asked the Minister for Local Government and Public Health if he will state the reason for the delay in granting the necessary confirmation of the compulsory purchase order made by the Sligo Board of Health for the purchase of suitable land and the provision of cottages in Ballymote, and if he is aware of the terms of the resolution passed by the said board at a meeting on 1st June last.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Ballymote Cottage Scheme.
A compulsory purchase order made by a local authority is not confirmed without full investigation. The acquisition of the site at Ballymote included in the order of the board of health on the 15th December, 1936, was objected to partly on grounds of its unsuitability and partly on other grounds. The inspector who held the public local inquiry on the 9th March, 1937, reported that the site was unsuitable. There has been no avoidable delay. I am aware of the terms of the resolution adopted by the board of health on 1st instant.
Arising out of the Minister's reply, perhaps I might be permitted to quote the terms of a resolution that was passed at a meeting of the Sligo Board of Health on the 1st June, of this year. The resolution reads as follows:—
"That this board of health desires to bring to the notice of the Minister for Local Government the following facts in connection with our housing schemes. We made a compulsory purchase order on the 15th December, for the acquisition of sites at Ballysadare, Rosses Point and Ballymote. Not till the month of March did the Department move in the matter when it ordered a public sworn inquiry. This was duly held, and since meeting after meeting, we have been expecting a decision without avail. In these circumstances we disclaim all responsibility for the backward condition of housing in County Sligo. Copy of this resolution to be sent to the housing board."
In view of that resolution, will the Minister tell me here, as a member of the Sligo Board of Health, whether or not it is our fault that that housing scheme has been held up. We have done our best to get through with housing in Ballymote for the last five years, and still we cannot get ahead because the scheme is held up by the Local Government Board.
Before the Minister replies, Sir, I should like to know from the Minister what he considers to be a reasonable time for the purpose of carrying out investigations with regard to a compulsory purchase scheme. The Minister made a rather sweeping allegation that, in his opinion, the Sligo Board of Health is not doing its duty in regard to the provision of housing for the working classes there. Does the Minister consider that the withholding of confirmation of a compulsory purchase order for six months is facilitating county boards of health in carrying out their obligations under the Housing Acts?
It might happen that six months would be necessary when a question of a compulsory purchase order is being investigated. As the two Deputies from Sligo have raised this question, I do want to say again here that the Sligo Board of Health has not done its duty in this matter, and, particularly, it has not done its duty in regard to Ballymote. Deputy Rogers read a resolution in which he says that he, as one member of that board, disclaims responsibility. What were they doing from August 1932 up to the 15th December, 1936, about housing in Ballymote? That is a period of four years, and yet nothing was done. On the 15th December, 1936, they did adopt the compulsory purchase scheme with regard to one field, and, according to my inspector, half of that field is a swamp, and the people of that town have petitioned the inspector at that inquiry, and have also petitioned me, begging me not to sanction that site, as it is an unsuitable site. I think that the Deputy himself, at the board of health, disagreed with the site and said that it was not suitable.
Quite right.
Now, I take it, the Deputy is pressing me to agree with that resolution, although he himself said that the site was unsuitable and dissented from the resolution adopted. I have the dates here, and, if the Deputies wish, I shall read out for them the particulars of the cause of delay. The following note refers specially to the proposal in relation to Ballymote:—
"The board of health made a compulsory purchase order on 15th December, 1936, for the acquisition of 3 acres 0 roods 16 perches in Ballymote for the erection of 28 houses. Objection was made by the owner, Mr. Hogg, to the acquisition of the site on the grounds that (1) the property proposed to be acquired was portion of a farm containing about six acres; (2) one of his sources of livelihood was derived from the sale of milk in the town of Ballymote from cows kept on his farm, and the proposed acquisition would deprive him of same; (3) the residue of the farm, on which his dwelling-house is situate, would be considerably reduced in value and rendered valueless to him for the requirements of his occupation; (4) the lands included in the order would not be suitable lands for development in the manner proposed; (5) there were other lands more suitable for the purposes required in the immediate neighbourhood.
"A memorial from the prospective tenants was received in the Department objecting on the grounds that (1) Mr. Hogg was a local business man owning two establishments in the town and was a decided local acquisition; (2) the acquisition of the site would be a serious handicap to him as a farmer and a business man; (3) the site was covered to the extent of nearly one-half by an overflow from a mill-race; (4) the mill-race would have to be deepened and the field drained, and this would be too expensive; (5) there were other sites about the town which might be investigated which were eminently suitable and could be obtained.
"The board's engineer stated that, approximately, one-third of an acre of the site was inclined to be wet; and the Department's inspector, who held the public local inquiry as to the propriety of confirming the order, reported that the site was unsuitable; that the acquisition of the site would seriously disturb Mr. Hogg's business; that the north-west end of the field was swampy and the cost of drainage would be high; and that a deputation of prospective tenants attending the inquiry protested against the erection of cottages on the site. It is proposed to ask the board of health to take immediate steps to acquire an alternative site."
Now we come to the dates.
"The following gives the relevant dates concerning the steps taken in the Department to deal with the order: The order was received in the Department on 21st December, 1936. The latest date for receiving objections was 6th January, 1937. The inspector to hold the inquiry was designated on the 13th January, and he fixed the date of the local inquiry as 9th March, 1937. Owing to prior arrangements it was not possible to fix an earlier date. The inspector's report was received on 22nd April. The Legal Department were instructed on 19th May to prepare confirming order excluding the site at Ballymote."
Now, I think that should show that no avoidable delay took place so far as the Department of Local Government was concerned, and the board of health had from the time the Housing Act was passed in August, 1932, up to the 15th December, 1936, before they took any action in Ballymote.
Surely the Minister must be aware—in fact, the report he has read out admits as much—that the delay there was due to a disagreement between his own engineering inspector and the consulting engineer of the board of health?
No.
It was due entirely to a disagreement about the question of unsuitable sites.
No.
The board's inspector was satisfied, at any rate.
That is not my information.
Well, it is my information. Secondly, the Minister must also be aware, if he gets proper information from his officials, that a full and complete housing scheme is ready for Ballymote.
That is not so. There is no full and complete housing scheme ready for Ballymote. The Deputy's colleague, who is a member of the board of health—I do not think the Deputy is—agrees with the Department that it is a most unsuitable site and the delay occurred because an unsuitable site was selected.
The Minister tries to put the blame on the board of health. I want to put it on the right shoulders.
The Deputy is now supposed to be asking a supplementary question.
Is it not a fact, then, that the delay was entirely due to the Minister's own engineering inspector?
That is not so. There was an unsuitable site selected and any conscientious inspector must condemn it.