I understand that this amendment is being taken with amendment No. 57.
Private Members' Business. - Housing Bill, 1965: Committee Stage (Resumed).
Debate resumed on the following amendment:
In page 37, between lines 10 and 11, to insert new paragraphs as follows:
( ) to what extent there exists in any area a shortage of houses at centres of employment,
( ) the demand or need for the provision of sites for private building, especially in urban and nonmunicipal areas,
( ) the demand or need for the provision of houses for newly weds,
( ) the demand or need for the provision of hostels, or temporary or emergency accommodation for homeless persons who cannot be accommodated at an early date because of letting priorities.
—(Deputy James Tully)
With amendments Nos. 59 and 63.
The purpose of the amendment put down by Deputy Clinton and me is to widen the investigations which local authorities should make. At the moment there is only one sure way of getting a house from a local authority, that is, to marry young, breed like rabbits, go into a place which is dangerous or insanitary, or grossly overcrowded, and then contract some highly contagious disease. Then you have a chance within the foreseeable future of being housed by the local authority. That appalling situation arises because of the limitation we put upon the duties of public authorities to house our people and we think that the housing of our people is a much greater social obligation on people in a Christian society than the mere relief of distress which we allow to develop by our negligence.
That is why we seek to have consideration given not only to houses regarded as unfit for human habitation, not only to ascertain what overcrowding exists but also what people are paying beyond their means for housing accommodation. At present there are several hundred families who are not on the waiting list of Dublin Corporation because they are not regarded by the chief medical officer as being in need of housing. They are not overcrowded and not suffering from a contagious disease; they are not in a dangerous dwelling or in a dwelling unfit for human habitation; but they are in dwellings which are far beyond their capacity to pay for.
I am thinking of families whose income is from £10 to £12 per week and in which there are four, five or six mouths to feed and whose rents range from £3 to £6 a week. They cannot be housed under our existing code and cannot have any hope of being housed by Dublin Corporation for several years to come. It is in order to ascertain their true needs for housing that we ask that it be a statutory duty on local authorities to ascertain the rents people are paying for housing accommodation and that where they have knowledge of people paying more than a certain proportion of their income, they be listed so that society can endeavour to come to their assistance. If we fail these people, we are doing serious damage to the family and to the children.
There are many families in Dublin to whom essential food, medicines and clothing are not available because they are paying rents they are not in a position to pay. It is accepted generally that even amongst well-to-do people the proportion of income paid for housing accommodation should never exceed one-quarter. That is for people who have a large proportion of income which they can spend on luxuries and things essential to the preservation of life. With our local authority differential rent system, we consider the maximum should be one-sixth of income. Where we have newly-weds getting houses, people who have no dependants, we consider the maximum they should be required to pay out of income is one-fifth. But allowing the most generous provision it is regarded by sociologists that the maximum people should pay for housing accommodation is one-quarter of their income. At present we have hundreds of people in this city paying as much as half of their income for housing accommodation and these are people who, because of the large number of dependants and other obligations they have, cannot afford it.
Therefore, we seek in our amendment that the investigation should see to what extent people are paying rents for housing accommodation which impose undue hardship on them.
We also seek that the number of old persons living in accommodation or in circumstances unsuitable for elderly persons should be ascertained. At present there are in Dublin and I am sure in other urban centres many elderly people living alone in housing accommodation which is greater than their needs and which, perhaps, is beyond their capacity to pay for, and certainly to maintain, and it is highly desirable to encourage elderly people living in such circumstances to go into smaller units of accommodation more suited to their age and physical abilities.
It is true, I think, that the average house is unsuitable for people physically handicapped, and that includes old people and, as a society, we must provide an increasing number of housing units for elderly people but in order to ascertain the true need for such housing accommodation we must know not only the people who have already applied for it but also the people who could be helped and those who are occupying housing accommodation in excess of their needs and who could go into specially provided accommodation provided for older people and who could thereby contribute accommodation to provide housing for larger families.
This can be done in a way which would assist elderly people. Clearly it would be wrong to force any old person to leave the housing accommodation he is in even if it is in excess of his requirements but, again, there are many old people who are not on the approved list of housing applicants in Dublin because they do not fall into the categories of living in unfit, unsuitable or insanitary dwellings and as such do not become eligible under the very rigid code that has to be applied in present circumstances. It is in order to get away from the mendicant level of housing that we seek that under this legislation in future local authorities should keep under constant examination the number of elderly people living alone in large housing accommodation or accommodation which is unsuitable and that steps should be taken to entice such people to move to housing accommodation which would be better for them in their less capable years.
We also think it desirable that investigation should be made to ascertain the suitability of premises for conversion into multiple dwellings. Again, in many large urban centres there is likely to be a large number of large houses which are under-used for housing people but many of these units of housing accommodation are not known to local authorities and are occupied by people who find it extremely difficult to pay the outgoings on them. It could be of assistance to the occupants of those houses and certainly to the local authorities trying to meet housing demands if such houses could be turned over for coversion into dwellings so that they could house a larger number of people. It is in order to ascertain people of that class that we seek in our amendment to have the investigation of local authorities extended into that area also.
In the White Paper on housing which the Government published last year they rightly drew attention to the large number of houses which will be required to meet future obsolescence but we have not, as yet, any accurate figure of the amount of future obsolescence or the dates within which it will be necessary to replace any given number of houses. In order to avoid in the future a continuation of the situation we now have, that people must be in obsolescent dwellings and in terrible living conditions before they are rehoused, we should like to see local authorities regarding it as a constant duty to ascertain future obsolescence so that new housing accommodation can be provided before the dwellings become unfit for human habitation.
It is clearly desirable socially that we should have workers as close as possible to centres of employment. Apart from rents, which can impose a considerable burden on workers' families in urban centres, the cost of travelling from home to work and back again in the evenings and the cost of transporting children to and from school and in other cases can impose an immense burden on family incomes. We think it desirable that housing should be provided near the centre of employment. We think this is something that the Minister and others have not overlooked but it is in order to prevent any indifference in regard to these fundamental matters in future that Deputy Clinton with other members of the Fine Gael Party and myself are asking the House here to write these statutory obligations into this new Housing Bill so that these vital matters will not be left to the whim of any Minister in future. If you do not write them in as a matter of statutory duty there is the danger that, for political purposes from time to time or if finances are restricted, Ministers may postpone their duty or may ask local authorities to postpone their duty in respect of these necessary social purposes. That is why we seek to spell them out here while we do not in any way seek to limit the power which the Minister might have to direct local authorities to inquire into other matters in addition to those we have set out.
We also ask in our amendment No. 57 that the investigation should ascertain the number of persons residing in housing accommodation provided by their employers which they will be required to vacate on the termination of their employment. This is also a very important matter. I am not sure of the exact number—I do not know if anybody can get it—but I think it is true that there are some hundreds of persons in Dublin who for one reason or other have terminated their employment in respect of which they were originally allocated the house in which they live. Some employers are tolerant and have permitted former employees to remain in the houses which the employers gave them. There are others not so tolerant. This can throw on to the public housing demand people who then have to wait in line according to the number of families which may be regarded for the time being as being in greater need than they are.
Yesterday, a Deputy asked the Minister for Defence if he would state the number of overholders in Army married quarters. I do not recollect the number given in the reply but some time ago the number of overholders in Army married quarters was 94 or 96 families. That is a colossal number. It is a terrible thought that there are as many soldiers' families seeking to get into married quarters as there are overholders who cannot get out because there is no alternative housing accommodation available for them.
There are cases where a mother and children are required, on the death of the father, to vacate a house that belongs to the father's employers. It is in order that we may know just how serious that problem is that we seek in this amendment to have an assessment made of the future housing needs of these people. If it is known that there will be 100 such families in Dublin seeking accommodation, then the accommodation should be built to provide for them. Frequently, at the time of greatest need and anguish, when the breadwinner dies, the family are asked to vacate the house.
There is also the situation in regard to CIE houses. In recent times, on the termination of rail services, a number of railway employees have been transferred from the country to Dublin. At Inchicore and other places in Dublin, CIE have housing estates which are intended for their employees but because the company is acting humanely in not dispossessing widows and orphans or pensioners, railway employees transferred from the country are unable to get accommodation in CIE houses, and, as they have not got the necessary residential qualification in Dublin, they cannot be housed by Dublin Corporation. The result is that there are numerous workers who have been transferred from the country paying rents in Dublin of £3, £4 and £5 a week for flats. When serving in the country, these people may have been on wage rates that were marginally below the Dublin wage rate and, on transfer to Dublin, may get a marginal increase in their wage rate but that does not compensate them for the increase in the rent they have to pay from, say, 10/- in the country to £3, £4 or £5 a week in Dublin.
We seek in these amendments to have all these circumstances within the knowledge of the local authorities so that the needs can be provided for in advance, so that people will not be required, as a matter of social housing policy, to breed like rabbits, to live in insanitary or dangerous dwellings and run the risk of contracting a highly contagious disease before they can be housed.
In amendment No. 59 we ask that local authorities should ascertain the future demand for housing arising from redevelopment causing displacement of persons. Since 1960, the position has been that people can be dispossessed of housing accommodation by reason of the Rent Restrictions Act, 1960, where the owner of the property can show that he can benefit financially by redevelopment. There is no obligation on such property owner to provide alternative housing accommodation for people who are dispossessed for redevelopment purposes and Dublin Corporation, like other local authorities, has been faced with applications from people who are being dispossessed of accommodation and who are unable to obtain alternative accommodation except from the local authority.
Under the Rent Restrictions Act, 1960, such people may receive compensation which, according to the Act, shall not be less than three years' rent including rates but the maximum of such compensation awarded by the courts is, I understand, in the region of £500, an amount which is insufficient to buy even a garage for such people in these days. Because of the fact that we have not ascertained the potential demand arising out of redevelopment, we have not provided for the needs of such people.
It may well be that this problem could be solved more directly by an amendment of the Rent Restrictions Act, 1960, so as to oblige property owners to provide alternative housing accommodation rather than compensation which is related to a decontrolled rent but so long as the 1960 Act remains as it is, there is clearly a need for society to provide alternative housing accommodation for people dispossessed because of redevelopment. We believe that housing authorities, in the preparation of their reports, ought to have regard to this matter.
Apart from what private property owners may do, urban authorities, under the new planning legislation, have a specific duty to consider areas of redevelopment. We consider that they must also be conscious of the housing demands which may be created by such urban redevelopment and urban renewal. It is for the purpose of ensuring that this matter is not overlooked that we ask that it be considered in any report that is put before the Minister.
We believe that local authorities should consider housing needs arising from industrialisation. I do not think that this is a matter which affects Dublin to the same extent as it affects areas in the country in which industries may be established and in which there is not sufficient housing accommodation available. In the case of Dublin, there is an ample supply of labour for any industry but there have been cases where industries have been established in towns and villages for the purpose of giving local employment and because of the lack of housing accommodation elaborate transport services have had to be provided to outlying districts in order to bring workers to the factories. In order that there may be a rational association between industrialisation and housing, consideration of this matter should be a statutory duty such as we have spelt out in our amendments.
All these suggestions are related to the need that I mentioned at the beginning to get away from the limited housing objective that we have had. One appreciates that at present and for some time the immediate and most urgent priority must be the relief of the appalling misery in which thousands of people are forced to live today. It is in order to prevent the possibility of future generations having to endure the same sufferings that we ask for an enlightened approach to the whole housing problem and that our future needs be ascertained in the light of the social objectives which we set out. We should not leave this purely to ministerial whim but spell it out and put it into this Act rather than leave it to some casual action of the present Minister or his successor in the years to come.
Because of the complex nature of this section and the even more complex nature of the amendments, I shall try to stick to the amendments before the House. Yesterday evening I went in detail into amendment No. 56 and there is nothing further I wish to add to what I then said. However, I should like to say that amendment No. 57, which in some ways resembles amendment No. 56, deals with providing housing accommodation for people who must vacate their houses on termination of their employment. That, in my opinion, is an excellent amendment. This is a matter which has had the attention of numerous local authorities over the years and we have all had the experience of persons who, when a housing scheme is being prepared in an area, feel they are already in good housing conditions and do not need to seek rehousing from the local authority. But before the scheme is completed, those people have lost their jobs and therefore the houses, and they are perhaps the worst housed people in the area.
We feel the Minister might consider making arrangements to have such people included in the two-thirds subsidy because at the present time they are only included in the one-third subsidy scheme and most local authorities will not be expected to offer rehousing to people in such a situation. Still another category is closely related to that I have just referred to—people who, when getting married, are offered temporary accommodation by somebody who has a vacant house. Even after they have got a notice to quit, such people cannot be rehoused unless the council are prepared to find two-thirds of the loan charges, because the Department will put up only one-third of the cost. The Minister should give consideration to the possibility of including those people in the Bill. I am sure the position in Donegal and Wicklow is the very same as it is in Meath. There are numerous cases in each area. The Minister would be well advised to have them included now because if they are not in the Bill now, they may never be included.
The fact that a number of amendments are being taken together and that some of them do not refer to the section now being debated makes the matter rather complicated. For instance, section 49 refers to redevelopment causing displacement of persons. Amendment No. 63 proposed by members of the Labour Party, deals with the provision of housing accommodation adjacent to centres of employment and for emigrants desiring to return to their native areas. That has already been partially covered by the proposed subsection (3) of amendment No. 56. The matter of providing housing for returned emigrants is at present being dealt with by some local authorities. I am aware that if a person lives in a local authority area, at any time the local authority may rehouse him, while in other local authority areas, unless people are in fact living in bad conditions at the time a house becomes vacant or a scheme of houses is completed, they cannot be considered for rehousing.
The Minister might consider dealing with this question by adding to the appropriate section the amendments suggested by the Labour Party. I know quite well the Minister may point out that it is difficult to find housing accommodation for those who are living in an area and already in need. That is a valid argument but it does not answer the problem of somebody living on the borders of Kildare, or Dublin, or Meath and who, for one reason or another, has to leave the house and go to live in another county. If that person applies for a house in the county to which he has had to go, he cannot be considered for rehousing, even though he left a house to go there. The Minister should try to have this matter resolved so that there will be a chance of transfer from one county to another.
Occasionally we have a situation where a cottage may become vacant in an area near the border of two counties but where it will not suit the people living in one county to take up residence. Such a case is, of course, very rare but it has happened. The neighbouring county authorities may be only too glad to avail of the the accommodation offered for some person living in their county. There could be a reciprocal arrangement so that transfers could take place in such cases. As the law stands, it is not permissible, and if it is done, it is without the Minister or the Department knowing anything about it. I appeal to the Minister to pay a lot more attention to things like this and have provision made for them in the Bill because the Bill, as he himself said on Second Reading, is legislation for the future. We will not have a housing Bill for many years in the normal course of events. Therefore, every effort should be made to include in this Bill all the things we want done.
The Minister will probably say he is making arrangements which will cover most of the needs dealt with in the amendments but there are a number of amendments which are not dealt with at all and the Minister must take account of them and do something to try to have them included in the present legislation. One of the matters dealt with in the proposed new subsection (c) in amendment No. 57 is of great importance to people living in towns. It is true that a certain type of accommodation is available for people in country towns. Flats can be obtained which people earning between £8 and £12 a week may go into and be asked to pay a weekly rent of anything between £2 10s. and £4 10s. In most cases the use of the flat is given only when there are no children.
This is a matter which the Minister must take into account because there are two things wrong with it. The first is that the person who is paying an exorbitant rent for that flat is paying more than he can afford. The family suffer as a result of this payment. The fact that such a rent is being paid should be accepted by the local authority as a good reason why those people should be rehoused.
The second question is the question of the people who have temporary accommodation in such flat and who must give it up if there is a child in the family. The Minister should take steps either to outlaw that sort of tenancy altogether or make it illegal for a landlord to take possession of such accommodation because there is a child in the family or, alternatively, the Minister should arrange to provide accommodation for people who find themselves in those conditions. It is perfectly reasonable to ask that this be done, and the Minister can do it in this Bill if he wishes to do so.
It is no answer to say that, if all these things were included, the cost to the local authority would be too great and it would be impossible for them to meet all the demands for housing. Do not forget that less than three years ago the local authorities, whether of their own volition or on the advice of the Department, were publicly saying that the housing problem was almost solved and that we would soon reach the situation here in which no more houses would be required for a considerable period. The very people singing that chant then now find that there are more new houses needed than ever before.
This question of finding houses must be faced. There is no point in saying that the local authorities cannot meet it; they have to meet the problem. The Department should make provision in this Bill so that there will be no loop-hole allowing a local authority to say: "We are not responsible. These people must find houses even if there is no money available in the Local Loans Fund. They must find accommodation elsewhere; we cannot be held responsible for them." The original idea that the local authority is responsible for housing people unable to house themselves should not be lost sight of; neither should the fact that housing should be the first priority with every local authority.
There are a number of things which should not be lost sight of. There is a duty on us to try to provide houses for ourselves and the community undertakes the obligation to provide for those who cannot provide for themselves. I have no objection to the aims of these amendments, although I might not feel desirous of accepting them in this or any other form.
The whole idea of a housing survey is directed towards ascertaining housing needs on a methodical basis. In section 53, as it now stands, there is an obligation on local authorities to do this job. The general principles are outlined there, admittedly in more brief form than that given by the speakers to the amendment. These are the general principles to be taken into account:
(a) to what extent there exist in the area houses which are in any respect unfit or unsuitable for human habitation,
(b) any overcrowding existing in the area, and
(c) such other matters as the Minister may specify from time to time,
As an indication of what the Minister would specify from time to time, we can have no better proof than what the Minister has already specified. As far back as 24th May last, a circular letter was sent to local authorities in regard to the assessment of housing needs in advance of this legislation. In this letter I stated:
The objective should be to ascertain, as quickly as possible, the number of dwellings likely to be required to meet the needs of—
(a) families and other persons living in unfit dwellings and in overcrowded conditions or likely to be displaced from areas scheduled for re-development before 1970;
(b) families or persons otherwise in need of re-housing and to make reasonable provision for
(c) continued obsolescence in the existing housing stock and
(d) population growth through new family formation, industrial or other economic growth and other similar factors.
That is a concrete example of what the Minister might ask for. In fact, it is already being asked for.
Having made the assessment, on whatever basis it may be, it will only be relevant when taken in conjunction with a building programme. Subsection (3) of section 55 states:
In preparing a building programme, a housing authority shall have regard to the following objectives:
(a) the repair, closure or demolition of houses which are unfit or unsuitable for human habitation;
(b) the elimination of overcrowding;
(c) the provision of adequate and suitable housing accommodation for persons (including elderly or disabled persons) who, in the opinion of the authority, are in need of and are unable to provide such accommodation from their own resources;
(d) the provision of adequate housing accommodation to meet needs arising from the obsolescence of dwellings or the prospective increase in the population;
(e) the securing of the objectives contained in a development plan under the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act, 1963, for the area which comprises or includes, as the case may be, the functional area of the authority;
(f) the encouragement by the authority of the provision by persons of houses for owner-occupation by the owner or for letting.
This should be taken in conjunction with what has been laid down in regard to the assessment of housing needs and such other matters as the Minister may specify. I have already given an example of what the Minister may specify. If, between now and when we come to this particular section, Deputies would consider the matter under these three headings, they will probably find there is very little which is not covered which they specifically suggest in these amendments should be covered. The House will appreciate that, if we were to write into the legislation all the matters contained in these amendments in regard to assessment of housing needs and so on, it might impose such a task on local authorities as to make it impossible for them to complete it in the foreseeable future. We might place such encumbrances on them with the aim of getting a better job done that we might finish up by not getting the job done at all.
The whole question of assessment is related to housing needs. The need in this case covers practically everything that was mentioned by those who spoke in support of these amendments. The hard cases that have been quoted, even though they may be unique, are included in that assessment as to need. Bearing that in mind, there should be no difficulty in arriving at a compromise. Having regard to the circular which issued in May last and to sections 53 and 55, we should be able to cover every case to the satisfaction of both sides of the House.
Progress reported; Committee to sit again.