I move:—
In page 8 to delete the following:—
No. 24 of 1936. |
Labourers Act, 1936. |
Sub-section (2) of Section 18. |
It is rather extraordinary that such an amendment as this should have to be moved. The Bill has been welcomed by all Parties as being both necessary and desirable for the promotion of housing but I propose now that we should not delete sub-section (2) of Section 18 of the Labourers Act, 1936. The deletion of that sub-section means in effect that the right of appeal vested in the tenants when they come to buy their homes from the county councils is being taken away from them. No statutory provision is being put in its place.
The Minister, in introducing the Bill last evening, said that there are so many technicians and so much technical advice now available to local authorities it is considered unnecessary to have the right of appeal still vested in the tenants. I think that is a senseless suggestion, because if these people buy their homes from the county council or the board of health, as the case may be, these bodies are the custodians of the property for the Minister and they must see that the houses are handed over in proper order and repair. Hitherto the tenants had the right of appeal to the Minister if they were not satisfied. That is the first and last time they have that appeal, because once the job is done the tenants must assume responsibility for maintenance subsequently. I do not know what has inspired the Minister to introduce this provision. The allegation seems to be that staffs are too busy to give their time to this inspection work in connection with appeals, but there is no evidence to justify or warrant that assumption.
Delay in vesting has taken place for many reasons, but appealing to the Minister because of lack of proper repair was not one of them. If this is being done in anticipation of tenants being housed in greater numbers than in the past, I still think the provision is unwarranted. I also think it is an unwarranted assumption on the Minister's part that he will not have enough inspectors to deal with appeals, because he anticipates, quite unjustifiably, a large number of appeals; no one can say that numbers of people will make appeals of a vexatious or frivolous character. If their houses are given to them in a satisfactory state of repair that will be the end of it. Some tenants may hold that the job is not properly done and, if they are of that opinion, I think they are perfectly entitled to appeal, because it will be the last occasion on which they will have an opportunity of doing so.
If this section in the Schedule is permitted to go through, then there will be no appeal because the county board of health can do the repairs to the houses. In many cases they are done by direct labour and in other cases by contractors under the auspices of the board of health. It has been suggested that the appeals can be done locally. That would be, so to speak, appealing against yourself. I think that this section is perfectly unfair and unnecessary. In fact, I suggest that it is irrelevant to introduce it at the end of a very nice Bill because really it has no relation to a Housing Bill at all. I am strongly of opinion that it should not be allowed to go through. I think the Minister should be able to see his way to agree to its deletion because it has no relation to the Bill proper. It is inflicting an unwarranted intrusion on the tenants and is depriving them of the statutory right which was given to them under the 1936 Act.