Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 18 Oct 1945

Vol. 98 No. 4

Adjournment—Letting of Offaly Labourers' Cottages.

Mr. Davin

To-day, I addressed the following question to the Minister for Local Government and Public Health:

"To ask the Minister for Local Government and Public Health if he will state if he has been requested to hold a sworn inquiry into the repeated refusals (since 1941) of the Offaly County Council to sanction applications made for vacant labourers' cottages in the area by Mr. C. Swords, Clonmore, Edenderry, and the letting of such cottages to unmarried men and women who are not qualified to occupy them under existing regulations; if he will state the cost of legal proceedings incurred by the council in recovering possession of one of these cottages let to an unmarried woman in 1941, and what action he proposes to take in this matter."

The Minister replied: "No such request as is referred to by the Deputy has been received by me. The Deputy himself asked for a Department inspector to hold an inquiry into the failure of the local authority to provide a cottage for the person named in the question. My information is that this person's present housing accommodation is inadequate. He was recently an applicant for a labourer's cottage, but his application was unsuccessful. I have made inquiries in the matter, and have been informed that the successful applicant was living in a house in which there were eleven adults and one child. I should like to stress to the Deputy that the letting of cottages is a matter for the local authority concerned, who, if the cottages are subsidised under the Housing (Financial and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1932, must allot the cottages in accordance with the preferences laid down by the Housing (Loan Charges Contributions) Regulations, 1938, and they must consider and have regard to a report to be obtained from the appropriate medical officer of health as to the existing accommodation of each applicant and as to the degree of urgency of his need for alternative accommodation. I am satisfied that the regulations were complied with in the allocation of this tenancy. I have no power to review any allocation which has been made in accordance with the regulations. I am not aware that there were any recent lettings of cottages to unmarried men and women. I have no information as to the cost incurred by the Offaly County Council in recovering possession of a cottage let to an unmarried woman in 1941."

I regret that I find it necessary to raise a case of this kind by way of question or, as in this case, on the motion for the adjournment. I am forced to do so because this is not the only case of the kind brought under my notice during the past few years. This case has been the subject of correspondence between the applicant referred to in the question and myself and Offaly County Council, and between the Department and myself, over a period of three or four years. One of the Parliamentary Secretaries had been dealing with a complaint I made well over a year ago to the Department, and I had hoped from the reply I received on that occasion—I think that it was from Deputy Dr. Ward—that a future application by the man mentioned in the question would be given favourable consideration.

The facts briefly are: The applicant mentioned in the question is an agricultural labourer with a wife and four children. Owing to the fact that he was unable to secure suitable housing accommodation anywhere, he was taken into a labourer's cottage, occupied by his father-in-law, over six years ago. That cottage consists of two rooms. Mr. Swords, his wife and four children are living in one room and his father-in-law and other members of the family are living in the second room for over six years. He is obliged to travel four miles each way every day to his work. That is not a desirable state of affairs for any agricultural labourer who is expected to do a decent day's work for his employer. In April, 1941, Mr. Swords made application to the local authority for a house which was vacant in Ballybrittan and I assert here and now —I was amazed that the Minister appeared not to be in possession of the full facts and to hear him state that he was unaware that cottages had been let to unmarried women—that the cottage which was vacant in 1941 was let to a housekeeper for a local farmer. Her name is Miss Hickey.

Minister for Local Government and Public Health (Mr. MacEntee)

May I respectfully direct the Deputy's attention to the terms of the reply: "I am not aware that there were any recent lettings." 1941 is not recent.

Mr. Davin

I expected, with great respect, that the Minister's reply would deal with the whole period covered by the complaint, from 1941 to the present day. I shall give the Minister further information on the matter if he will allow me. The cottage was let in 1941 to an unmarried lady and at no time since that date has it been occupied by her. For some years after the letting, Swords and other persons who thought they were entitled to consideration in the allocation of labourers' cottages which are supposed to be let to agricultural labourers, drew the attention of the local authority to the fact that this unmarried lady had not been up to that period occupying this cottage. It appears that the local authority or the county manager made some inquiries into the matter, and discovered that this was the case with the result that the lady put some furniture into the cottage but still never occupied it. During a long period since 1941 she has been living with her own relatives in the West of Ireland. The local authority decided, through the county manager at a certain date a couple of years ago, to take proceedings for the recovery of this cottage which was wrongly let to an unmarried woman and which was not occupied by the person to whom it was let.

Mr. MacEntee

Do I understand the Deputy to say that Miss Hickey lived with her relatives in the West of Ireland?

Mr. Davin

For portion of the period for which she was nominally tenant of the cottage. That is my information and I think it is reliable information. At any rate, proceedings for the recovery of the cottage were taken by the county manager and went on for a long period, in the District Court, in the Circuit Court and, in June of this year, came before Judge Byrne in the High Court on Circuit in Tullamore, and there was a definite order made for recovery of the cottage. I would be interested to know, and I think the ratepayers are very much interested to know, what was the cost of the legal proceedings in the District Court, the Circuit Court and the High Court on Circuit for the recovery of this cottage which was wrongly let in the first instance to an unmarried lady rather than to a genuine agricultural labourer who, as I have said, was living with his wife and a family of four children in one room of an old labourer's cottage. I asked for information as to the cost of the proceedings and the Minister said that he had no information as to the cost incurred by the county council in the recovery of the cottage. I have been assured that the county authorities have been in touch with the Department for portion of the period since the cottage was let in 1941. I assert here—if the Minister denies it I am willing to accept his word—that in the case of a letting of a cottage to an unmarried person local authorities are bound to seek the sanction of the Minister. I am assured that such was the case where a labourer's cottage was let in Shinrone, and my authority for that statement is a letter written by the Parliamentary Secretary, Dr. Ward, to the Offaly County Council. In that case the cottage had to be recovered by the local authority at, I assume, some cost to the local ratepayers.

This man, the applicant mentioned in the question, was called to the consultations and to the court proceedings that were held in connection with the legal proceedings. He lost five days' work as a result of attending these consultations and of being called as a witness on behalf of the county council and, up to the present, he has not received one farthing expenses to compensate him for the loss of wages. He was led to believe that the fact of his going before the court as a witness for the county council would count in his favour when he came to apply again for the cottage, but unfortunately, that did not happen. Possession was recovered on June 16th, 1945. The cottage was again advertised for letting in the usual way by the county manager.

Applicants were invited to send in applications before the 25th July, and about the 8th August, to the amazement of Mr. Swords, the same cottage was let to a turf and timber merchant who employs three persons. I am challenging the action of the local authority in the first instance in letting the labourer's cottage to a person who was not a genuine agricultural labourer. In a case where there were genuine applicants who were married men with families, I think it was nothing short of a public seandal to give this cottage in the first instance to an unmarried lady and on the second occasion, to a timber merchant who employs three persons in a very profitable business.

The Minister, I think, was unfair to-day to me when he said that no request was received by him for the holding of a sworn inquiry. I think he will admit, if he looks up the correspondence, that on the 25th August, 1 sent him copies of two letters which were received from Swords and in one of these letters, dated the 8th August, he said that this case called for a sworn inquiry. It is correct to say that I asked for a Departmental inquiry because I was satisfied that if the Minister went into this case personally and got the facts, he would not try to defend the action of the persons responsible for the letting of this cottage in the first instance to an unmarried lady and, in the second case, to a fuel merchant rather than to a genuine agricultural labourer who should get first preference. I am glad at any rate that the Minister in his reply stated that he was satisfied that this persons present housing accommodation is in adequate. That is certainly an admission, but the Minister says also that he is satisfied that the regulations were complied with in the allocation of this tenancy. I again ask the Minister, and I ask members of this House nearly all of whom have more experience as members of local authorities, is it in accordance with the regulations to let cottages of this kind to persons who are not genuine agricultural labourers? If the Minister tells me that an unmarried woman and a fuel merchant are entitled to the same consideration for the tenancy of labourers' cottages as a genuine agricultural labourer, then I am learning that for the first time.

The Minister also says that he has no power to review any allocation which has been made in accordance with the regulations. If he is satisfied that the letting has been made in accordance with the regulations, that is a fair statement to make, but I am not going to admit, at the moment at any rate, that the regulations, as I understand them, have been carried out in connection with the letting of this cottage. In 1942, the same applicant made application for another labourer's cottage in the same district and that ottage was let to an unmarried man.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We are dealing with one particular cottage in this question.

Mr. Davin

Yes, but I think I said at the end, "and the letting of such cottages to unmarried men and women who are not qualified to occupy them under the existing regulations". I referred to "cottages" there, sir, with great respect. Certain very important matters have arisen in connection with the letting of this cottage. It is alleged locally that the applications made by Swords have been turned down because of the big political pull of a local councillor in this matter. The Minister has in his possession copies of at least two recent letters written to me by the applicant, one of which states—this is the Saturday night before the cottage was let on the 8th August:

"George Connell called on me on Saturday night and abused me left and right about following the cottage so far and told me that if I got the cottage he would resign from all public bodies, and I know well that if it is in his power I will never get this house."

Unfortunately, whether through Mr. Connell or somebody else—Mr. Connell is not the proper authority—whether it is through the county manager or somebody else, the prophecy made by this unfortunate applicant turned out to be true. The cottage was not given to Mr. Swords and on the Saturday night after the cottage was let to this fuel and timber merchant, apparently, Mr. Swords also met Mr. Connell and he says, in a letter dated 8th August, a copy of which the Minister has in his possession:

"I met Connell on Saturday last and I told him what I thought of him and he gave me to understand that if he can I will never get a house. He told me I had a political organisation behind me"

—I suppose he knew he was a member of the local branch of the Labour Party—

"...and that I could get Davin to challenge the decision of the manager in regard to the cottage."

I am not going to assert that Mr. Connell is the county manager or that he has power to override the decisions of the Minister for Local Government. So far as the Minister for Local Government has responsibility for the administration of local authorities, the Minister has responsibility for the administration of the Offaly County Council.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Has the Minister responsibility for Mr. Connell?

Mr. Davin

I should be interested in his reply on that point but, at any rate, although it is asserted locally that Mr. Connell is an all-powerful councillor locally, and is locally styled the Fuehrer of the Fianna Fáil Party, I still refuse to believe that he is more powerful than the Minister for Local Government and I still have hope, without going further into this matter, that when the Minister gets all the facts of this case, he will take steps at the earliest possible date to see that a deserving agricultural labourer, who has been forced to live with his father-in-law for nearly seven years, in one room of a two-roomed cottage, will be provided with proper housing accommodation as near as possible to the place where he works.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Time is running on.

Mr. Davin

Owing to the failure of this man to secure possession of a labourer's cottage locally, he appealed to his employer, who is a farmer in the locality. Nearly four years ago his employer offered to the county council, and signed the necessary forms, to provide a plot for the county council for the erection of a labourer's cottage for this man who had been all his life in his employment. I do not wish to take up the time that the Minister is entitled to have to reply to the query, but I would be very interested in hearing whether or not Mr. Connell is even more powerful than the county manager or the Minister for Local Government and Public Health.

Minister for Local Government and Public Health (Mr. MacEntee)

I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave to-day, which is a full and comprehensive one, because, as I have already told the House and the Deputy, I have no power to review an allocation that has been made in accordance with the regulations. The only question that really arises on this matter is whether in fact this cottage has been allocated in accordance with the regulations. The regulations lay down that in allocating the cottages the local authority must have regard to a report to be obtained from the appropriate medical officer of health as to the existing accommodation of each applicant and as to the degree of urgency of his need for alternative accommodation. Let me say in this connection that I think Mr. Swords has a grievance. As I said in my reply to the question, no person could regard his existing accommodation as adequate, but he does not happen to be the only person concerned in this case. There are other applicants for this cottage and all that I think the county manager had to assess in that connection was the degree of urgency of each of them. Or, is it Deputy Davin's position that simply because Mr. Swords happens to be, as he said himself, a member of the Labour branch in the neighbourhood he should get priority?

Mr. Davin

No.

Mr. MacEntee

Very well, and I do not think that any person ought to get priority simply because he happens to be a member of the Fianna Fáil Party or the Fianna Fáil organisation. The thing that should determine the allocation of these cottages is need and that is the only thing that should determine it. I said in my reply to the Deputy's question that I am satisfied that this man wants a cottage and I think he should get it as soon as it is humanly possible for it to be given to him but, apparently, that happens to be in that particular neighbourhood a deficiency of accommodation. To some extent that deficiency, I think, was created by the unjustifiable allocation of cottages to people who did not need them. When this matter was first brought to my attention, by Deputy Davin, in relation to the cottage which had been allocated to this unmarried woman, I took extraordinary steps to clear up that situation and I insisted, to the extent to which I could insist, that the county manager should do everything he possibly could to recover possession of the cottage which investigation satisfied me had been given to an unmarried person who had not occupied the cottage for a considerable time. I am not in a position to say that she never occupied the cottage.

I was surprised when I heard Deputy Davin saying that for a portion of the time she was with her relatives in the West of Ireland. Knowing Deputy Davin, I wonder whether the period he refers to was a period when she was on holidays or a period during which she was ill or during which there was some temporary occasion for her to go back to her relatives in the West of Ireland? I do admit that she appeared to me to be a single person who was employed in a household in the neighbourhood and, as soon as I became convinced of the fact that these were her circumstances, so far as I could bring pressure to bear on the county manager—and my powers in this respect were limited—I did see that possession of the cottage was recovered by the county manager. But, the moment the cottage became vacant, then different considerations applied. Whoever was to get that cottage had to be the person who most required it. I am not in a position to be judge in this matter. The county manager is the judge. He has to review the circumstances, and in reviewing the circumstances he has to have regard to the report submitted to him by the medical officer of health. That report was submitted and, of three hard cases, three cases every one of whom required a cottage and should have got a cottage——

Mr. Davin

Were they all agricultural labourers?

Mr. MacEntee

——the man who got it was placed first. The man who got it was the person whose family circumstances were described as being most unsatisfactory.

Mr. Davin

Was he an agricultural labourer?

Mr. MacEntee

His family occupied a small house with three bedrooms in which there were 11 adults and one child. In view of the circumstances under which he was living he was placed No. 1 on the list. As to whether or not he was an agricultural labourer, the Deputy knows as well as I do that in the housing code the term "agricultural labourer" has a very wide connotation indeed. The Deputy has alleged to-night that he is a turf and timber merchant employing three persons. What was the source of the Deputy's information? Has he investigated the circumstances of this man for himself or has he taken them on hearsay? I am not going to spend money on having a wild allegation investigated. Will the Deputy be good enough to tell me now who told him that this person was a turf and timber merchant?

Mr. Davin

I took the precaution of getting it confirmed by a very reliable public servant.

Mr. MacEntee

Does the Deputy himself know the circumstances of this man——

Mr. Davin

Yes.

Mr. MacEntee

——or is he taking them on hearsay? Does he know himself?

Mr. Davin

I have it in writing.

Mr. MacEntee

He has it in writing. Many statements are made to me in writing but, when I investigate them, I find them to be without foundation. I am not as guileless as the Deputy; I am a little more experienced and perhaps more hard-bitten. I receive many letters, even from the Deputy, the statements in which on investigation are found to be without foundation. Because the Deputy was able to satisfy me that there was some substance in what he said on a previous occasion, I did take the extraordinary step of having an inspector sent down to investigate that original allegation on the spot. But I am not prepared to do that in respect of this matter unless I receive something more in public than the Deputy said to-night, because I can tell the Deputy that I have had a letter from one of the persons concerned in this matter and he does not make that allegation against the person who got the cottage.

In fact, he says that this person is an agricultural labourer employed in the neighbourhood. Now which statement of his is correct—the statement which he made to me or the one which I suspect he made to the Deputy on which he has based his allegation? If he is a fuel and timber merchant employing three men, one can think of him as a bloated capitalist.

I can give the Deputy this assurance, that I am as perturbed as he is about the man whom he is interested in, even though he happens to be a member of the Labour branch. I think he has had very hard luck in regard to these applications. I think his case ought to get reasonable, fair and special consideration whenever a cottage becomes vacant. But that is only an expression of opinion. I am not carrying the responsibility for allocating these cottages.

It is not my function to investigate the circumstances of these applicants, but, so far as my investigations have gone, this man's circumstances are necessitous from the point of view of housing accommodation. But I am not going to over-ride the better judgment of the county manager, because he is better informed in regard to this matter. I am satisfied that the county manager will give every applicant a fair deal. But, if the county manager finds, when another cottage becomes vacant, that in addition to this man there is another applicant whom he thinks is in greater need of housing accommodation, as it is the county manager's responsibility, I rely on him to discharge that responsibility fairly, having regard to the merits of both applicants.

Mr. Davin

Is it a fact that when the county manager or the local authority decides to let a cottage to an unmarried person he must seek the sanction of the Minister?

Mr. MacEntee

My sanction was not sought in this case, in any event.

The Dáil adjourned at 8.5 p.m. until 3 o'clock on Wednesday, 24th October, 1945.