When I addressed Question No. 47 on the Order Paper to the Minister to-day, I had hoped that the reply would be such that there would be no necessity whatsoever for me to speak to-night on the Adjournment. Such, unfortunately, not being the case I now find myself in the position of drawing more attention to the important facts relating to this question.
These people were notified on 24th August last that they should leave these houses. They were to leave them on a date not later than 8th September, but I say now, as perhaps I may have said to-day, that it is an extraordinary fact that they were not told that they would have to vacate these houses until after they asked the Department to put the houses in a proper state of repair. The Department suddenly discovered something wonderful; they discovered in August, 1951, that these houses were in a bad condition, that they were not fit for repair and that they would cost too much to repair, on the basis of the rent being charged for them. It is a pity that the Department and those concerned did not realise, in June, 1949, when they took possession of these houses, that they were then in a bad state of repair. It is now admitted at this late hour that the Department of Defence found it suitable to take rent from tenants of houses which were supposed to be unfit for human habitation from June, 1949, until August, 1951, when the tenants asked that their houses be repaired. That in itself, is worth consideration.
The Minister, in his reply to-day, drew attention to circulars sent to the Department by the Cork County Council and he mentioned in particular a circular which demanded that these houses be demolished. I said to-day, and I now reiterate, that the first thing the Cork County Council did, as they do with all landlords of condemned houses, was to send what is commonly known as Circular No. 5 asking if the Department were willing to put these houses in repair. In this instance, it was a matter of three houses at the same place in Ballincolling the tenants of which had, by then, secured alternative accommodation from the local authority.
The Minister did not say to-day whether or not his Department had seen fit to reply to the Cork County Council in the first instance. Does any Minister think he should be immune from the regulations which, of necessity, must apply to every landlord in this country or, at any rate, in County Cork, where the tenant of a condemned house has acquired other accommodation? Is it that the Department can ignore this Order No. 5, if it was received?
That, in itself, is important in view of the fact that in the written reply to-day there was no reference to anything other than Circular No. 6, which demanded the demolition of these houses. When did the Department get this Order No. 5 or Order No. 6? They got it only when three tenants of houses owned by the Department got alternative accommodation in the village of Ballincollig and got that accommodation in houses built by the local authority. It must, therefore, be realised that even at that stage the local authority, realising its responsibility to the people living in bad houses, did their utmost to place at the disposal of these people houses of a decent type. Unfortunately, it is quite evident that the Department did not think their responsibility went so far as to include the housing of people in decent conditions.
The Minister may say that people other than members of the Defence Forces got houses. That, of course, is true, but when we realise that amongst those who acquired some of these new houses built by the local authority in that area were people who still are members of the Defence Forces, can we not point the finger at the Department and say that we are to the best of our ability providing houses for civilian workers and for the families of members of the Defence Forces? It has been proved in this instance, because it is only when they are in bad houses that these tenants can secure alternative accommodation, that some members of the Defence Forces and their families have been living in bad houses in that area and that it was left to the local authority to provide alternative accommodation.
The whole point in that respect is quite clear. In the reply, that aspect was evaded in so far as there was no mention of the local authority facing up to its responsibilities in the matter of housing people to whose housing in better conditions the Department should give consideration. In such circumstances as this, politics must, of necessity, be left out, because we are dealing with the conditions of people living in houses and perhaps I might get the same answer as I got to-day, no matter what Government was in office, but the Minister will realise that my point to-night is simply and solely to draw attention to the condition of these people. There are four families still there. The Minister may ask why local authorities cannot offer alternative accommodation to them. My answer is clear. Three applicants from these houses secured accommodation and on that occasion it was quite open to the tenants of the houses we are speaking of to-night to apply. I believe some of them did apply, but the local authority's view, through their engineer and medical officer, was that the houses in which there are still tenants were not as bad in any way as the houses from which the other three tenants got alternative houses. Therefore, I think it is unjust that the answer here to-day is tied up with three other houses which have no bearing whatever on those which were the subject of my question, no more than houses in a Dublin or Cork street. Are we to suggest that if one house is condemned the houses on each side of it must be equally bad? I ask the Minister to give that consideration. If it were the seven tenants, they would automatically have qualified for other houses, to the exclusion of other people. Like all the members of Cork County Council in the South Cork area, I accepted the report from the engineer and the doctor that the houses where the tenants did not secure alternative accommodation were not as bad as those from which the other tenants left.
The Minister mentioned the cost of repairs. I had hoped I would not have to raise this question on the Adjournment to-night, but if it were for nothing else than that part of the statement given by the Minister. I consider it my duty to answer that challenge. It is a worry, apparently, for the Department of Defence to repair these houses. They are complaining about the possible cost of repairs. Did they complain at all when they got this property from Imperial Chemicals? Did they worry then about the repairs or give any consideration to the tenants at that period? I admit, without hesitation, that in 1949 these houses could and should have been repaired. If the Department of Defence had done it then, it would not have cost as much as it may cost now. The Minister baulks at the possible cost of repairs. May I ask if he wishes us to baulk at the worry and responsibility which is placed on every member of a local authority when we find that members of the Defence Forces, with their wives and families are in local authority houses subsidised by the rates? Is the Minister aware that there is no economic rent on these houses, that the amount paid is not sufficient on an economic basis to meet the total cost of these houses? The local authorities have accepted their obligations and have realised that, even if it imposes an extra burden on the ratepayers, it is their duty to see that these people, the children whose fathers are serving in the Defence Forces, are provided with decent living conditions. That is my answer to this extraordinary innuendo, in which a responsible Minister of State objects to putting houses in proper repair, simply because, using the old ideas of the landlord class, the rents are not sufficiently high to enable them to get their pound of flesh from the tenants, tenants who have been there for many years back.
This recommendation which came from the Cork County Council to the Minister's office had behind it the unanimous support of every member of that local authority. I am sorry, I had hoped that even members of the Minister's Party would remain to-night to try and stand by me in asking justice for these people. In fairness to them, let me say they did at least support me when I moved this at a Cork County Council meeting. They then supported me and agreed unanimously with all other members of all other Parties that we request the Department to reconsider this important item.
There is no question of personalities in this, neither do I wish to have vindictiveness brought into such a matter. The Minister admitted to-day that he had seen these houses. I have seen them and I know them, and what is more, I know the people who live in them. I know that if the Minister and his Department stand by their ultimatum and threaten to evict these people, some of them who are old and drawing the old age pension will be homeless.
We can do no more at present as a local authority. We are trying to build as many houses as possible, but at present we have no homes for these people. Is the Minister going to take on himself the responsibility of seeing these people homeless? We have catered even for members of his Defence Forces and have placed them in decent houses. Why should the Department of Defence now threaten to put old and honest people out of their houses simply because they ask for repairs? I ask the Minister in all sincerity if he is willing even now to have this matter reopened and reinvestigated. Let it be kept separate from the question he referred to to-day when he stated that the Cork County Council by Order No. 6 maintained that three houses were uninhabitable. The council only decided that after Form No. 5 was ignored. It was only then they acted. I ask the Minister, in considering all the aspects of this case, to realise that this letter from the council —which I believe at least up to a week ago was not even acknowledged by his Department—should receive that genuine consideration to which it is entitled. It has the backing of not only one member but every member of the South Cork Board of Health. We want to see these people in the best of houses and we want to see the Department facing up to its responsibility, which is to try to repair the houses which can be repaired and which should be repaired. If that is done then I will be satisfied.
