Mr. MacEntee: Well, for one thing the wages of which those people were already in receipt were far above the limit provided for by Emergency Powers (No. 83) Order and Emergency Powers (No. 166) Order.
Mr. Norton Mr. Norton
Mr. Norton: Does not the Minister know that the cost of living has increased by 30 per cent. during the last few years, and, bearing that in mind, does he think an increase of 5/- per week in respect of those workmen an unreasonable amount to meet that increase of 30 per cent. in the cost of living?
Mr. MacEntee Mr. MacEntee
Mr. MacEntee: I have already explained to the Deputy that the wages were far above those provided for in Order No. 166.
Mr. Norton Mr. Norton
765
[765] Mr. Norton: What were the wages?
Mr. MacEntee Mr. MacEntee
Mr. MacEntee: In some cases £150 a year, £3 a week, and so on.
Mr. Norton Mr. Norton
Mr. Norton: Would the Minister like to experience living on only £150 a year?
Dáil Éireann 86 Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. Wages of Carlow Council's Workers.
Questions
Dáil Éireann - Volume 86 - 23 April, 1942
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Carlow School Meals Committee.
Mr. Norton Mr. Norton
Mr. Norton asked the Minister for Supplies whether he has received an application from the School Meals Committee of the Carlow Urban District Council for permission to purchase supplies of cocoa for the provision of school meals under the auspices of the council, and whether having regard to the desirability of continuing the school meals scheme he will arrange to issue permission to the School Meals Committee to purchase the required quantity of cocoa.
Mr. Lemass Mr. Lemass
Mr. Lemass: The answer to the first part of the Deputy's question is in the affirmative. The application was for permission to purchase cocoa required in connection with the school meals scheme at the Christian Brothers' School, Carlow, to which institution the council appears to have extended the scheme, involving a supply of cocoa in September, 1941, some months after it became necessary, because of scarcity, to restrict the distribution of available cocoa supplies.
Deliveries of cocoa are restricted to institutions which were supplied with cocoa during the year 1940. As the scheme was not in operation at the school in question during that year, I regret that I cannot see my way to alter the decision already conveyed refusing the application.
Mr. Norton Mr. Norton
Mr. Norton: Will the Minister undertake to give some quantity of cocoa to this committee for the purpose of continuing this meals scheme?
Mr. Lemass Mr. Lemass
Mr. Lemass: In so far as this school meals scheme applied to other institutions in 1940, the committee are already entitled to purchase cocoa.
Mr. Norton Mr. Norton
1022
[1022] Mr. Norton: They require 50 lbs. of cocoa to operate the scheme.
Mr. Lemass Mr. Lemass
Mr. Lemass: They extended the scheme to another school although they knew that cocoa supplies were so limited that a rationing scheme was in operation. The committee would be well advised to base their schemes on some commodity not so scarce as cocoa.
Dáil Éireann 86 Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. Carlow School Meals Committee.
Dáil Éireann - Volume 87 - 02 June, 1942
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - County Carlow House Building Contract.
Mr. Norton Mr. Norton
Mr. Norton asked the Minister for Lands if he will state whether a contract was placed by the Land Commission for the erection of houses on the Eustace estate at Newstown, Tullow, County Carlow, and, if so whether he will state when the contract was placed, whether the terms of the contract provided that the houses would be completed within a specified period, and if he will state what steps have been taken to require the contractor to complete the houses.
Minister for Lands (Mr. Derrig) Thomas Derrig
744
Minister for Lands (Mr. Derrig): A contract for the erection of five dwelling houses, with out-offices, on the Eustace estate, Record No. S.8120, County Carlow, was placed on 14th September, 1939, and was due for completion on 18th April, 1940. Owing to having other works on hands the contractor [744] did not start work on the houses until December, 1939, and the work appears to have been subsequently hampered by shortage of petrol for the transport of materials and an illness of the contractor. The contractor has been already warned that he must complete the houses or be held liable for default, and it is understood that the work is now proceeding. The position is under investigation by the Land Commission, and further steps will be taken if necessary.
Dáil Éireann - Volume 87 - 25 June, 1942
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Suspension of Carlow Waterworks Caretaker.
Mr. Hughes Mr. Hughes
1739
Mr. Hughes 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 [1739] council and the people of Carlow he will hold a public investigation into the whole matter.
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Local Government and Public Health (Dr. Ward) Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Local Government and Public Health (Dr. Ward)
1740
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Local Government and Public Health (Dr. Ward): 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 [1740] 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.
Mr. Hughes Mr. Hughes
Mr. Hughes: 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?
Dr. Ward Dr. Ward
Dr. Ward: I have no official knowledge of any previous complaints.
Mr. Hughes Mr. Hughes
Mr. Hughes: 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.
Dáil Éireann 87 Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. Suspension of Carlow Waterworks Caretaker.
Dáil Éireann - Volume 87 - 25 June, 1942
Committee on Finance. - Adjournment: Carlow Waterworks Caretaker.
Mr. Hughes Mr. Hughes
Mr. Hughes: 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.
1860
[1860] 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:—
1861
“I regret to report that when I visited the filter house on the 12th [1861] 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:—
1862
[1862] “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.
1863
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. [1863] 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.
1864
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 [1864] 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.
1865
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 [1865] 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.
Dr. Ward Dr. Ward
Dr. Ward: I am glad to have Deputy Hughes' assurance that there is nothing personal and nothing of a political nature behind this question which he has raised to-night. I confess that, until I got the Deputy's assurance on that matter, I had grave doubts. The Deputy gave notice at Question Time to-day that he would raise this matter on the Adjournment because of the unsatisfactory reply he had got. I find it hard to understand what was unsatisfactory about the reply. It was a most comprehensive reply which gave the Deputy all the information at my disposal in the Department. It made no attempt to withhold any information available, and it dealt fully with every point the Deputy raised in his question. Yet he considered it unsatisfactory, and one would be tempted to believe that it was only unsatisfactory in so far as it so completely answered the points made by the Deputy, and that it would be more satisfactory to him if a reply had been given which failed in many respects to deal with the points he had raised.
1866
He speaks to-night about the delay in sending down an inspector to carry out this investigation. There is no getting away from the fact that the delay, in normal circumstances, would be entirely unjustifiable. In ordinary circumstances I think it would be entirely wrong to have a man under suspension for four months before it was definitely determined that the suspension was to be removed and he [1866] was to be restored to office. Deputy Hughes ought to bear in mind that we are not operating any Department of Government under normal conditions at the present time. The staff of my Department has been very seriously depleted by reason of the inroads that have been made on it to provide staffs for the other Departments that had to be set up as a result of the emergency, and for augmenting the staffs of such Departments as have more onerous duties to discharge during this period than in normal times. If I had an unlimited staff at my disposal, if there was no limit to the number of engineering inspectors, medical inspectors, and general inspectors in the Department of Local Government and Public Health, we could send down an inspector to investigate any matter calling for investigation, certainly within the week that a complaint would be made, but, hampered as we are by depleted staffs, we just cannot deal with a minor matter of this kind— well, perhaps it would not be fair to describe it as a minor matter: to Deputy Hughes it appears to be a major matter, but to me, with the information at my disposal, it appears to be of lesser importance than many of the problems with which our engineers are engaged at the present time. So much for the question of delay.
Mr. Hughes Mr. Hughes
Mr. Hughes: Is not the health of the people of the town of Carlow a major matter? Is not a good water supply a major matter?
Dr. Ward Dr. Ward
Dr. Ward: Now, I listened to the Deputy without interruption. He got between 15 and 20 minutes, and I did not interrupt him. I cannot go on for 15 minutes, and I will probably get less time.
Mr. Hughes Mr. Hughes
Mr. Hughes: I am sorry for interrupting the Parliamentary Secretary, but I wish to point out that this is a major matter for Carlow.
Dr. Ward Dr. Ward
1867
Dr. Ward: Now, the Deputy implies —in fact, he stated it both in a supplementary statement at Question Time to-day, and again to-night — that numerous complaints had been made as [1867] to the manner in which this caretaker was discharging his duties. Numerous complaints may have been made to the Deputy.
Mr. Hughes Mr. Hughes
Mr. Hughes: No, not to me.
Dr. Ward Dr. Ward
Dr. Ward: There may have been numerous local complaints.
Mr. Hughes Mr. Hughes
Mr. Hughes: To the local authority, not to me.
Dr. Ward Dr. Ward
Dr. Ward: Well, I know nothing about that, but I do know that the local authority did not make complaints to my Department. Deputy Hughes refers to a report from the consulting engineer, away back in 1935. Apparently, in 1935, this man was not discharging his duties as he should have been. I have no doubt that Deputy Hughes's representation of the consulting engineer's report of that time is accurate, but Deputy Hughes comes along to-night and talks about the efficiency of this local authority, the Carlow Urban Council, and suggests that when we have a highly-efficient body such as this, their style is being cramped by the action of the Ministry of Local Government. I, however, find it difficult to reconcile that attitude and the probity of this particular council, being aware since 1935 that this man had been unsatisfactory in the discharge of his duties—all of which is news to me—with the fact that, in 1940, the same council unanimously decided to increase the man's salary, which the Minister refused to sanction. One would have thought that that urban council, which is so conscientious and efficient in the discharge of its duties, would say to the Minister that instead of increasing the man's salary he should be got rid of altogether because he was not doing his job.
1868
To-night, Deputy Hughes couples the town surveyor with the caretaker of the waterworks, and I gathered from Deputy Hughes that the town surveyor is equally inefficient—in fact, it is doubtful if he is even as reliable, according to Deputy Hughes' representation, as the caretaker of the waterworks, in his own sphere. If that is the position, the charges have not [1868] been made against the town surveyor until to-night. The question related to the caretaker of the waterworks.
Mr. Hughes Mr. Hughes
Mr. Hughes: Did not the local authority pass a resolution?
Dr. Ward Dr. Ward
Dr. Ward: Now, never mind that: I am dealing with the question that was on the Order Paper and the reply to it, which the Deputy got to-day, and the town surveyor is not referred to in the question. However, on the 9th September, the caretaker and the town surveyor reported to the urban council that the unsatisfactory condition of the water supply was due to the fact that the chemicals used in treating the water had all been used up, and that supplies were awaiting transport from Dublin. Apparently, at that time, it was the quality and not the quantity of the water that was unsatisfactory, and the council marked that report “noted”. Now, one would think that if what Deputy Hughes states here to-night represented the actual position, they would take more vigorous action to draw the attention of the Minister to the condition of affairs than merely to note the report of the town surveyor and the caretaker. No action was taken that would indicate that the urban council had in any way lost confidence in the town surveyor.
1869
Now, coming to the 11th November, when the water failed, if the town surveyor cannot be relied upon, well, then, my Department has been misled all along the line. The town surveyor, however, is satisfied, and so long as he is in office we must pay reasonable attention, at any rate, to his version of engineering matters. He informed our inspector, and he reports to the Department, in reply to our letter, that in his opinion the choking of the filters was due to abnormal floods that had occurred the night before. Now, Deputy Hughes may say that there was no rain that night at all. He has not said so; he has avoided that issue. If, however, it was in fact a particularly stormy night and there was a very heavy rainfall, and if mud and debris were washed into the filters, it is quite understandable that they would be choked on the day of the 11th. It is a significant fact—and I do [1869] not think it is denied—that on that same morning the pumps that supply the local sugar beet factory with water were also choked with mud and debris. Now, I think that the caretaker was scarcely responsible for that, and neither was the town surveyor.
Mr. Hughes Mr. Hughes
Mr. Hughes: The Parliamentary Secretary must remember that the supply for the beet sugar factory is from the River Barrow.
Dr. Ward Dr. Ward
Dr. Ward: What the Parliamentary Secretary is trying to convey to Deputy Hughes and to the House is that on the particular morning that the town water supply failed, an independent supply to the sugar beet factory also failed, and the Parliamentary Secretary is suggesting to Deputy Hughes and to the House that the same cause operated in both cases, namely, that the heavy rainfall washed mud and debris in and choked the filters in the one case as it choked the pump in the other. It is also a significant fact that the reports of the insurance company's inspectors are to the effect that the plant was getting good attention. According to the reports of the representatives of the insurance company, the plant was being properly looked after, and the reports of the local engineer, on which we have to rely, are to the same effect. He says that since he took office in 1939—he took office in March, 1939—there had been no evidence of neglect on the caretaker's part, and he goes on to say that he had kept the operations of the filter-house in excellent condition. He suggests that heavy rains had caused the stoppage.
1870
Now, an inspector goes down and makes his inquiries, and he is satisfied that the explanations of the caretaker and the town surveyor are reasonable and that the balance of probability is on their side. The balance of probability being on their side, the Minister, when he studies these reports, has to decide, in all justice, that in such circumstances the suspension should be removed. The Minister or his inspectors have no interest whatever [1870] in trying to humiliate the local authority or to inflict upon them officials that are in any way inefficient. If I were fully satisfied that this man was not discharging his duties properly, I would not have a moment's hesitation in taking the necessary steps to rid him of his position, and neither would I have the slightest hesitation in having the town surveyor removed, but a full investigation has been carried out and no additional evidence has been submitted. Deputy Hughes talks about a sworn inquiry, but that would not bring out any more evidence than is available to me, and the evidence goes to show that there has been no neglect on this man's part. That being the case, there was no alternative, in justice to the man concerned, except to remove the suspension. I do not know anything about him——
Mr. Hughes Mr. Hughes
Mr. Hughes: Neither do I.
Dr. Ward Dr. Ward
Dr. Ward: ——but at any rate he is entitled to fair play.
Mr. Hughes Mr. Hughes
Mr. Hughes: Quite.
Dr. Ward Dr. Ward
Dr. Ward: I have no interest in him whatever beyond trying to see that he does get fair play. I grant that it is a suspicious circumstance that the urban council are unanimous in their desire to get rid of him, but at the same time I cannot get away from the fact that the same council, 12 months ago, were unanimous in their desire to increase his salary.
Mr. Hughes Mr. Hughes
Mr. Hughes: What was the salary?
Dr. Ward Dr. Ward
Dr. Ward: About £117 a year, I think.
Mr. Hughes Mr. Hughes
Mr. Hughes: I should like to point out that the Parliamentary Secretary did not advert at all to the general condition of the water over a period, and I think that that is an important consideration that should not be overlooked.
The Dáil adjourned at 9.35 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Friday, 26th June.
Dáil Éireann 87 Committee on Finance. Adjournment: Carlow Waterworks Caretaker.
General Debate
19420625
Dáil Éireann - Volume 88 - 28 October, 1942
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Acquisition of Carlow-Kildare Lands.
Mr. Norton Mr. Norton
Mr. Norton asked the Minister for Lands if he will state whether the Land Commission have instituted, or propose to institute, proceedings for the acquisition of the land of Mr. William Fenton at Knockloe, Tullow, County Carlow, for division among local uneconomic holders and landless men in the area.
Mr. Derrig Mr. Derrig
Mr. Derrig: There are no proceedings pending in the Land Commission for the acquisition of the lands of Mr. William Fenton at Knockloe, Tullow, County Carlow. Owing to the emergency conditions the Land Commission are not prepared to take any action at present regarding the acquisition of these lands.
Mr. Norton Mr. Norton
1520
[1520] Mr. Norton asked the Minister for Lands whether in view of the keen local agitation for land by uneconomic holders and landless men, he will take steps to acquire the Darley estate comprising over 500 acres of land at Blackchurch, County Kildare, with a view to the division of the land among local applicants.
Mr. Derrig Mr. Derrig
Mr. Derrig: The Land Commission have no proceedings for the acquisition of the untenanted lands at Blackchurch on the Darley estate, Co. Kildare, and owing to the emergency conditions they do not propose to take any action at present regarding their acquisition.
Mr. Norton Mr. Norton
Mr. Norton: In view of the fact that this is a very large estate and that there is a large number of uneconomic holders and landless men in the area who are unable to obtain land in conacre, would the Minister regard this as a special case with a view to the institution of proceedings to acquire these lands or portion of them?
Mr. Derrig Mr. Derrig
Mr. Derrig: I have no power to consider that. The Deputy will realise the difficulty of making exceptions in regard to cases of land acquisition. Either we go ahead with the policy of land acquisition or we close down. Since the beginning of the emergency, we have been confining ourselves to cases in which proceedings were actually in progress and endeavouring to complete these cases. We have not taken up any new cases. There is a Government decision that no further action should be taken beyond that. I am bound by that decision and I regret, therefore, that I cannot deal with individual cases.
Dáil Éireann - Volume 88 - 04 November, 1942
Ceisteanna.—Questions. Oral Answers. - Acquisition of County Carlow Lands.
Mr. Norton Mr. Norton
Mr. Norton asked the Minister for Lands whether the Land Commission propose to continue the proceedings for the acquisition of the lands of Mr. Michael O'Toole, Ballynunnery, Fighting Cocks County Carlow; and if he will state what progress has been made in the matter of acquiring the lands.
Mr. Derrig Mr. Derrig
Mr. Derrig: The question as to whether proceedings should be continued under Section 39, Land Act, 1939, for resumption of the holding of Michael O'Toole in the townland of Ballynunnery on the Swifte estate, County Carlow, has been deferred for the present owing to emergency conditions.
Dáil Éireann - Volume 88 - 18 November, 1942
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Carlow Fuel Supply.
Mr. Norton Mr. Norton
Mr. Norton asked the Minister for Supplies whether he is aware that there is a shortage of timber for fuel in the town of Carlow, and the turf supply there is of inferior quality; and whether, having regard to these facts, he will permit local persons to obtain such supplies of coal as are available from the colliery at Rossmore, Carlow.
Dr. Ryan Dr. Ryan
Dr. Ryan: I am not in a position to confirm the Deputy's statement that there is a shortage of timber for fuel in the town of Carlow. I am informed, however, that merchants in that town hold adequate supplies of turf the quality of which is not inferior to that obtainable elsewhere throughout the scheduled areas.
As a result of a general and acute shortage of coal and the necessity of reserving existing supplies for industrial purposes, I have been obliged to prohibit the general use of coal for domestic purposes throughout the country and I cannot make an exception in favour of domestic users of fuel in any particular town.
Mr. Norton Mr. Norton
2035
Mr. Norton: Is the Minister aware that the Carlow and Graigue-Cullen Parish Councils contemplated putting into operation a scheme for providing timber for needy people in that town, but that they were frustrated in their efforts owing to the shortage of timber? Will he make inquiries to confirm the generally accepted point [2035] of view in Carlow that the quality of turf supplied there is inferior? Having regard to these two facts, will he permit even a limited quantity of Rossmore coal, or in any case the duff which is to be had at Castlecomer colliery, to be used by local people to supplement their present inadequate fuel supply?
Dr. Ryan Dr. Ryan
Dr. Ryan: The Minister is satisfied from a report that he received that the quality of the turf in Carlow is good.
Mr. Norton Mr. Norton
Mr. Norton: Nobody in Carlow agrees with him.
Dáil Éireann - Volume 88 - 19 November, 1942
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Acquisition of Carlow Lands.
Mr. Hughes Mr. Hughes
Mr. Hughes asked the Minister for Lands if he will state whether it is the intention of the Land Commission to acquire the lands of Mr. Joseph Griffin, Cloneen, Nurney, County Carlow, for the purpose of division; and if so, when such division will take place.
Mr. Derrig Mr. Derrig
Mr. Derrig: The Deputy's question appears to refer to the lands of Mr. Joseph Griffith at Cloneen, Nurney, County Carlow. The Land Commission do not propose to take any action at present regarding the question of acquiring these lands.
Mr. Norton Mr. Norton
2212
Mr. Norton asked the Minister for [2212] Lands whether he is aware of the keen demand by uneconomic holders and landless men for the acquisition of the lands at Boolyratheran and Cranavonane, on the Slocock estate at Milford, County Carlow; and whether, in view of the keen demand for the land, the Land Commission will take steps to have the lands acquired for division locally.
Mr. Derrig Mr. Derrig
Mr. Derrig: Owing to the emergency conditions the Land Commission do not propose to take any action at present regarding the acquisition of the lands of Boolyratheran and Cranavonane on the Slocock estate at Milford, County
Dáil Éireann - Volume 89 - 09 December, 1942
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - County Carlow Holding.
Mr. Norton Mr. Norton
Mr. Norton asked the Minister for Lands whether the Land Commission propose to provide a dwellinghouse for Mr. Denis Fenelon, who was allotted a holding on the McElwee estate at Ballytarsna, Nurney, County Carlow (Record No. S.9126, Folio 2566, County Carlow).
Mr. Derrig Mr. Derrig
45
[45] Mr. Derrig: The question appears to refer to the registered holding of Denis Fenelon and Margaret Fenelon (his sister), the subject of Folio No. 2572, County Carlow, for consolidation with which a parcel of untenanted land on the Law and McElwee estate, Record No. S. 9176, County Carlow, was allotted as an enlargement. There is already a dwellinghouse on the holding, with which Mr. Fenelon is dissatisfied, and he has applied to the Land Commission to repair the existing house or else build him a new one. The Land Commission are not prepared to accede to his application but it is open to him to apply to the Department of Local Government and Public Health for a housing grant.
Dáil Éireann 89 Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. County Carlow Holding.
Questions
Dáil Éireann - Volume 89 - 18 February, 1943
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Carlow-Kilkenny G.S.R. Service.
Mr. Hughes Mr. Hughes
Mr. Hughes asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce if he is aware that several passenger services on the Great Southern Railway, such as that on the Carlow-Kilkenny branch, are run at most unsuitable hours for people travelling to Dublin for one day's business, who are now compelled to remain in the city for two nights at great inconvenience and thereby increasing the draft on the food supply of the city, and if he will make representations to the Great Southern Railway Company with a view to arranging an early service to, and a late service from, the city, which would permit many people to do business in the one day and relieve the present pressure on bus services.
Mr. Lemass Mr. Lemass
712
Mr. Lemass: I am aware that the position is as stated by the Deputy. The present fuel position, however, permits only of the operation of one passenger train in each direction daily, and it is considered that the present arrangement whereby trains leave Dublin in the morning and arrive in [712] the afternoon is best suited to the convenience of the public.
Mr. Hughes Mr. Hughes
Mr. Hughes: Surely, the Minister cannot suggest that a service to Dublin in the evening is more suitable than a service in the morning? People living within 100 miles of the City of Dublin, who want to do a day's business in Dublin, would find it far more convenient to have an early service up to the city and a late service back in the evening.
Mr. Lemass Mr. Lemass
Mr. Lemass: Only one train per day is possible. Under the present arrangement, the train leaves Dublin in the morning and arrives in the afternoon. If you reverse that, it will cause more inconvenience. I am quite sure the majority of Deputies will agree with that view.
Mr. D. Morrissey Mr. D. Morrissey
Mr. D. Morrissey: Would the Minister consider having a train leaving the country in the morning, rather than leaving in the afternoon, and leaving Dublin in the morning as it is at the moment? That would mean only one night in Dublin instead of two.
Mr. Lemass Mr. Lemass
Mr. Lemass: There are as many people travelling from Dublin as into Dublin. The Deputy's suggested arrangement would cause as much, if not more, inconvenience in another direction.
Mr. D. Morrissey Mr. D. Morrissey
Mr. D. Morrissey: What I am putting to the Minister does not involve any change in the train leaving Dublin. I am only suggesting that the train should leave the country in the morning instead of in the afternoon.
Mr. Lemass Mr. Lemass
Mr. Lemass: It is not practicable.
Mr. Hughes Mr. Hughes
Mr. Hughes: Then the trains are run for the convenience of Dublin people and not for the convenience of country people.
Mr. Lemass Mr. Lemass
Mr. Lemass: If the Deputy will examine the arrangement he will find that it works the other way round. I am quite prepared to say that any six members of the Deputy's Party will say that his suggestion is the wrong one.
Dáil Éireann 89 Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. Carlow-Kilkenny

Source: http://historical-debates.oireachtas.ie/:

1943 - 1949

Please report any links or images which do not open to mjbrennan30@gmail.com

The information contained within the pages of this web site is provided solely for the purpose of sharing with others researching their ancestors in Ireland.
© 2001 Ireland Genealogy Projects, IGP TM  By Pre-emptive Copyright - All rights reserved
TOP OF PAGE