In answer to a supplementary question on Wednesday of last week the Minister stated that he understood that the houses built on the site were found to be unsuitable. These houses were reserved for fishermen, he said, and were only built there so that the fishermen could be near their nets and boats. It is important for us to realise that what applied a few years ago on the occasion that these houses for fishermen were built also applies to this request. It cannot be assumed that there are no more than five or six families of fishermen in World's End, Kinsale. In 1948 and also in January, 1950, circulars were sent out from the Department of Local Government drawing particular attention to the fact that it would be advisable for local authorities to avail of derelict sites which might be suitable for housing. In these circulars special stress was laid on the fact that by utilising derelict sites expense could be saved owing to the availability of roads, lighting, water and sewerage. If these facts pointed out in the circulars are of importance it is well for us to understand that the sites selected by the officials in Kinsale have the advantages of roadways, light, sewerage and water. If we are to consider the importance of building on suitable derelict sites we must remember that. This site is a derelict one and I believe that it comes within the ambit of these two circulars.
Let us come back to the point which I would like the Minister to explain. Already some houses have been built on a site adjacent to this particular site. The Minister may, of course, tell us that it was on the advice of the inspector concerned that sanction was refused to the local council. May we not consider, however, that the local authority selected that site only on the advice of their own architect who is qualified in all respects? He pointed out that the site was suitable. In the reply last Wednesday it was stated that the Minister was not aware that sites were not available. This answer cannot be correct because the Minister must be or should be aware that quite recently an inquiry was held in Cork City into the possibility of getting sites adjacent to the town of Kinsale and the inspector, who I presume presided over that inquiry, made it quite clear in his report to the Minister that no sites for building were available and in particular no sites of the excellence so often expected by inspectors. On that occasion we requested sanction for one and a quarter acres and, unfortunately, our request was turned down. The Minister must know, therefore, that sites are not available in the locality —there may be one or two places where we might get a couple of houses.
Surely the Minister must be aware from the reports in his Department that a number of sites are necessary to house the people who are living in condemned houses in the town of Kinsale. He must also be aware that the local authority fulfilling their responsibility to the people have requested sanction for this site because there are more than a few families of fishermen and we want these fishermen housed adjacent to their work, to their boats and their gear. They have lived in this place for many generations back. Unfortunately, the houses they were in were condemned, houses built perhaps the best part of 100 years ago. Some have been rehoused and all we are asking is that houses may be built on this derelict site. The Minister may tell us that this site is not admirable in every respect. If we could get a better site we would be pleased to seek sanction for it, but I know from my own knowledge of the area that we cannot get sites which the architect would completely approve. We believe that it would be better for us to use sites which might not be ideal but which we can at least say are satisfactory than to leave people living in the town of Kinsale under conditions which are certainly not ideal either from the housing or from the Christian point of view.
This decision means that the local authority must leave these applicants for homes for a long period in the same unsatisfactory houses in which they have been living for some time past. Surely, no matter what Government may be in power, no matter who may hold the office of Minister for Local Government, the provision of homes for our people should be of prime importance. I realise that the Minister, no matter who the individual person may be, may perhaps take it for granted that reports coming to him about such sites are final and that he just puts his signature to them, but I speak from experience of the area, knowing the area and knowing that this particular site is one on which houses could be built. If sanction were given now these people could at least hope to be living in decent homes within the next eight or ten months. As things are, however, the local authority must search around from corner to corner in Kinsale. Two sites outside this particular site have already been condemned in Kinsale. Surely the Minister on his own initiative must come to the conclusion that something is wrong when all the sites offered or suggested in that locality are turned down. When we cannot get an ideal site which would fulfil all the requirements to the utmost, then surely the local authority in their wisdom, the members of which are anxious to see the people housed, must accept this site as suitable. The architect also accepts this fact, as he must if he accepts the responsibility placed upon him. That is why I am asking the Minister to-night, if possible, to have this matter reconsidered.
There is no use in our saying that the local authority will again go looking for sites, because sanction having been refused in so many instances, it means that the time is coming when they will perhaps finally decide that it is no use for them to get their architect to pick any particular site.
In the reply of last Wednesday it was stated that the houses were found to be unsuitable, which to me sounds extraordinary. Surely before the houses were built an inspector inspected the site, and if he in his wisdom reported that the site was suitable for houses it is a strange statement to hear at this stage, when the houses have been built and occupied, that the report says the houses are unsuitable. If the present site is unsuitable the first should have been unsuitable, and if the first site was unsuitable there was something wrong in the giving of sanction in that instance. My firm belief is that the Minister, in sanctioning the first site, was acting properly and I believe that the inspector, in seeking sanction, was also right. If the decision on that occasion was that the site was suitable there should be no difference between that decision and the decision in this respect. It means that the local authority are not now in a position to continue their housing scheme in that area and that time is going to be wasted in looking for other sites. From my own local knowledge I know that other sites that may be procured will be condemned equally because they are not even as good as the site being offered at present.
I feel that normally there should be no occasion for raising a matter such as this on the Adjournment, but unfortunately it seems that there is some sort of set against the whole thing in the areas adjacent to this district. It seems that the reports are totally inadequate or that something is wrong. The Minister knows, or should know, that there are too many rejections of sites in that area, but I can say definitely that I have never supported a scheme for the building of houses on any sites except those sites which were suitable. I want the Minister to have this matter reinvestigated, and if the Minister refuses on this occasion to give the necessary sanction he must take on himself the responsibility for a position in which the rejection of this site will mean that no houses will be built in that area for the next few years.
