Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 28 Feb 1946

Vol. 99 No. 14

Committee on Finance. - Adjournment Debate.—Clara Housing Scheme.

In conjunction with Deputy Davin I asked the Minister for Local Government and Public Health if he would state:

"whether he has now considered the report submitted to him by the local authority relative to the housing scheme at Clara, Offaly; whether he is prepared to make public the terms of the report; and whether he proposes to have the scheme examined by an engineering officer of his Department."

In a lengthy reply the Minister did not, I submit, answer the question. In the course of his reply he stated that the all-in cost of the scheme was £62,000 and he went on to say that the cottages were erected five years ago. How can the Minister explain why, after five years, in a scheme which cost £62,000, it is estimated by the county engineer that it will take £13,000 to put them into a condition in which 144 tenants can live in them? Will the Minister explain to the House how £13,000 was arrived at to put the houses into a habitable condition?

The Minister stated in his reply that cottages of a similar type to those in Offaly had been erected in other parts and that no complaints had been received from the tenants. I wish to point out that the Minister made a statement on that occasion that was misleading to the House. In the Custom House there are files and volumes of correspondence referring to the defects of a housing scheme that was completed at the same time in Edenderry. The Minister was asked to intervene there as the tenants complained to his Department that there was no right of way. In another scheme a tenant took legal proceedings against Offaly County Council resulting in a victory for the tenants. Though the Minister stated he received no complaints from the tenants residing in cottages similar to those in Offaly, I say that he did receive complaints. I want the Minister to explain why he is not prepared to publish the terms of the report that he received from the county manager.

I asked him to-day to send a copy of the report of the county manager of Offaly to the county council so that they could discuss it and make recommendations. If there is nothing in the report which the Minister wishes to hide, he will have no hesitation in sending a copy to Offaly County Council for their observations. Does the Minister not realise that quite recently at a meeting of Offaly County Council the scheme to which he now gives great credit was referred to as the "Clara Tuberculosis Factory" where 144 tenants are living under deplorable conditions? Yet the Minister told us that it was one of the most up-to-date housing schemes. The tenants there have to bring turf from local bogs into their houses. Imagine building 144 houses for the working classes in the year 1940 without providing a road which they could use, and where the back doors of some houses face the front doors of others. The local people in Clara invited the five T.D's. in the constituency to inspect the houses. Deputy O'Higgins, who is also a county medical officer of health, Deputy Davin and I visited them. I was shocked at the deplorable conditions under which these tenants are expected to live. Remember that they are people who were mostly living in condemned houses prior to 1939. They were told to leave and to go into the new houses where they find the conditions impossible. The Minister knows that there must be something wrong when that is the position of houses after being built five years, and when the ratepayers of Offaly are asked to foot a bill of £13,000 for repairs. I went into the houses and I found in a great many cases that the fireplaces had fallen out and had to be put back.

In how many cases?

I give the name of Mr. John Cashen, The Green, Clara, whose fireplace fell out and he had to get a contractor to put it back. I also give the name of Mr. William Smith of Clara who had a similar experience.

The Deputy said that there were a great number. He has only mentioned two.

I invite the Minister to go to Clara and to carry out the same inspection which three Deputies carried out but which two Fianna Fáil Deputies for Offaly reneged. It is deplorable that there should have to be such heavy expenditure on the ratepayers of Offaly on a new housing scheme. I would be pleased if the Minister would let us know why he is not prepared to publish the report received from the county council. Will he state if the engineers from the Department visited the scheme when it was in progress and what they reported? I should be very pleased to know if the full amount has been paid to the contractors, or if any money has been retained until the board of health or the county council are satisfied that the scheme was satisfactorily completed. I want the Minister to explain to the house if the scheme was completed in accordance with the specifications laid down. Were the fences made in accordance with the specifications and to the satisfaction of the Department? If the Minister will not disclose that information will he please give his reasons?

I merely intervene for a few minutes as I do not want to take up the time of other Deputies or the Minister. I was not in 144 of these houses. I visited three of them, and I was given to understand that these three could be taken as a pretty fair sample of the other houses. From my experience—and I have had to deal with houses—my impression is that as far as the building goes there is no fault to find. The houses were built in pairs according to a plan, with a fireplace and flue in the centre, which meant that the end rooms of all the houses were without any provision whatever for heating.

I regard that as a fault from the point of view of the comfort of the inhabitants, in health and in sickness —a fault in the plan and not a fault in the carrying out of the specifications or the plan. I regard that as a major defect, which from the point of view of health as well as the point of view of the comfort of the inhabitant, should be remedied by additional structural alteration even at this stage.

There is another thing that I am sure would be contained in any report to the Minister. A great number of houses was built on a comparatively small area of land. The density of the population of Clara itself is very, very great. There is no scavenging arrangements whatsoever. The amount of ground at the rear of each house is very, very small and, with all the garbage going out day after day, you reach a point where, with the best housekeeper and the most energetic occupant, you cannot keep burying all the time. The result is that at the back door of every house there is an objectionable and dangerous heap of excreta and garbage. That indicates the necessity for some scavenging scheme, if not for the whole town, certainly for the area of this new building.

The third thing that struck me about it was that the dividing fences that were between the different pairs of houses originally are in very many cases broken down, and in some cases they have ceased to exist. There were very big defects, probably the result of wear and tear, on the road leading round that particular part. The occasion I was there was in wet weather and, even well-equipped in the way of strong foot-gear, certainly, I could not go from the town of Clara to any one of those houses without having wet feet to a very considerable degree.

The points that struck me most forcibly were, the lack of proper arrangements for the heating of the end rooms, the failure to have any scheme for the removal of refuse and garbage, and that kind of thing, the disrepair of fences and the lack of maintenance of the roads. I think there is a subject matter to be looked into and inquired into.

Speaking in the House to-night, inside the last hour, on the responsibilities of the Minister for the supervision of the local authorities, the responsibilities of the local authorities and the Minister to the citizens, the Minister himself admitted that it was the duty of any good citizen who had a complaint against a local authority, and having made that complaint had failed to get satisfaction, to report these matters to the Minister, and that the Minister would, having regard to his responsibilities, follow the matter up. If that is the duty and the right of an ordinary citizen, I suggest it is the duty of a public representative, whether he be a member of a local authority or a member of this House, to bring such matters under the notice of the Minister in this House, having failed in other ways to get satisfaction. When I endeavoured to discharge my duty in that manner in the House this night week, I was almost refused a hearing, so far as the Minister could refuse me a hearing. He stated here, Sir, and it is on the official record, that he had no responsibility whatever in connection with matters of this kind. His reply to-day to the question put by Deputy Flanagan clearly proves that he accepts responsibility, and that he has acted on that responsibility. The concluding portion of the Minister's reply makes it clear that he has already contacted the county manager.

Will the Deputy read my reply?

The Minister says, "I am informed that the local authority have the matter under active consideration."

Do not be so selective.

"No immediate action on my part is called for."

Read the whole of the last part of my reply.

I submit that the reply given in the House to-day to the question addressed to him by Deputy Flanagan and myself entirely confirms the alleged ex parte statement which I made in the House this night week. I asserted, and the Minister now admits it, that the communication which I read from the Secretary of the Cottage Tenants' Improvement Association was a fair summary of the situation concerning the 144 tenants in Clara and I merely asked on that occasion that the Minister should send down one of his Departmental inspectors, whether a medical officer or an engineering officer, and find out and report to the Minister whether the situation was as serious as was represented to me and to my colleagues by the tenants themselves. However, I am very glad that the Minister at least has gone some way to meet us in connection with that matter.

In his reply here to-day he also stated that there were no complaints received from the tenants of cottages of a similar type built in the same county. I assert here that the Minister will find a file in his own Department containing serious complaints submitted by me in connection with defects in a large number of houses built in the town of Edenderry. I submitted suggestions from the tenants making certain offers of the payment of certain sums on certain conditions and the Minister authorised the head of a certain Department to write to me and say that he declined absolutely to accept the offer of the tenants. The tenants engaged a local solicitor and went to the District Court. They were beaten in the District Court but they brought the case on appeal to the last Circuit Court held in Tullamore. Judgment was given against the county manager and the county council on a case that the Minister refused to support. Who will pay the cost of that action? The tenants themselves probably will have to find some of the money. Look for the file in your Department concerning defects in Edenderry houses——

The Deputy——

Look for the file——

I do not think the Deputy is defective of hearing. The Deputy should address the Chair.

If the Minister looks for the file in connection with the Edenderry case he will find there is no justification for the statement made in the reply which he has given to Deputy Flanagan to-day. The Minister says in his reply, in connection with the defective ranges, that the tenants were not unanimous about having the ranges removed. Would not it be a very difficult thing to have unanimity amongst 144 tenants on any aspect of the complaints made by them and, supposing the Minister received a resolution from the tenants, passed unanimously, telling him that the houses were not worth anything in the shape of rent, would he accept their opinion because it was passed unanimously? It is a silly thing to suggest that the tenants should be unanimous in connection with the matters that have been brought under notice. He says the tenants cannot be provided with special amenities to suit all the individual requirements of the particular tenants. This is all pure evasion. I put this point to the Minister in all sincerity: If this is a democratically established Parliament and if the members of local authorities still have any power left, surely they have a right to hear the contents of a communication addressed to the Minister by the county manager in connection with a serious complaint of this kind?

Not at all.

If the Minister seriously tells this House and the citizens of this country that Deputies of Dáil Eireann, elected by the people of Laoighis and Offaly or any other constituency, or county councillors elected to the councils of that particular constituency, the guardians of the ratepayers, the men who strike the rate and collect the rate, have no right to the contents of a report in connection with a matter of this kind, then neither the members of this House nor the members of local authorities have any power left.

Hear, hear.

The members of the local authority under the Managerial Act are the only people who can strike a rate for local development purposes, housing, the maintenance of roads, or anything else, and the county manager could not carry on local activities were it not that they had the right to exercise that power. Of course, the Minister would wipe them out if they refused to do so.

But if they are the people who are still vested with the power to collect these rates from the ratepayers of a particular locality, they are certainly seriously concerned and are at least entitled to the contents of a report of this kind. If the Minister has not already done so, I suggest that he should, in common decency, allow the members of the Offaly County Council to have at their disposal the contents of this report and should ask for their observations and recommendations in connection with a serious matter of this kind. I do not want to deprive the Minister of his rights. The Minister deprived me of my rights this night week. I will not copy him, because he gave a bad example. I will leave him his rights, if he wishes to exercise them.

Where is Deputy Gorry?

He is not following a Jack-o'-Lantern like you. Deputy Davin has very peculiar ideas. He is now trying to establish in this country a system which I think exists elsewhere, whereby every public document becomes the property of any member of Parliament who cares to ask for it. It is a well-established fact that the files of Government Departments are privileged. Not even the courts can demand the production of documents in certain circumstances. I just want to clear that matter up, because that is the sort of ridiculous thing which Deputy Davin tries to put over on the people of this country, and on this House every time he addresses it. Let me say that what I said on the last occasion on which this matter was raised was quite correct in the context in which it was given. I have at this moment no responsibility in regard to this matter, and I said that in my reply to-day. The matter is for the consideration of the Offaly County Council. No member of the Offaly County Council has addressed me in regard to it. I have received no complaints from the Offaly County Council in regard to it. I suppose I receive a lot of communications from Deputy Flanagan, but I think his connection with Offaly is very tenuous, and I am sure will not be very long-lived.

You will know that after the next election.

So will you. Let me repeat that this matter is primarily one for the Offaly County Council. Of course, I know that some Deputies want to get a little cheap publicity out of it. It is clear from some of the statements made that either the Offaly County Council as a body, the officers of the Offaly County Council or, as I suspect, having listened to Deputy Davin's speech and the speech of Deputy Flanagan, the contractor responsible for building these houses——

What about the clerk of works?

Quite clearly from that remark there is the personal credit and reputation of some person involved in this matter. As to the condition of these houses, I prefer to take the very moderate and temperate statement of Deputy O'Higgins. Some of them are, perhaps, not exactly as we would like to see them. But, if they are in that condition because of some culpable negligence on the part of a local officer, I would have thought that the members of the Offaly County Council would have been concerned to bring that matter to my notice and to demand a sworn inquiry, with, of course, the consequences that might follow therefrom. But, of course, the position in relation to these houses, and the Deputies know it, is that the houses were built under emergency conditions. They have cost £430 each. They have not some of the amenities which houses built earlier have, because the materials in some instances were not available and it was necessary to keep the cost of the houses as low as possible so as to avoid putting an undue burden on the ratepayers, on the taxpayers and on the tenants.

They were built in 1939.

These houses were not built in 1939. That shows at how little pains the Deputy has been to ascertain the facts. These houses were first occupied in 1942. They were built during the emergency and, as I have said, to keep the burden on the three parties concerned as moderate as possible and, in particular, in order to keep the rents low, certain economies had to be made. Now, a proposal has been put up to the tenants of these cottages which should meet them fairly reasonably.

I understand that the council has indicated that it is prepared to carry out certain improvements in these cottages provided the tenants are prepared to contribute something. But, thanks to the misguided advice of Deputy Flanagan, they are taking up the attitude that they are not going to pay anything.

On a point of order. I never at any time advised the tenants in question not to pay any rents.

That is not a point of order. It is a point of personal explanation.

The statement is untrue.

The Deputy's record in relation to the fiscal responsibilities of the people is not a very clean one.

The tenants did not take that line.

I am advised that the tenants have refused——

Could the Minister say who advised them?

——to make any contribution whatsoever towards the cost of the improvements they are demanding. I think it is a most unreasonable attitude. When I think of the number of people who are without houses, without decent homes, and when I think of the way I am beseiged day after day in Dublin to find houses for young people who are anxious to get married, or who have married and have small families, and the number of times I am besieged to get houses for people who have been long married and have large families and the rents which people have to pay, and I find myself faced with this sort of ramp run by two Deputies in order to get a little cheap publicity for themselves, it infuriates me——

I am not surprised.

Could the Minister give us a definition of the word "ramp"?

——as it would infuriate any other person with a sense of seriousness of the housing problem. If Deputies were doing their duty as public men, they would tell these people, who are trying to extort from the ratepayers and the community at large additional benefits without contributing, that they ought to be thankful that they have these houses when so many other people are without them.

Will the Minister come down to Clara?

The Dáil adjourned at 10.30 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Friday, 1st March, 1946.

Top
Share