Before we leave this amendment, I should like to ask the Minister is he satisfied that it covers the type of case we have had for so long in Griffith Barracks, which, because of a shortage of housing, was pushed over on to the backs of the health authority. This can happen in any part of the country. These people are not destitute and they are not sick, and they are not a health problem. Nevertheless they appear to be thrown over as a health responsibility or as a responsibility of a health authority. Is it intended to cover that type of case by this amendment, and will the housing authorities provide these families with emergency accommodation, and will they get a full subsidy for the housing accommodation they provide?
Housing Bill, 1965: Committee Stage (Resumed).
Debate resumed on the following amendment:
In page 40, between lines 4 and 5, to add new paragraphs as follows:
"(e) the provision of temporary or emergency accommodation for persons rendered homeless due to storm damage, fire damage or eviction;
(f) the provision of reserved accommodation for newly-weds."
—(Deputy James Tully).
I am not quite sure what the Deputy really wants to ascertain here. I take it it is whether or not the Bill as we have it——
Or the amendment.
Dealing with the Bill, the Bill provides for housing authorities and their duties and responsibilities in regard to housing people who cannot house themselves. In so far as providing shelter as such is concerned, it is not intended that this Bill will take over that which is now a health authority responsibility and add it to the housing responsibility of the local authority. The health authority render this service to people in need, and where it is necessary to the category I have mentioned who are in need of housing and who cannot by their own lawful means provide houses or homes for themselves. This is a case where the health authority step in, in some emergency conditions, if you like, where people might, by storm or by fire or some other such happening, have been rendered homeless for a short time, but who would be able to provide for themselves except in a temporary emergency situation. That is something which it is not proposed to be dealt with by this Housing Bill or a housing authority but left to the health authority as it is at present.
This amendment deals with two matters. First there is the provision of temporary or emergency accommodation for persons rendered homeless due to storm damage, fire damage or eviction; and the Minister might add to that: "or for any other reason". The second is the provision of reserved accommodation for newly-weds. I am becoming somewhat confused here because it appears that by some subtle wording of a previous Act, it is assumed by the Minister that a health authority has responsibility for housing these people. We believe that their housing should be a function of the housing authority and not the health authority, and this is a matter I would like to see clarified here.
I do not care how anybody else feels about it but if a situation arises where a family or families are homeless and cannot find accommodation themselves and the local authority cannot find it for them, I believe we should have some regulation whereby they can be put into temporary accommodation until such time as they reach the priority which will give them a house. This is the duty which some people would like to see put on to the health authorities but it is not their responsibility. It should be the responsibility of the housing authority. Immediately there is any mention of homeless people, Griffith Barracks comes to mind, but, as I have said already, Dublin is not the only place in Ireland and Dublin is not the only place where this problem occurs. We have it at local authority level where a family is evicted either by a heartless landlord or by someone who really wants a house or where, because of storm damage or because the house is unfit for human habitation, families find themselves homeless. There is no place for these people to go but the county home.
There is no room for them there. The county homes are full up.
We have the situation where people are being put into the county homes because there is no alternative accommodation. Deputy O'Hara says that there is no room in the county homes and he is right. In my county there is no room in the county homes at present for any extras. It makes it doubly hard then if accommodation has to be found, not for a single case or for a man and wife, but for a family with children. The father and mother are separated and the children are put away to some other place.
There is nothing to stop this House inserting in the Bill a regulation providing that a certain type of accommodation which has not to be built, which is there at present and which is not being usefully used, State property and property owned by local authorities, should be turned into family unit accommodation to be used in case of emergency not as a permanent place of abode but for cases of emergency. These people could be housed in such accommodation until the local authority finds a house for them or until they can find a house themselves. Such accommodation would not be free. These people would pay their way.
This is a must and it is where we can avoid an awful lot of trouble in the future. The Minister says he is legislating for the future. He is an intelligent man and if he thinks it over, he will agree that there is no reason at all why we should not put the responsibility on those who should carry it. The members of a health authority may say that they are prepared to do this but the officials say that there is no reason why they should and that they should not do it. I am aware of a case in which the local authority, because they could not accommodate people in the county home, had to go around from door to door seeking accommodation for a family of nine people who had been evicted and who are living in a tent. They got accommodation for that family at an inflated price, at £4 10s. a week. The father earns £12 a week and, with nine children, he would not be able to pay that rent. Who was going to pay the balance? The result was that there was a charge on the health authority for something that normally should be no charge at all because the man would have been able to pay normal rent. The Minister would be well advised to have another look at this.
Would I be right in believing that subsection (3) paragraph (a) does in fact make provision whereby what is familiarly known as the Griffith Barracks situation, where a local authority has to knock down houses on the ground that they are unfit for human habitation, can be dealt with? They are charged with the responsibility of giving a certain priority to the evacuated tenants in making their scheme. What I do not understand is that this does not seem to me to give any relief in the situation when you have priorities already established which are of such an urgency that you cannot give anybody else priority over them. My understanding of the situation in Dublin is that unless you have four children, they will not put you on the list at all. Deputies will realise the atmosphere of futile despair in which these people are living.
The Deputy will realise that we are discussing amendment No. 7.
We are, and that includes paragraphs (e) and (f), and one of these is the provision of temporary or emergency accommodation for people rendered homeless due to storm damage, fire damage or eviction. I think there is power under paragraph (e) to deal with that particular situation but the fact of the matter is that the priorities there already are so urgent that you cannot put anybody else ahead of those already waiting. We are talking of making provision to authorise people to set up ratios of priority. What more urgent case can there be than that of a man, with a wife and four children, who has no home, who is waiting to get one and who is told that his name will not even be put on the list because there are so many people with five, six or seven children who have not yet got a home? What I am saying is: do not let us imagine that by authorising local authorities to prepare schemes we are doing anything concrete now or will be doing it in the future, to relieve this situation. The only thing that will effectively serve—I use the word deliberately—the purposes of section 60 is not to add new categories which the local authorities may insert but to build houses, and if we have not got the houses, then it does not matter how excellent the intentions of the local authorities are or how detailed and sympathetic are the schemes they prepare.
You cannot put more than a pint into a pint bottle and if all you have got is a pint of houses, you cannot put a gallon of people into them. That is the real, fundamental problem. You may make categories until the cows come home but if the houses are not there you cannot make provision for them. As I understand the present problem, and here I think the Minister's section meets the problem, it is that in the Griffith Barracks situation, the people were evicted because the houses were falling down on them and they had to be put into a disused military barracks. The problem was that it was very doubtful, when the local authority came to examine the circumstances of individual families in Griffith Barracks, whether these families fell within the category of families for which local authorities could make provision for houses and secure the maximum subsidy from the Minister for Local Government. That is not such a simple problem. You may find a family in a house which is condemned and who do not fall within the category of persons for whom the local authority can make housing provision by way of rented houses; yet those people may be wholly unable to find alternative accommodation even though they are prepared to pay for it, particularly if they are in the circumstances to which Deputy Tully has referred, living in a rural area where there just may not be accommodation available.
How does this amendment alter the situation? All the amendment proposes to do is to authorise the local authority to make new schedules of persons eligible for houses within the ambit of their present discretion. Does it affect categories of persons for whom local authorities can——
The amendment does not deal with normal housing conditions.
With evicted persons.
I specify what the categories should be.
There are two things, the provision of temporary or emergency accommodation for persons rendered homeless due to storm damage, fire damage or eviction and then the provision of reserved accommodation for newly-weds.
I am talking about the first one.
The main purpose, I would gather, is to shift the responsibility for this problem off the shoulders of the health authority on to the shoulders of the housing authority. I sympathise with Deputy Clinton who has been carrying the burden of the Griffith Barracks families for a long time and eventually has resolved it by providing them with caravans. I do not care who carries the responsibility as long as the people get houses. Deputy Clinton is very much more experienced in the actual day to day problems of this kind than I am. There is a great deal to be said for the view that housing is a matter for the Minister for Local Government, health is a matter for the health authority, and poverty and destitution are matters for the Minister for Social Welfare. If these three public servants would each do his duty, and if they made one another do his duty, our problems would be largely resolved. It is a mistake to unload each miscellaneous problem that occurs to our minds on to the back of the Minister for Local Government. Poverty and destitution are the problems of the Minister for Social Welfare; housing, the Minister for Local Government should cheerfully shoulder; and health should be left to the Minister for Health and the health authority. In so far as this is providing accommodation for persons rendered homeless, then that is a housing problem and the Minister would be wise to accept that it is the responsibility of the housing authority.
I would ask the House to remember that the present situation in Dublin is that unless you have more than four children, your name will not be put on any list in any scheme. That is the hub of the problem and the only effective way to resolve it is to build more houses quickly and I doubt if we are going to do that.
This is the most important section of the Bill. The whole Bill pivots around the question of priorities. There are two types of priorities, first of all, the general classification into which the local authority must segregate people for houses and the other is the question of priority for the allocation of houses. There seems to be some confusion in relation to the two headings. I should like to point out, and this will ease Deputy Dillon's mind, that Dublin Corporation are now housing families consisting of a husband and wife and three children. It is erroneous to say otherwise.
I am delighted to hear it.
The fact that people with five, six or seven children have not yet been housed is due to the fact that they requested accommodation in certain areas and will not accept accommodation except in the area they specify. All those people with four or more children would be housed if they accepted accommodation where corporation accommodation is available. Accommodation is available in Coolock——
Deputies should concentrate on the section and on the amendment.
I will give the Deputy a list of people who cannot get into them.
We are on amendment No 70.
In relation to the amendment, I believe that it is already covered in the section. As Deputy Dillon stated, no matter what we write into the section, it will mean little in the end. Deputy Tully has stated that the Minister should ensure that accommodation is provided and that he can do so easily by inserting a section. If it were that easy, there would be no problem at all. I believe it is adequately covered.
I do not want to develop the matter of Griffith Barracks because it has already been developed. We can have a full discussion on this problem. In this section I believe it is adequately covered and anything else we try to put in will probably only confuse the issue. It will not make more houses available. The only way people can be housed is by a greater amount of building, as indicated by Deputy Dillon, to be undertaken as the Minister for Local Government suggested when he told Dublin Corporation that if they could not build sufficient houses by their system, they would have to build them by his system. With that type of approach, I believe the priorities will drop and if that happens, all sections will be housed.
God be with the days when we had 1,500 houses too many and no tenants to go into them. There was no priority.
We are off again. Sailing tickets were the priority in those days.
No doubt if we decided to sell out some of the major industries we have, thus disemploying unfortunate workers, we would soon have sufficient houses but I believe the Minister's approach is the right one. If houses cannot be built by traditional methods, we must find another method. I believe under the Minister's approach all sections can be housed. Many of them can be and are being dealt with by the local authorities. We make provision in Dublin Corporation for people evicted through no fault of their own and such persons, provided they have three children, will be accommodated. I think the provisions of the Bill are quite adequate to deal with the situation.
The Minister could help in this. It is true that at present housing authorities are free to provide the type of accommodation sought in the amendment. There is nothing in legislation to prevent them from doing so and neither is there any obligation on them to do it; but there is an obligation on the health authorities to do it. Most of us feel very strongly that this housing responsibility should be included in legislation and there should be an obligation on housing authorities, whenever families find themselves on the roadside for any reason, not necessarily the reasons specified in the amendment, to provide accommodation for them. There are many reasons why families find themselves on the roadside. They may have returned from England where they had gone to seek work and they have no house here. They are a father and mother with a family and have no means of providing themselves with a house. The sense of the amendment is to have available emergency accommodation which may be converted accommodation. This requires the co-operation perhaps of many Government Departments in order to make it available to local authorities and have it so reconstructed as to provide family type accommodation.
Deputy Tully is not satisfied with the present situation, and neither am I, where perhaps a family, through no fault of their own, find themselves on the street with young children. The only accommodation they can get is accommodation for the mother and children who can go to an institution but the husband cannot go with them and so the family is broken up. That situation can continue for quite a long time because they do not come within the priority category. The Minister could be helpful if he would agree that there should be an obligation on the local authority to provide this type of accommodation which would be family accommodation but which would fall short of being a home proper.
Nobody has greater respect for my old comrade, Deputy Dowling, than I but if he would forget the Party line and discuss this as we on these Benches are trying to do, he would be more helpful to the Minister and to the House in getting a better Bill. The Deputy made a number of statements which I do not propose to follow but he apparently misunderstood the section. I am not surprised; perhaps he will pick it up later. The same thing cannot be said for Deputy Dillon who made a very strong appeal—and he can make a good case for practically anything. He made a very good case but made it on the wrong lines. May I point out that the Labour Party amendment suggests the provision of temporary or emergency accommodation? There is a difference between accommodation and housing. It may not be houses—it will almost certainly not be houses.
The Deputy dealt with only half the amendment.
With the Chair's permission, I shall read it all. It says:
(e) the provision of temporary or emergency accommodation for persons rendered homeless due to storm damage, fire damage or eviction;
(f) the provision of reserved accommodation for newly-weds.
"Accommodation" is the operative word in each case and Deputy Dillon said that subsection (3) (a) says:
(a) the repair, closure or demolition of houses which are unfit in any respect for human habitation;
I believe what Deputies Dillon and Dowling were talking about was provision of houses for people out of turn. That is not what Deputy Clinton and I are talking about.
The case I am making is that there are in the city and throughout the country quite a number of good buildings owned by the State or by local authorities that are not being used or used usefully, and those buildings could be converted into emergency family unit accommodation. That is the difference between Griffith Barracks and what I have in mind. I want accommodation for those who urgently require it until they can be reached on the priority list. I agree that the proper thing to do is to build houses but at present, with the exception of Ballymun which was already passed before the credit squeeze, no local authority houses are being built. Nobody need look surprised. It is true that the Minister for Local Government has—I shall not say refused—failed to make money available for the building of those houses not because he wants to but because the money is not available. The suggestion that since a family of three in Dublin can now get accommodation that answers everything does not satisfy me. I am speaking of the whole country where at present many people cannot get accommodation and will not get it for years. The way to deal with it, I suggest, is where an emergency arises as happened this year and last year, accommodation can be made available and this can only be done if, and only if, included in this Bill is a provision that the local authority shall do it.
I was intrigued by somebody saying family accommodation was available in Griffith Barracks. May I repeat something that has been said here by a number of people over the past few months? Family accommodation is not available at Griffith Barracks. Part-family accommodation is available there. If I thought that the insertion of this amendment in the Bill could result in the same situation as now obtains in which only a mother and children can get accommodation while the father must seek accommodation elsewhere, I would withdraw it immediately. That is an unchristian idea and I do not think there is any justification for it. If the Minister wishes to have a further look at the amendment, I am prepared to withdraw it, if he agrees to consider it and see what the situation is. Evidence can be put before him that there are plenty of buildings available all over the country that can be used for this type of accommodation if it is made mandatory that this should be done. But, if it is left to the whim of the local authority, it will not be done.
Griffith Barracks always comes to the fore. But we all have the same problem. I live in a seaside resort where a number of houses are locked up for the greater part of the year. The reason is the people who own them make their livelihood by letting them at high rents during the summer period. They are entitled to do so. But that is poor consolation to those who are evicted in the area, particularly if they have families. Instead of having to go to the people who own these houses and pay summer rents they cannot afford, there should be an arrangement that buildings which are there, and which could be turned into family units, would be made available to these people until their names are reached on the priority list.
It would seem that the Labour amendment calls for the provision of only temporary accommodation for the classes of people mentioned. In fact, Dublin Corporation are at present making permanent accommodation available for all those who qualify. Despite what Deputy Tully says, the housing programme in the city is expanding. The corporation have plans on hand, tenders received for, or construction proceeding on about 2,000 houses, plus the Ballymun scheme.
Before the credit squeeze came in, yes. Since the credit squeeze, there is no money and nobody need say there is.
It does not affect us.
You will see whether it will or not in a couple of weeks time.
The Labour Party amendment specifies temporary accommodation. We are giving them permanent accommodation.
If the corporation evict them. But if outside people evict them, no.
If they qualify, they get permanent accommodation. Where permanent accommodation is already available to them, there should be no question of putting them into temporary accommodation.
Is that the reason we have people camping in Mountjoy Square?
That is a different situation.
According to Deputy Dowling, if anybody living in a room with a relative in a private house or a corporation dwelling is evicted, all he has to do, if he has three children, is to go to the corporation and get rehoused. It does not matter where he comes from. What happens the people with only two children or one child? What arrangements are made for the man and woman sitting on the steps of their house in Mountjoy Square for nearly a month? Are they to wait where they are? Is it not Christian that the corporation, or whatever the local authority is, should be responsible for making accommodation available? This accommodation is there. It requires only a small amount of money to turn it into reasonable family units. If that is done, these people can move in.
I am talking now about what happens in the country as well as in the city. It is no use trying to tell us that there are only people in Dublin with three children. There are hundreds of thousands of people who have not got three children, who are entitled to housing accommodation but who will not get it. In County Meath we do not have a restriction with regard to the number of children but we have a restriction with regard to the number of houses. We cannot build rural cottages and housing schemes because the Department of Local Government say: "Sign any contract you like but do not start until we tell you, because there is no money available."
Why say that the problem can be solved easily? I am suggesting in the amendment that existing buildings can be converted for temporary use, because I will not suggest that people should live for ever in temporary accommodation, whether that is an old barracks, an old hospital or a caravan. There are many people in Dublin city and county living in old caravans waiting for houses. All I am asking is that the Department should take the responsibility of pressing on local authorities that the type of accommodation I speak of should be made available. If that is done—and it can be done—it will solve a lot of our problems.
I am not quarrelling with the Fianna Fáil Party over this. It is not a matter over which we should quarrel. I am sure both Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael feel the same as we do that it is a shocking thing that people should not have houses. It is shocking to find people out on the street when they should be in reasonably comfortable accommodation. This is not a Party issue. Therefore, I am asking the Minister for Local Government to have another look at it from this angle.
I appreciate Deputy Tully's attitude towards housing. At all times since I came into this House, he has tried to be helpful and undoubtedly he has great experience. However, there are one or two points on which, in fairness to the city, I wish to contradict him. Dublin Corporation, especially in the past two years, have taken over old buildings, such as old fire stations and even part of Board of Works property, and have provided flats in these buildings. Even if this Bill never came up, a local authority has power to provide this type of accommodation. The Ballymun scheme is purely supplementary to the corporation's building programme. At the moment—I speak from memory—the corporation have approximately 1,700 dwellings under contract and, with the tenders accepted in recent months, plus development work now going on, I would say about 2,500 dwellings are either under contract or planned.
So far, I am glad to say, the corporation have found no trouble with regard to money. I can recall only two periods when we were short of money—that was in 1949 and 1956. As a Dubliner, I am not proud of the system which creates something like Griffith Barracks; but let us go into the problem of Mountjoy Square and Griffith Barracks in particular. With one of Deputy Tully's colleagues, I spent some time with the people in Mountjoy Square. First, I found that very few of them would qualify on the residence qualification. I appreciate the fact that in Royal Meath they have a serious housing problem, just as we have here in Dublin, but it is most unfair to ask Dublin Corporation to house families which came over here and got great publicity because they could not get houses.
Surely there must be some priorities? Dublin Corporation believe in satisfying the greatest need. The system has been criticised, even by members of the corporation, but I think it is a fair system. The whole effort of the corporation, backed by the Minister, is to bring about a situation in this city in which each family that qualifies will have proper accommodation. The City Medical Officer has passed roughly 4,000 families for housing. If we were to accept that figure, we would wipe out our housing problem over the next two years. Most of us, of course, do not accept that figure. We are not so naive as to accept it. We believe our city will have a continuing housing problem. The only city without a housing problem is a dying city, and Dublin is far from that, with a population increasing rapidly and a demand for a higher standard of housing accommodation. Both the population and the demand are rising all the time. People are marrying younger and the demand for housing is, therefore, increasing. The fact that the Minister is a member of my Party does not mean necessarily that I must praise him but, as I said before, it was the Minister who conceived the Ballymun scheme and pressed it through against tremendous opposition. It may sound strange but some members of the Dublin Corporation had to fight a tough battle to get a majority of the corporation to accept the Ballymun scheme.
I appreciate what Deputy Tully is trying to do in this amendment but, quite apart from this amendment, the powers are already there for local authorities to provide the type of accommodation Deputy Tully seeks.
This amendment has given an opportunity to a number of people to express their views on certain things. Some of them have done so emotionally and some unemotionally. It was said there is no building going on outside of Dublin at the moment. I think that is how Deputy Tully put it: whatever about Dublin, there is no building going on anywhere else. The fact is we will complete this year local authority houses in excess of 3,000 as against 2,300 last year. If Deputy Tully says that is not building, then I make him a present of it.
I am talking about since the credit squeeze started.
Last year 2,300 houses were built. There was no credit squeeze. A number in excess of 3,000 will be completed this year. If, as Deputy Tully says, there has been no building since the credit squeeze and we are building no houses, I take it he will agree that the only conclusion one can draw is that a number in excess of 3,000 were completed in the first three months of this year.
Almost 5,000 were built in 1956-57.
If we want to spend the day on 1956-57, I do not mind, but I certainly would prefer to get on with the amendment and the section.
So would I.
It was stated that providing temporary and emergency accommodation for people rendered homeless as a result of storm damage, fire damage or eviction should be made an obligation of the local authority. The fact is there is nothing that says a local authority may not house such people. Under the section we are dealing with, it will be easier for local authorities in future to provide accommodation for these people because the qualifications will not be so restrictive from the point of view of priorities. The emphasis in future will be on rehousing. It will be governed by the genuine need of people who are not in a position to provide houses for themselves. That is a wider approach than we have had up to this. Of course, in the past, people evicted or rendered homeless for some reason have been housed by local authorities and there will be nothing in the future to prevent local authorities continuing that policy.
Surely we have not reached the point at which we maintain that the obligations that rest on a health authority should be imposed on those responsible for housing. Shelter and maintenance are obligations on the health authority. The provision of houses is the responsibility of the housing authority. While these two things run parallel, there is the system—I have already mentioned this—whereby a housing authority, if they have the accommodation, can house certain categories. That system will be continued. The only restriction is that those in need of housing must be unable to provide houses for themselves.
I see no reason why we should accept this amendment and, if we do not accept it, what is the point in discussing the one dealing with newly-weds? Newly-weds have, in fact, been accommodated. Who will say they should have priority over families living in extremely bad conditions? It is the elected representatives in each local authority who will draw up their own priorities. It will be for them to decide. This power is given to local authorities in the belief that elected representatives, being on the spot, will be more familiar with the actual position obtaining in their particular areas than this House would be. Newly-weds will have to take their place with others who are in need of houses.
I can see no justification for accepting this amendment. Neither do I see that it would add anything to the powers already there. Newly-weds are already covered. Priorities are for local authorities themselves to determine. If we had a press-button housing service, then we could push the button and provide the house, once the prospective tenant had established need and eligibility, and there would be no need for all the discussion here. While we have a position where housing in some cases is extremely short and in most cases is not surplus, we cannot start defining down to the finest point, making particular reference in the law to suit newly-weds or any other category when the overall power of the Bill, if enacted, covers the situation where the need for rehousing and the need for rehousing where people cannot provide for themselves are of paramount importance.
Deputy Tully talks about the amendment as if, if inserted, it could do all things and he goes on to say that there exist today many unused buildings that could be readily and easily rendered fit for occupation by families. He instanced Bettystown——
No, I did not. I instanced State and semi-State. Do not twist what I said.
What was I going to say?
You were going to say that I instanced Bettystown—the summer houses in Bettystown.
But you did speak about Bettystown summer houses.
Not in the context the Minister is using it.
I will ask the Deputy a straight question. Does he suggest that property other than State and local authority property should be commandeered for this purpose?
No, and I made that very clear at all times.
Would the Deputy like me to make it clear to those outside that there was no suggestion made by him which conveyed to me that the Deputy could be suggesting that Bettystown summer houses should be commandeered for these people?
I will make it clear myself and they will believe me before the Minister.
I should not like the Deputy to be misunderstood outside in regard to the summer houses.
The Minister is worried.
Who is putting words into whose mouth?
That is what I am wondering. So long as somebody does not put somebody else's foot into his mouth.
The Minister certainly put his foot into his mouth, which is a bit of a job.
It may stop people talking.
I have listened for an hour. Please remember that I have just as much right to talk as any other Deputy. God help anybody who tries to stop me availing of it if I wish to. We will rule out the summer houses. They are not in Deputy Tully's conception of the availability of buildings.
Those in Bundoran are in the same category.
Where are all these buildings, State, semi-State and local authority, that can be readily converted to dwelling accommodation and, if they exist, why are they not being used now in those areas in which according to Deputy Tully there is a great shortage of housing? Why are they not being sought and converted if there are people in those areas, including, I take it, Deputy Tully's county, without houses?
Deputy Clinton can answer that one. Dublin Health Authority applied for permission and the Minister refused.
Deputy Tully should be in a position to answer it himself far more readily than Deputy Clinton. If there are these buildings available, should they not have been availed of before this?
That is what I should like to know.
What is to prevent their being availed of now?
Legislation.
Not at all.
And money.
I know of no inhibition in legislation to prevent any such suitable buildings being availed of and used where the need exists for them, and I admit the need does exist for such accommodation that can be got by conversion of existing buildings, and if it can be done readily and quickly and in addition to the building of houses already embarked on, by all means we should make every endeavour to get them and to use them as quickly as possible. But do not let us get around to the idea again that in case of shortage, with the same number of housing units, the same power to provide them, the same amount of labour, contractors, money, plans and land, we can pull these people in merely by putting in an amendment that they should be seen to. We know they should be seen to but we cannot, by the mere exercise of this sort of arrangement, provide what we are not providing now if we are doing all we can, and if we do all we can in future, we do not need this because it makes no sense, makes no additional effort in the matter.
The quoting of Griffith Barracks makes me rather annoyed. It makes me annoyed to hear the claptrap and the emotions that seem to be raised about Griffith Barracks and the move to Mountjoy Square and moves to wherever else since. These people were provided with shelter and maintenance, I admit on a basis that none of us wish to see provided but the best in the circumstances available to them. A report I have here, which is the nearest to date that I have, contains one paragraph for 7th September last. It is interesting to see from this report the families that came to seek housing or accommodation who gave up accommodation that was provided by the health authority and went to Mountjoy Square. There were 18 families involved. This is on 7th September. None had been evacuated from a dangerous building, contrary to what Deputy Dillon quoted here that, in his belief, all had been evacuated from dangerous buildings. Four came directly from England. One of these was on holidays and has since returned to England. Another is English and has refused the offer of the health authority to pay the fares of himself and his family back to England. Four of them had been in England at some stage previously but were put out by near relatives. Those are the facts about these people on that date when the noise was big. One left a caravan they had previously occupied and one was evicted—just one was evicted—after a dispute with the landlord.
Can anybody say, in fairness, that in the circumstances of the housing shortage in Dublin, those cases, even though they, no doubt, did need housing, should have been put on the top of the priority list in Dublin Corporation and given houses?
Nobody ever suggested that.
Is there anybody who would say that we were in a position either in the health authority or in Dublin Corporation to make better provision than had been made for them at the time?
Yes.
I cannot see how. Let us look at the position in Dublin. If we were to do something better than the provision in Griffith Barracks, it would reduce what Dublin Corporation were otherwise doing in their building programme by some degree. There is no point in shaking the head here. Dublin Corporation members and their Housing Committee members and their officials, managers, engineers and architects, came into my office at my invitation on more than one occasion and after long and serious consideration the conclusion was then reached that, from the point of view of construction of housing for their people, they were doing the most they were capable of.
It was from those circumstances that the Ballymun project that so much is heard about now eventuated. If they were doing the most they could do— and nobody will deny this—in relation to the technical and other resources within the corporation, how can one truthfully say that if they were to convert old buildings rather than build new ones, the new buildings would not suffer at the expense of conversion and the number of houses that they would hope to build would be reduced in proportion to the amount of accommodation they had added by conversion for these people in preference to those already on an established waiting list which is far too long in the estimation of all of us but which we are trying to whittle down? You cannot please everyone at the same time. You cannot give housing accommodation that is not there, and the provision of this is not something you can just whistle out of the blue over and above the absolute limit of the output of Dublin Corporation which they have reached and at which they are stretched at the moment. We cannot just cod ourselves into the belief that we can, by talking platitudes here and putting in amendments no matter how well meant. They will not do anything concrete against the background that we are doing all we can, all of us, in trying to provide accommodation.
We cannot get anywhere by indicating to those people who have left Griffith Barracks that they were right to do so and that the community owes them a debt of gratitude, and the people who induced them and helped them to go to Mountjoy Square. I think we should catch ourselves on when we are talking about this situation. It is not being helped by those people who encouraged them to leave Griffith Barracks, even though I agree that is not ideal accommodation or anything like it, but it is a lot better than camping in Mountjoy Square or any other square with women and children in the open, in weather which was supposed to be summer weather but which was far from being summer weather at that time. This gets the headlines and makes news and gets notoriety for certain people, but it does not do these people any good. It does not do anything for the people who are seeking to house them, for the people themselves or for the people who are trying to help them. It only adds further to the flames that have been fanned in this regard to have these promises emerging in print which in fact in the circumstances cannot really achieve anything.
This is not in any way a reflection on the good faith of Deputy Tully and other Deputies who go along with this amendment and push it. I am trying to demonstrate why the amendment could not do anything in the circumstances. If circumstances altered to the point where it could, the powers are in the Bill to do these things if we had enough accommodation, and if we had enough capacity to produce the accommodation. The local authorities today have plenty of powers and their powers are being enlarged in this Bill as to the category of people they may house. If we can produce enough to meet the real needs we do not need to start detailing who, and for whom, and in what way, this should be provided.
These semi-temporary or semipermanent dwellings—and Griffith Barracks is one example of that type of institution—leave a lot to be desired, and is it worth diverting energies which could more usefully be used to provide proper housing? I do not think we need any of these amendments to do these things if circumstances permitted us to do them. Not only have we extended and expanded the type of people who may be housed in future, with the aid of a higher subsidy, but we have also given to the local authorities the specific job of drawing up their own priorities, and if they take these wide powers in both hands and work them sensibly and reasonably, as I have no doubt they will be worked by members of the housing authorities, we can do the job and nothing that is being suggested here will add to it. If it would, I would be all for it but I certainly would be slow to take Deputy Tully up on the idea that I should have a look at this again. I thought a lot about it, and we considered it well before we came here with the Bill. The amendment has been perused and looked at from all angles and I can see nothing in it for reconsideration.
Listening to the Minister one would think this amendment applied only to Dublin city. I want to warn the Minister that the amendment is important to other local authorities throughout the country. The Minister pointed out that Dublin Corporation have the powers to speed up their housing schemes. What is the position in the country? This morning I received a letter from the Town Clerk of the Youghal Urban Council, one of the most important local authorities in Cork. The letter asks me to see the Minister and ask him to approve a loan of roughly £50,000 or £60,000 for a new housing scheme in Youghal town. The Minister has before him an application from one of our committees to meet members of the committee for the purpose of discussing a loan of £100,000. We are ready to go ahead and we are awaiting the Minister's approval. This in itself confirms what Deputy Tully wisely said that since the credit squeeze came into operation there has been a slowing down so far as applications for loans are concerned, and so far as the approval of contract documents is concerned. I want to put that on record because a statement has been made by two members of the Fianna Fáil Party, from Dublin city I think, and by the Minister that there is no slowing down on house building and that if the local authorities wish to they can go ahead. That is not true.
It seems to me that the Minister does not want to see the sense of the amendment. He wants to retain this system of divided responsibility as between housing authorities and health authorities in the same way as the Government insist on maintaining divided responsibility between health and education so far as mentally retarded patients are concerned. In this sort of situation we have that divided responsibility and the unfortunate people who are looking for houses fall between two stools and are left on the street. I do not think they should be left on the street.
The Minister for Health said it is not his responsibility to provide family type accommodation. We all know it is not. He is obliged to provide shelter. The type of shelter provided in Griffith Barracks was mentioned very often today, and I want to go on record as saying that I think it was first-class accommodation for mothers and children. There was nothing wrong with that accommodation, but it was not family accommodation. The health authorities say that in law they cannot provide family type accommodation and the Minister for Health says it is not his obligation. Therefore, it must be a housing authority obligation, but unless we have it written into legislation somewhere that it is a housing authority responsibility, we will have this divided responsibility, nothing will be done, and families will be left on the street.
No one suggested any of the things about which the Minister spoke. No one suggested these people should be on the top of a priority list. That is just a red herring. In the course of trying to make his case against the amendment the Minister said that the Corporation were extended to the full and could do no more. In 1951 they built 2,500 houses, and in 1961 they built 277 houses. Last year they built 786 houses. If they were extended to the full when they built 786 houses, how on earth did they build 2,500 in 1951? If they were given some of the empty barracks accommodation that exists in the city—and the barracks are half empty—they could provide family type accommodation with a certain amount of reconstruction that would not be very expensive and at least could be quickly provided.
I know that this is a matter which is surrounded by a lot of difficulties and that you might have many families trying to impose on this type of accommodation but most of the families we have been discussing were able to pay for accommodation. They could not get emergency accommodation and pay for it although they were able to pay for it. The English family was not our responsibility and can be ruled out but the others are our responsibility. It has been said that they came back from England but they were driven out of this country. They were forced out because there was no employment here for them. They came back as they were entitled to and now they are regarded as outlaws. I do not think they should be regarded as outlaws and forced to carry on these demonstrations in the streets as they have done.
I was one of those who advised them against this action they have taken because I think they are injuring their case and not adding anything to the pressure. They made these demonstrations in an effort to bring their problem to the notice of everybody. That was an unfortunate move to make, a move they should never have been advised to make if they were advised to do it.
The amendment seeks to place the responsibility for the housing of these categories where that responsibility rightly belongs. It is a housing responsibility and should not be a joint responsibility between the health authorities and the housing authorities and consequently the responsibility of neither. Unless there is a firm responsibility and obligation to provide this accommodation it will not be done by any of the parties.
I would like to clarify two points. The Minister must have known that he was misquoting me when he said that I suggested that private property should be taken over. I am referring to public property owned by the State, semi-State bodies and local authorities and not properly used by them. I have available a list of such property around Dublin city and county which I will make available to the Minister and I hope he makes better use of it than the Minister for Health did when I gave it to him.
I have also been quoted here as saying that there is no building going on at the present time. What I did say was that since the credit squeeze was introduced no money was made available by the Minister for Local Government and his Department for the public building of houses. Local authorities have not got any money from the Department and where contracts were already signed a recent notification has been given that they are not to start the work until such time as they get special permission from the Department of Local Government. At the present time there is almost half a million pounds in applications from Dublin County Council and over £100,000 in applications from Meath County Council and none of this money has been sanctioned. We have got no indication as to when we will get that money. Building started before the credit squeeze came into operation is going on because it cannot be stopped.
The Minister referred to the fact that no matter how many blackbirds were in the country I would find a white one, but Deputy Moore has beaten me to it. He has found one white blackbird in the English family that has been mentioned. We have no responsibility for the housing of that family although I would hate to think that the British authorities would take the same attitude in regard to our people.
They do.
Mr. Tully
There are thousands of Irish families living in corporation houses in Britain. That is the answer to Deputy Moore. The Minister says he does not agree with the residence qualification where housing is concerned and yet members of his Party say that certain people do not qualify for houses because of the residence qualification. In other words, if people are based in Dublin county or in County Meath, Dublin Corporation has no responsibility for housing them.
The amendment suggests that accommodation which is available and only needs to be properly split up into family units should be made available for families in certain categories named by us. The Minister says that if this is done money which cannot be replaced will be switched from building. I do not agree that this is likely to be a big problem. There is a big difference between the cost of a house at £2,000 or £3,000 and the amount of money which it is estimated would make proper family unit accommodation in some of the buildings in and around this city. I think the Minister is wrong when he says he will not take another look at this matter.
The whole kernel of this problem is that we are trying to take people off the streets where they are through no fault of their own and to put them into accommodation where they cannot be claimed to be jumping the queue. We do not want them to jump the queue but we do not believe that people should be thrown out on the streets for one reason or another, let it be by eviction by members of their own families. It is as hard to be evicted by a father-in-law or mother-in-law as it is by anybody else. It makes no difference what is the cause, they are out on the street. If the house is being pulled down we will have to find accommodation for them. Let us have the one rule for everybody and let us have the accommodation which is there made available to those people.
I do not want to see an arrangement made where the father of the family is not allowed to stay with the mother. There was nothing much wrong with the arrangement in Griffith Barracks except that the father was not allowed to remain with his family and that there were too many people crowded into the one room. Deputy Dowling will agree with me that when both of us were serving in the Defence Forces they would not allow the number of beds in one room in Griffith Barracks that was allowed in the case of these people. Cubicle accommodation could have been made available very easily and this could now be done in a number of barracks in Dublin. The barracks occupied by the Army in Dublin are certainly under-populated at the moment. There are not so many people living in them. Quite a number of them could be made available for this reason.
I do not want to hold up the Bill but this is a very important section. There are other remarks which I wish to make but I will make them on the section. It is my opinion that this must be included in the Bill if we are going to have it done at all. There is no use saying that the authority is there; the permission is there but the authority is not. This dithering between the local authorities, the county council and the corporation, and the health authority, where one says that it is not its responsibility and passes it to the other which in turn disclaims responsibility, should be ended and the way to end it is to put this into the Bill and then we can use it when the occasion arises.
I should just like to comment on some of the remarks made by Deputy Clinton and Deputy Tully. Deputy Clinton behaved in the most responsible manner during the entire Griffith Barracks upheaval. I am aware of the manner in which he handled it, the advice he gave, and of the fact that in every way possible he tried to alleviate the position. Deputy Tully has taken the real Labour line. He has the list there. Deputy Clinton and myself saw that list before. It was produced at the health authority. Deputy Tully says that there is a considerable number of Government premises, disused barracks and so on, which could be converted to provide accommodation. I do not know where they all are. I am a member of the boards of several hospitals, such as Loughlinstown Hospital, and I inquired if there were wards which could be converted in these hospitals but there is no ward available in any of them. At one time the Labour Party suggested that we should send ambulances to take some people from Mountjoy Square and put them in Brú Caoimhín. The list is of no importance because it is out of date and we dealt with it before. Where possible, the Corporation have -taken over accommodation and converted it into permanent accommodation. Some of that construction work is going on. Work on the Buckingham Street Fire Station has been completed; work is going on at Thomas Street Fire Station and also in Dorset Street. Elsewhere they took over flats. Every effort is being made and where accommodation was found to be suitable for conversion that was done by the Corporation. It was indicated by Deputy Clinton that the Minister said that people should be outlawed because they came back from England. He did not say that.
He did not actually say it.
We know that only one family was evicted through no fault of their own and I have great sympathy for that family. Because of the present priority system this family was not housed. I do not agree with the present priorities as laid down by the corporation in regard to overcrowded families. The priorities are outmoded and outdated and can cause terrible injustice. I have a motion before the council for the past 12 months seeking an amendment to the system and which the local authority members have in their hands to accept if they wish. Last week three or four families were housed from Griffith Barracks and families continue to be housed as they reach priority on the list.
It is unfair to say that the Minister said that these people should be out-lawed because they returned from England. He said they had returned from England and, as the House knows, the priority list indicates that you must be back from England for only three months before you are entitled to accommodation. As long as they qualify in every other way——
They were longer than that in Griffith Barracks.
Not all of them.
They are entitled to housing with people on an equal standing——
They are longer than the three months in Griffith Barracks.
They were entitled to houses after three months. A person coming back with five children would have to be back for three months before he is considered for accommodation by the corporation. If he has been back for three months he takes his place in the queue. That is the regulation as laid down in the priority system. As far as Griffith Barracks is concerned it is undesirable but I am very sorry that the matter was introduced. It is just a red herring, a gimmick, and these gimmicks have a nasty habit of backfiring. Not so long ago one did backfire and the backfire was heard in Rome. These people are being housed gradually. The only way to resolve the position is to build more houses and that is being done. If there is temporary accommodation which can be converted into permanent accommodation then that is being done.
I fail to see any reason why this amendment should be implemented when provision has already been made. Provision exists for newly-weds and in the corporation we have a scheme under which 250 newly-weds are housed each year. When you have been wed for two years you can take part in two draws for houses for newly-weds. People whose accommodation has suffered from storm damage, or fire, or who have been evicted, have also been housed, provided they reached the requirements of the local authority. If people are to be housed otherwise then they must jump the queue.
Did the Deputy ever hear of Island Street?
Yes.
Why did Dublin Corporation not make use of the accommodation they have there? I am prepared to produce the list Deputy Dowling referred to and I challenge that that list should be investigated publicly and not by a couple of Fianna Fáil representatives going along and having a chat about wards in hospitals. I suggest that the information is up to date. Another thing is that the Minister for Local Government did say that some of the people in Mountjoy Square, who were there after they had been in Griffith Barracks, had returned from England. Deputy Clinton is entitled to his interpretation that the Minister felt that the corporation had no responsibility for them.
Are they not housing them every day?
Would the Deputy not agree that the Minister was answering a charge by Deputy Dillon who said——
No, the Minister was answering a statement which was never made. It is only fair to give my interpretation of what happened. These people had come from England. The Minister said that one fellow was an Englishman and he was taking the line that this man had come back from England and there was no responsibility for him. That is what he said. I agree it is wrong but that is what he inferred.
I do not think so.
I was listening to him and the record will show it when it comes. The whole point is that the proposed amendment is for the purpose of having emergency accommodation provided for certain categories, not alone in Dublin but everywhere else as well. That is something that cannot be passed over lightly and that is why it is taking so long to debate it.
I arrived in the House when the Minister was speaking and in dealing with Griffith Barracks he pointed out the position regarding 18 families and said they did not all find themselves in Griffith Barracks due to the fact that they had to leave dangerous buildings. I gathered from him that some statement had been made earlier by another Deputy that all the people in Griffith Barracks had been evicted from or had to leave dangerous buildings. The Minister pointed out that four of them came directly from England and found themselves at Griffith Barracks. A point was made about one Englishman: I do not think it was said that he would not be considered for rehousing but it was pointed out that the Dublin Health Authority had offered to pay the fare for himself and his family back to England.
Very fair.
In regard to Deputy Tully's charge that no moneys are available for housing I think he said that there was an application for something like £500,000 from Dublin County Council and roughly £100,000 from County Meath. The Dublin County Council case was dealt with fairly fully by the Minister on Thursday week.
Did that make the money available?
The Minister pointed out that one application involved something like £350,000 and that in the normal course of events this would take three or four months and the application came in, if I remember rightly, only in September. I felt that Deputy Seán Dunne, who represents the county, was fairly satisfied with the Minister's explanation.
You can be assured that he was not.
He was trying to coax money out of the Minister.
It is untrue to say that there is no housing going on because we shall be building more houses this year than last year.
When are you going to sanction the Meath money?
We shall have to look at that and see what the position is.
That is the trouble. You will be looking at it for months.
I do not know. It is not true to say that there is no money for housing. Schemes are being sanctioned every week. Admittedly, there is probably a lot more schemes in the Department for consideration now than we have had for a long time and it may not be possible to meet them all but Deputy Tully will find this time next year that we have built more local authority houses——
I hope the Parliamentary Secretary is right and that the money will be available.
The Deputy hopes it will not be available. That is what he means.
No, I hope it will.
Amendment put and declared lost.
There is just a very small amendment I wish to mention which is necessary here. It means the insertion in line 1 at the top of page 40 of the Bill of the word "of". It is merely a clarification. It would appear as it stands that we are talking of needy people who may be in houses whereas what we mean is people in need of houses.
That is what we assume was meant.
If the Minister will meet us in other ways, we shall let it go.
Is that not what I am doing?
Does the Minister wish to make the amendment now?
Yes, if we can have it now.
Yes.
Agreed.
Question proposed: "That section 60 as amended stand part of the Bill."
In arranging this whole system of priorities, I think it is wrong to have a fixed scheme that must be followed rigidly by the MOH and the manager of a local authority. Whenever a number of houses come up for allocation invariably some family just does not fit into one or other priority category and they are eliminated. In my view the scheme should be regarded as a guide line rather than something that must be rigidly followed because I have seen so often when houses were being allocated deserving people who could not be considered because they did not qualify under the priorities laid down. If we made this not completely binding, in cases where members of the local authority and responsible officials were satisfied, they could go outside the scheme and agree to include a family that was obviously urgently in need. We should, I think, be at liberty to do that and that, in some way, should be agreed on this particular section.
There is great danger in what the Deputy has suggested. Personally, I should like a scheme that would apply to everybody. Something that annoys a number of us on local authorities is when somebody out of the blue seems to appear and get a house to which everybody except the county manager, the MOH or somebody else thinks he is not entitled. I should like to see priority lists drawn up in each local authority and not alone that but lists of people seeking houses. It annoys the fellow who is second every time and when a house becomes vacant he does not get it. If he had another few points he would have got it. Another house comes along and for one reason or another somebody else gets ahead of him and pips him on the post. That happens again and again. Every local authority should be asked to draw up a set list so that when a house becomes vacant it would be filled almost immediately. Very often a local authority house becomes vacant and it is several months before the argument is settled about who is going to get it. That should not happen and the way to prevent it, I think, is to have this list drawn up.
The Minister quoted figures. There are some figures that I should like to give of new houses built by local authorities. In 1955 in rural areas there were 2,193 built and in urban areas 3,407. In 1962 there were 455 in rural areas and 783 in the urban areas. I am glad there is some improvement on that.
There is a lot to be said for what Deputy Tully said in his earlier remarks, though not for his last comment. If we are to have priorities it would be impossible to have a situation where you could depart from them at any or every time. However, I think I know what is in the Deputy's mind. I know in rural areas in particular you can have the situation where people are waiting for a house for a number of years and who are pressing their applications on the local authority. But, when the time comes for the houses to be allotted, some casual person with a very high priority rating, but who did not even bother to apply when the housing need was being established, comes along and walks into the first house to the exclusion of the two or three families who did apply to establish the need in the area. I remember that at one time to try to combat that in my own local authority we made it known that the first to be satisfied, provided they were eligible in other respects, would be those who had in fact applied when the need for the houses was being established and that it was only after that the others would be brought in. I do not know whether that still obtains in Donegal County Council. It was an effort to get over this problem.
I believe this problem should be capable of being covered even where you fix priorities. What appeals to me about having the local authority members themselves fix these priorities is this. In the past the complaint has often been that it is the manager, the County MOH or some other official who made the decision, perhaps against the expectations of the members of the council. Once the tenancy was allocated, there was nothing they could do about it. If local councillors can make priorities of their own, they can confine the executive to within those groupings, so that lettings will be made only in accordance with the views of the council.
I agree inflexibility is not a good thing for its own sake. However, I think the power to review from time to time will be a sufficient safeguard for dealing with new situations or matters cropping up which might not have been envisaged when the scheme was drawn up. I think that would meet the point made by Deputy Clinton of giving you flexibility while, at the same time, the priority rating would confine your executive to within that group until the members reviewed or amended the scheme.
Is it the Minister's opinion that at the time a decision is made to build a number of houses in a locality the list should be drawn up and priorities arranged and that anybody appearing at the time the houses are being allocated, whether they would be at that time people who would normally be regarded as more eligible, should be disregarded? I know that the medical officer and the manager have always indicated to us they were obliged to see the situation as it existed on the day they were giving out the houses or a few weeks before when they went around and examined the present position of the families in the area.
This is one of these things it is very hard to make an exact decision about. You could find yourself in the position that an eviction would take place coinciding with the allocation of a scheme of houses and the family concerned might not be one of the families who established the need. Are we going to say to them "Because you were not one of the families who established the need, because you were not in need of a house 12 months ago, we cannot give you priority. You must accept accommodation of an institutional type and your family must be divided"? That is not a right decision to make either. All things being equal, the people who by their pressure and agitation to get houses built have established the need should get priority. If they are not equal, it would be wrong to exclude people who found themselves in deplorable conditions at the time the houses were given out.
When this scheme is made out and agreed a good deal of publicity should be given to the fact that public representatives have neither hand, act nor part and have no influence as to who should get a particular house or who should get houses in a particular scheme and that that is the function and responsibility of the doctor and manager. This business of public representatives pretending they are able to decide who gets a house where makes for endless trouble for public representatives generally. It is completely wrong that any influence should be brought to bear on deciding who should get a house and that need should not be the yardstick. At all times need should be the yardstick and not the amount of influence any applicant has. My experience is that need has been the yardstick in our local authority, but it has gone abroad that that is not so. A good deal of publicity should be given to the fact that public representatives have no influence and can do nothing for anybody except to help get a house built. But, when it comes to the allocation, their influence no longer exists.
I can see Deputy Clinton's problem clearly but it will not be true to say in the future that the county manager or county MOH will exclusively, without regard to any other opinion, have the right of housing. The whole purpose of setting out that the members should draw up a scheme of housing priorities is to ensure, first, that we do not get to a point where every letting will be made by a majority decision of the council. I do not think anybody would wish that. I do not think it would be a good thing if the members of local authorities could dictate the general pattern but they can indicate the guide lines within which the manager must make the lettings.
I remember an instance which may be of interest. A letting was made by a county manager in the usual way. The tenant had in fact disposed of two houses and a farm only a short time before. He had a large, young family and he got a county council house. Later it was discovered that the executive were not aware, as the local councillors were, of the fact that, although he was without a house, he had just sold two and a farm. He could have provided a house for himself. The matter was discussed. It was demonstrated that very often local councillors were in possession of information that might not be available to the executives. The matter was discussed on the basis of existing law, which is being changed somewhat now, and it was decided that local councillors would be given a list of the applicants in advance and they could make whatever comments they wished. That was the understanding: the manager and his staff would be given the benefit of the intimate knowledge in the possession of local representatives of the applicant beforehand. This was done to prevent a recurrence of the earlier grave error. Of course, this type of thing could be provided against under the scheme of priorities. It might be a prerequisite, indeed, to the lettings; that the councillors should make their knowledge available before the manager makes the lettings.
Does the Minister think the manager should be obliged to give his priorities and not just the applicants?
I am not suggesting we would not all of us have our own priorities. There will be three or four who will not have the same priorities. If we could achieve agreed priorities, the whole thing would be very simple. That is not what I am suggesting. Councillors may have information of a local character that the ordinary investigators might not have. It is because of that I suggest councillors might be given a list of the applicants before the manager makes his final decision. That would at least provide them with an opportunity of presenting whatever information they have before the actual lettings are made. There are many things that could possibly be built in which only local authorities themselves could be aware of. Within the general power here, I believe any eventuality can be covered in order to reduce the possibility of any friction arising or any injustice being done unwittingly. In that way it should be possible to get very close to an agreed scheme. There can be no hope of perfection and no hope that mistakes will not be made, but we can go a long way towards ensuring that mistakes made in the past are not repeated. The power here can be utilised, I believe, to good effect.
In our local authority, the elected representatives are asked to give their comments. If all the councillors, as very often happens, recommend one applicant, say, for a cottage, then the county MOH and the manager accept that. If there is a difference of opinion, the county manager gets the councillors together and the matter is discussed with the MOH. He may persuade them the particular applicant is the proper one or vice versa. The same process obtains with relation to schemes. Only once in a blue moon is an applicant given a house and it later appears an injustice has been done. The matter is then discussed in open council. That does not alter the situation, but it may make the county manager more careful. Perhaps that does not apply all the way through because I saw a headline with regard to a case in Kingscourt. A single man was given a cottage in a scheme of six houses. Five of the applicants were married. In the case of the single man, he was employed as a technician in a local factory and he needed a house. If we can prevent that sort of thing happening we should. There was a definite sense of grievance in that instance. Many people, including local councillors, felt the whole thing was unfair.
Deputy Clinton says the local authority has no influence, good, bad or indifferent. That is not so in Meath. I do not mean influence now in the sense in which it is normally used. The recommendation is taken as a recommendation and, if the case made is strong enough, irrespective of whether the applicant is supported by members of our Party or some other Party, the decision usually goes the right way. If that principle were enshrined everywhere, we would be much nearer a solution to this very thorny problem.
To provide specifically for all these various aspects would be dangerous. The general power is there in the section and local authorities should be able to devise their own framework within which the manager should operate. Where you have a manager who operates on the basis Deputy Tully has mentioned, everything is satisfactory. Of course, not all managers operate in that way. Spelling out everything, one might easily leave the most important things out. It is better to have a more general provision, without too much detail, such as we have here, and leave it to the councillors then to draw up their own scheme of priorities for the guidance of the manager.
Is there anything that could be included to cover the odd case I have mentioned? This man was taken out of the queue and given a house while other more deserving applicants were passed over. Is there no way in which that sort of thing could be dealt with rather than having an appeal to the Minister or some kind of row?
I asked the Minister a question. I do not think he heard me. Is it his opinion that the priorities should be set up at the time there is a decision to build houses or should this be deferred until the time when the houses are built? The Minister expressed the view that the people who were responsible for having the houses built, namely the applicants, who, in the initial stages, established the need, were the people who should get prior consideration. He did not explain the position of the doctor and the manager when it comes to the point of allocation, perhaps two years later and in the meantime the situation for X-families has completely changed. What then does he think should be done? Should these families be excluded because they were not amongst those responsible for having the houses built? I should like to hear the Minister on that.
I do not want to be misunderstood in regard to the actual allocation procedure. It is done in County Dublin in much the same way as Deputy Tully has explained. We hold a meeting of the area representatives and it is there decided who gets the houses and we are presented with a list that the manager and the doctor have approved. The only limited influence that we have and, in my view, the only influence that we should have, is, as the Minister says, in bringing something new to light, something that the executive did not know, that the manager or the doctor did not know, or correcting some misleading information that they may have got that would have the effect of putting somebody on the list who should not be on the list, or vice versa. The influence of a public representative should end there. It should be a matter only of drawing attention to these things. A person should not be able to get a house because a Party or a number of Parties support him. Politics should not have that power. I am sure Deputy Tully did not mean that but he did refer to Party support. When it comes to the provision and allocation of local authority houses Party should be excluded. It should be a question of need. Need alone should be the yardstick. A great deal of publicity should be given to that. Party politics should be ruled out of the allocation of houses absolutely and completely.
The flexibility provided for here is very desirable. It is evident from the various contributions that have been made that the procedure varies with each local authority area. In my local authority area there is a very rigid system, one with which I totally disagree.
As Deputy Clinton has indicated, every factor should be duly weighed. That can be done on a points system or some other way. The system in the Dublin city area is based on size of family. It may well be that a person living in one room with two children may be much worse off than a person living in one room with three children, if all the circumstances are taken into consideration. Local authorities need guidance in this matter of priority. The factors which must be considered include health, ceiling height of room, toilet and water facilities, size of windows, whether the accommodation is basement accommodation or otherwise. Either a man is ill or he is out. However strong the medical evidence may be, if he fails to satisfy the requirements of the city medical officer his application will be rejected. The medical evidence should receive its due weight. The system should be such that families would know exactly their position on the list and the list should be brought up to date periodically. If that were done, the local authority would not have to circularise 7,000 or 8,000 people every few years in order to bring the list up to date.
Anticipated increase in families and other factors not at present included in the calculation should be taken into consideration. A person may be on the waiting list for 15 to 20 years. Another person may be on the waiting list for only six months.
I would ask the Minister to ensure that local authorities get the necessary guidance. The section states that the local authority shall obtain and have regard to a report of the chief medical officer. Does that mean that they should accept it completely or merely have regard to it? It would be better if it meant that they should merely have regard to it. In many cases I have submitted evidence which I considered very substantial medical evidence, which was rejected because it did not meet the requirements of the city medical officer. On the other hand, there are quite a number of medical certificates submitted which are obtained at a cost of 10/- or 15/-from the local doctor. The position should be completely examined so as to eliminate the tactic in connection with housing accommodation of supplying a medical certificate for 10/-or 15/-. The city medical officer should make a very comprehensive examination.
The time must come very soon where Dublin Corporation will have to examine this matter in order to ensure that there will be in operation a system based on fair play under which every relevant factor will be considered. I would say once again that the system in operation in the Dublin city area is completely outmoded and needs to be rectified as soon as possible if fair play is to be given to all applicants on the list.
The section provides that the local authority should be required to bring in its scheme of priorities. Of course, that is nothing new. Priorities are not new as far as local authorities are concerned. Deputy Dowling has mentioned a scheme of priorities in Dublin Corporation. The difficulty there is that the existing scheme is governed by the Housing of the Working Classes Acts and has to operate within a somewhat narrower framework than may be considered desirable. There is a particular problem in relation to Dublin which may also apply in the case of large cities such as Cork and Limerick but certainly does not apply in County Dublin or in the rural areas. As Deputy Clinton has told us in connection with County Dublin, for instance, when they come to allocate schemes in a particular area, say, for instance, in Lucan or Balbriggan, they are dealing with a recommendation of the county medical officer in relation to housing people mainly from that area. Therefore, the members of the appropriate committees are in a fairly good position to judge whether or not any mistake has been made, or to judge whether information compiled by the medical officer is accurate.
The situation in Dublin is much more confused. To start off with, we have in existence areas which have high and low priorities. I am referring to normal circumstances and I am not dealing with the circumstances which have existed for the past year or two and which have been prejudiced to a great extent because of the existence of the dangerous building situation. Prior to that there was a situation in Dublin some years ago where a family with one or two children could readily get housed in one area, and yet in another part of the city a family would require to have three, four, five or six children. That is a physical factor, and a confusing factor. It results from a number of circumstances.
It may result from a desire on the part of some people to live near their place of employment. For example, it has been noted over a number of years that in the south city there is always a high demand by applicants to be housed in the Ringsend area. Yet, within two or three miles of that area the demand for accommodation has been quite low at times. This is a particular factor that exists in the city. A few years ago the demand for housing in Ballyfermot was quite low and families of quite small size from overcrowded dwellings could be housed. That is not the situation today. A few years ago you could hardly give away a house in Finglas. That is not the situation today. This situation continues and varies the whole time.
One of the points made by Deputy Dowling which I must comment upon is the position of people who may be on a waiting list for a long time. In some circumstances that can easily be understood. If I apply to be housed in an area where no building is going on, where it is likely that there will be no building for a long time, and where there is an existing corporation scheme, and only an occasional vacancy, I may wait a long time on that list. It is a peculiarity of many Dublin Corporation applicants that they apply to be housed in a particular area. It can happen in the county also. Someone may apply to be housed in Lucan and there may not be any housing there but there may be houses in Balbriggan or Portrane. If the applicant does not qualify for housing in those other places, or if he does not put his name down, he will not be considered.
I think public representatives by and large are mainly concerned to try to ensure that applicants for housing accommodation are treated fairly and equitably. One of the problems is to make the applicants aware of their rights in a particular scheme. This is a service which is rendered by public representatives. The average applicants for a house, or a flat, or a room, will not at all times be fully aware of how the priorities are operating at that moment. They may be supplied with a statement of what the priorities are. They may be supplied with a statement as to the number of applicants under each heading, but in many cases it is found that the applicants may not realise that if they indicate that they are prepared to accept accommodation in an area other than the area they applied for, they might be housed at an earlier stage.
The problem of local authorities bringing in priority lists will be a major exercise on their part. One of the aspects of this matter which I should like to see discussed and elucidated much more clearly by the Minister is how he will deal with priority schemes submitted by the various local authorities that conflict in major respects. Dublin Corporation may make provision that certain priority should be given to overcrowded or unfit houses, and other local authorities may submit priorities based on the size of the family, or the length of residence in the area. In that event we may well reach a situation in which there will be a big gap between the priorities laid down.
The section provides that:
A scheme under this section, or an amendment to any such scheme, shall be made only with the approval of the Minister.
Allocation schemes are made under the Housing of the Working Classes Acts and are clearly supposed to be in accord with those Acts. The local authorities are required to submit a scheme in detail and can only bring in the scheme when sanction has been given by the Minister. I think we should get some clarification on that aspect from the Minister. At present there is no corporation scheme that is being opposed. The existing scheme was discussed by the housing section in consultation with the assistant city manager. In fact, it was approved by the city council and while from time to time requests have been made for an examination of the scheme it is still a corporation scheme.
The carrying out of policy is the responsibility of the city manager and his officials. As a public representative, my view of the matter is that a scheme should be provided in such a way that, first, the applicants could be dealt with fairly and equitably, and secondly that the policy laid down should be operated by the manager and his officials in accordance with the general terms of the scheme and with a human approach to the problems that arise. I would not like to see a situation in which elected representatives were allocating local authority dwellings. It would create a most difficult situation, place the local representatives in an impossible position and the people in need of houses would find that they would have many causes of complaint if, before they could get a house or a flat, they had to depend on the support of local representatives, whether these local representatives were members of political Parties or not.
There are problems at present, where dwellings are unfit, where applicants can submit medical certificates which show that some members of the family are suffering from a serious disease. I remember a case where an applicant had an operation on the bowel and lived three storeys up in a house in Gardiner Street. There was no toilet or running water on the landing and the applicant had to have the bowel cleared every three hours. The medical officer would not certify that the family needed rehousing. Representations were made on the man's behalf but the medical officer was not prepared to give the certificate that he should be rehoused on medical grounds. That medical officer was unduly hard. He was dealing with the case only on the basis that the family did not suffer from tuberculosis and that the dwelling was two-roomed and that there were only three people in the family.
Similar difficulties arise from time to time in the old age group, difficulties of blood pressure, heart trouble and so on. Medical certificates are submitted showing that applicants should not climb stairs but the medical officer will not accept that as ground for rehousing. I could go on interminably about problems arising in this way. Any system of priority should include reference to the medical circumstances of these people. The Minister might well look at systems which are operated by some local authorities in other places. There is the system of giving points in respect of dwellings, the size of families, the length of time on the waiting list and so on. This system might well be introduced in place of the present system.
One of the benefits of allocating houses on a points system is that an applicant would have a reasonable chance of knowing in advance what were his possibilities of being housed. The way the priority scheme operates at the moment is that an applicant with a wife and three children who might have a reasonable chance of being housed in a month or two may find that his rehousing could be deferred for months because of some minor emergency affecting other people who were not even on the waiting list when his name was put on it. A man with his wife and three children may have his name down for rehousing in a particular area for twelve months or two years and applicants who were not interested in that particular area at the time he was registered for it may change their minds. This may be a man and wife and four children and he immediately supersedes the other man.
It is only fair to say that officials of local authorities, with some exceptions, would appreciate fairly clear and definite priorities. It would make their unpleasant job a little better. Many of us who are members of local authorities will have had occasion to complain bitterly that cases of which we have knowledge are not getting the attention they deserve. It is fair to say that responsible local officials would like to carry out policies in as reasonable and humane a way as possible but they can only deal with the bad cases when they have the houses.
I would like the Minister to indicate whether the section which calls for his approval for any scheme is going to be operated in a reasonable way and whether he has any intention of seeing that schemes and priorities are not operated within narrow limits but rather that he is prepared to approve of schemes submitted by local authorities on the basis of the knowledge of these local authorities of the needs in their areas.
I rise to support those who have asked for an extension of the understanding we have of medical necessity. Apart from the gory details of the cases which have been quoted by Deputy Larkin, one could quote thousands of really frightening cases of human beings living in conditions of appalling discomfort, whose cases are not classified as deserving of housing because of medical necessity. As far as I know, no official count has been made of the number of applicants for housing in Dublin which are accompanied by a medical certificate, but I think any member of the House, who is also a member of Dublin Corporation, or is familiar with housing demands in Dublin, will probably agree that it would be no exaggeration to say that at least 50 per cent of the people applying for houses in Dublin can accompany their applications with a medical certificate. The medical certificate may be in respect of some ailment or disadvantage or some need not regarded as compelling, but nevertheless it is sufficient to justify a qualified medical person in issuing a certificate.
I agree with Deputy Larkin that we need, if we can do it without being unfair to others, to extend the medical facts which should be accepted as deserving of priority. Some families, by reason of the amount of hospitalisation which they have had, have a prima facie case for getting additional housing accommodation. If you have families in which members have from time to time to get medical care in hospital, or are in need of constant medical care at home, it might contribute immeasurably to an improvement in their medical condition if they had improved houses, but short of suffering from some highly contagious disease—such as pulmonary tuberculosis which is the only disease or medical disability spelled out here—a medical certificate is of little value.
There are innumerable families in which one or more members are suffering from asthma, or chest or various other respiratory complaints, and the medical doctors will advise in these cases—and I think we have sufficient general medical knowledge to know—that people suffering from these complaints ought to have plenty of air while sleeping. It is utterly impossible to get that, even if you have as few as three people sleeping in one room. Yet even if there are three people sleeping in a bedroom, they have no prospects of being housed in the city for several years to come.
I will argue if I may from a particular case. I am aware of a case in which a family lived for years in a low-lying area adjacent to a river. All the children had been in hospital, most of them on several occasions, because they were suffering from asthma. The file of these people was thick with medical certificates and certificates from hospitals recommending a change of location to see if that could bring about a change in their medical condition. Because of a factor independent of medical considerations, they ultimately got a house elsewhere and none of those children has since had to get any hospitalisation. Shortly after they were transferred, their medical complaint cleared up altogether. This illustrates the need for a wider appreciation of the medical position of applicants. The code we have at present will not allow either the local authority, or the Minister, to provide for a better understanding of medical necessity, certainly so far as an urban centre like Dublin is concerned.
Deputy Larkin mentioned people suffering from heart complaints who were forced to get out of their existing location because it obliged them to climb heights which put a strain on their hearts. This is frequently happening. It may in many cases simply require a transfer within the corporation estate to bring about a better level of accommodation but because of the dire shortage a lower level, or a level which would not require climbing, cannot be provided. There are many people living in privately-owned accommodation at a level far too high for them but at present it does not matter how urgent or compelling is the medical necessity for getting accommodation on ground level. They have not got a hope of getting it, no matter how many certificates they may get from heart specialists. The local authority will say, and one can understand why, that they cannot take into consideration domestic rows, upsets, or disagreements between relations. One can understand easily that if they accepted these things as being a valid reason for obtaining priority, then the best way to get a house would be to develop a row with your mother-in-law.
There are many cases which can be certified by qualified medical people where difficulties arise, due to the fact that some member or members of the household are suffering from mental handicap. There are many cases in which the nerves of people, old or young, can be shattered to the stage where they require constant medical attention by reason of the inadequate housing conditions with which they are faced. Here again there is a need to try to differentiate between the casually produced row and domestic upheaval and cases of genuine, compelling medical necessity to provide alternative accommodation to relieve distress, cases of bad nerves or mental disturbance.
It may well be that the solution to these distressing cases is to have a medical committee, or a committee consisting of medical people and people qualified in social and family matters, but somehow or other, I would hope that within the scope of this Bill, or the regulations which may be made, some institution which could command the respect of members of local authorities and the public, would be established to see that in these distressing medical cases we can separate the wheat from the chaff, the genuine from the alleged cases, and achieve a fairer distribution of the housing accommodation which becomes available. I doubt if anybody who is familiar with the complaints of people looking for houses would disagree with the system if we could humanly achieve it.
I agree with Deputy Dowling about how inflexible the present procedure is. It certainly does not cater for the multitude of conflicting and distressing circumstances which ought be within the consideration of local authorities when houses are being given out. One of the most distressing things is that at the moment the way in which we measure need is to count the number of heads in a family and count the number of rooms—I put "rooms" in inverted commas because I shall come back to them later—and divide the number of rooms by the number of persons and so you find how many persons or fractions of persons per room there are.
Some people have been enterprising enough to make palaces out of the hovels into which they were obliged to go. People who have divided rooms and have made a very good and presentable job of it find that by so doing and endeavouring to provide temporary relief for some of their problems, they may have postponed the ultimate solution of their problem because what was one room is, because of their enterprise, regarded as two rooms and accordingly their need is halved according to the official regulations which we have at present. Again, there are cases in which toilets to serve several families in tenement houses are inserted into rooms in which families are living, thereby reducing the accommodation but yet the room which was officially regarded as such prior to the provision of the toilet in it, is still a room so far as rules and regulations go. These are matters that indicate the need for some flexibility in assessing rooms or units of accommodation.
A factor which apparently at present cannot be accorded proper weight is the insufficiency of toilets in tenement houses. Whether an applicant lives in a house with four or five families in which there is only one toilet or in a house where there is a toilet for each family makes no difference as regards what category they go into. The category will simply be decided by the number of persons per room and the amenities—necessities is a more accurate description—do not enter into the assessment or certainly not until a very late stage. The only point at which they may carry any weight is in determining whether a person will get a house today or in a fortnight's or a month's time. It does not qualify a person sufficiently far in advance to determine what exactly are the urgent housing requirements.
While not disturbing the primary needs to which we are directed in this section we should try to give a little weight to the duration of a person's application. We mortals have not so many decades to live, no matter how long our lives may be and I think it is hardly fair to some applicants to leave them on a waiting list for five, ten or fifteen years. At present we have people who were married five, six or seven years ago and who then applied for houses still having to stand back in favour of couples who were married less than five years ago but who, by the grace of God, have larger families. In many cases by the time we can meet the needs of smaller families the children have grown up and gone away. It hardly seems to be distributing the wealth and amenities of this world fairly to condemn some couples to live forever in miserable housing accommodation simply because they have not been gifted with more children than their neighbours.
Some cases of small families are rather tragic. I feel I speak not only from my own knowledge but also of what is the experience of other members of Dublin Corporation and other local authorities. Some cases are tragic in this way that the mothers have had one or more miscarriages because the families are obliged to live high up at the top of an old tenement in flats which have no lifts. Although some women may produce medical certificates from gynaecologists or family doctors and may produce the certificate in the case of each miscarriage, the person's need for better housing accommodation on the grounds that she cannot be successfully pregnant in her existing housing accommodation does not enter into official reckoning. This is a terribly sad state of affairs and I do not think any member of the House, no matter what his or her Party affiliations may be, would disagree when I say that such people deserve the very special and sympathetic consideration of the House and of anybody who has anything to do with the problem.
Having said all these things, I can appreciate the difficulty is to provide for them and to recite them accurately and in detail in a section in any piece of legislation but it is desirable that we, as men and women representing the people, should try to see the extent of the problem and try to form under this new Bill a more humane code of priority so that these very compelling and distressing cases can be taken into consideration in future.
I do not think there has ever been such unanimity as we have observed this morning among Deputies including Deputy Ryan, Deputy Larkin, Deputy Tully, Deputy Clinton and others. We all speak with one voice in this matter of priorities. After a great deal of talk, we find, I think, that the only way to have a perfect system of priorities is to have none at all but to have plenty of houses and do away with priorities.
There is mention in the Bill of TB cases. We find in the city that if an applicant for housing has been in a sanatorium and perhaps has had a major operation and a lung removed, he is not given any preference because of that. Apart from the human suffering this may cause there is also the factor that the treatment of this man has cost so much that it seems wrong to stop short there and allow the man to go back perhaps to an insanitary hovel. I think we should consider extending post-sanatorium treatment so that this man or woman will be given special consideration because they have had sanatorium treatment.
A particular case is made here that a person suffering from thrombosis might live at the top of a tenement house and would not get any special consideration. I am sure that all members who have spoken this morning have helped towards getting a perfect system. In the Bill it states that the local authority shall have regard to the medical officer's report. This is quite understandable but how often do we find that doctors will differ on patients' ailments? We find this frequently in cases where a man is sick for a long time. He is told by his own doctor that he is fit to return to work but the company's doctor refuses to take him back. Surely a medical officer might also make a mistake and condemn a man to go on living in bad housing conditions.
Another aspect of this which Deputy Clinton mentioned is the matter of local representatives making representations. He rightly said that we have no power in this matter and I do not think this can be stressed too much. There is a fallacious belief in the public mind that, if you know a sufficiently forceful and effective member, your chances of being rehoused are much better than if you go to a lesser member. Most of us try to stress that the allocation of dwellings is purely a reserved function for the manager, the medical officer and the allocation officer. If we could clear the public mind of this false impression it would go a long way towards helping people appreciate the true housing position. On the other hand, the Minister mentioned that a local member may have special local knowledge of conditions which the official mind would pass over. Therefore, I suppose each one of us would feel we should do whatever we can to bring home to the allocation officer or manager the need of a particular case.
Nowadays health is not one of the greatest factors because the incidence of TB has fallen very much. I examined the latest list of housing allocation made by the corporation. Out of a total of 64, only one case was dealt with on health grounds. The other principal grounds were overcrowding, emergency housing and dangerous buildings. While I believe that the existing system should be held sacrosanct until it is amended, a few years ago we had the experience of seeing overnight the priority list being cast away because we had such a large number of dangerous buildings to deal with. I mention that to stress how important it is we should have flexibility in our actions. In that way we could reduce a great deal the sum total of human suffering which is the wake of bad housing.
Deputy Moore mentions the desirability for flexibility but there is one aspect of housing on which I should like to see a very rigid attitude. It concerns houses or rooms in tenement houses that have been declared unfit for human habitation. Subsequently, the landlords come along and rent the rooms that have been closed and even charge key money for them. They take advantage of the position of young married people in this housing emergency over the past two and a half years. These young people, who have nowhere else to go, are placed in the position by these unscrupulous landlords of having to pay £10, £25, and even £50 key money for a room in a tenement house that has been declared unfit for human habitation.
I cannot see how that arises on this section, which relates to the priority to be followed by housing authorities in the allocation of tenancies.
I thought it would be appropriate to section 60 (3) (a), where it mentions the "repair, closure and demolition of houses which are unfit in any respect for human habitation".
The Deputy is referring to landlords and the charge they make in allocating houses that have been condemned. I do not see anything about that in the section.
What I had in mind was this. The local authority have to rehouse the people coming from rooms in houses declared unfit for human habitation, but the problem does not decrease. They find they are confronted with the same problem again by this action of people re-letting rooms which have been declared unfit for human habitation. We find in Dublin Corporation that this adds considerably to the swelling of the waiting list. No appropriate action is taken by the local authority or the Minister to ensure that this practice is discontinued. I should like the Minister to give serious consideration to the fact that there are people who are prepared to make money out of the misery and suffering of others and it is the duty of the Minister to ensure that adequate penalties are imposed on people who take advantage of the present situation.
In Dublin top priority is given to people who have been removed from dangerous buildings. Under the present system a notice is served by the corporation when there is a defect in a building, but that could be a very small defect which could be easily remedied. For example, it could be a crack in a back wall or something wrong with a chimney. This can only be dealt with under the present law by the corporation actually serving a notice on the owner of the building that it is a dangerous building and requiring him to have certain repairs and structural alterations made.
If—and this is by no means an uncommon practice—the landlord sees an opportunity of de-tenanting a house, demolishing it and having a valuable site to dispose of at a handsome profit, he takes advantage of this defect in our law. It has happened time and again that, while the corporation were swamped with applications for houses, they were compelled to serve notice stating that a building was dangerous because minor repairs might be necessary and the landlord, suitably advised by his solicitor, refused to comply with the corporation's request, even though the cost of the repair might be only £5 or £10. On the basis of the notice served on him by the corporation that the building is dangerous, he proceeds to get a court order and removes all the tenants from the building. He then does one of two things. He either demolishes the building and sells the site at a considerable profit or carries out repairs and relets the premises at an enhanced rent. The situation is very serious in Dublin. Having been made aware of it, I believe the Minister will now give consideration to it and ensure that adequate steps are taken to prevent a continuance of this despicable practice by unscrupulous people.
I should like to support what Deputy Cluskey has said. This is a problem that faces all local authorities and it often results in delay in the rehousing of applicants. The local authority are always reluctant to remove families out of such dwellings because they know that the landlord will replace them with other families. We call this "jumping the queue" in Cork. I think local authorities have power to forbid a landlord to permit this overcrowding, but something positive will have to be done to cope with the situation. I know families who comply with all the regulations governing rehousing but the fear is that, if they are rehoused, the same position will recur immediately in the premises they have vacated. We are not the only local authority faced with this problem and something very definite will have to be done about it.
The system in operation, particularly in the rural areas, is satisfactory. I am a member of a local authority and I have some experience of priorities in County Mayo. When a county council house or cottage becomes vacant, a notice appears in the paper and there are a number of applications. The local medical officer is consulted. Local medical officers know the people. Quite often they consult the local councillors to find out who is the most deserving applicant. The manager then, acting on the advice of the county MOH, who gets his report from the local medical officer, makes a decision. In the meantime local representatives have an opportunity of making their representations. If they are not satisfied they can raise the matter at a county council meeting by way of question. We do that in Mayo under our standing orders. That is a far safer system than transferring the power to the local elected representatives, who could not agree on an issue like this naturally. In a rural area where everybody knows everyone else, if a county councillor failed to get a house for an applicant, he would be in real trouble. The majority of our people realise that a county councillor has no power in selecting tenants. If a county councillor is dissatisfied, and if he is a member of this House, he can raise the matter here. If he is not a member of this House, he can raise it at local authority level. Generally speaking, these things are done on a very fair basis, in my opinion.
The practice has grown up of vesting cottages. Suppose a son who resides with his parents gets married, and looks for a house, the local authority, realising his problem, particularly if he is a labouring man, provide him with a house. He pays his rent. Then the parents die and the parents' house, a substantial dwelling, falls vacant. The son goes back to live in it and proceeds to sell the local authority house, subsidised by the general body of rate-payers, with which he was provided when he got married. He sells it and makes perhaps £400 or £500 on some poor devil who is forced into making a deal with him. I do not say abuses of this nature are many in number, but they do occur. Steps should be taken to stop that type of abuse.
It is abundantly clear that part of the problem here in the City of Dublin arises from the fact that so many people are coming in here from towns adjacent and from rural areas. People, like Bord na Móna, build houses and they can get nobody to take them. This may not be absolutely relevant, but I think if something could be done to provide work for people in rural areas, there would be tenants for these houses and that would reduce the problem in Dublin and elsewhere.
That does not arise on this section of the Bill and the Deputy may not continue that argument.
It would be a good solution to the problem. All these factors must be taken into consideration when we are debating housing legislation.
We are debating section 60.
This section will place a duty on housing authorities to make a scheme of priorities for the letting of housing accommodation within their own areas. Deputy Cluskey was dealing with matters that will be dealt with at a later stage. There would seem to be no point in replying to them at this stage because they will arise on later sections. This is a new provision, a new approach to our letting system. Heretofore, the letting of houses was a matter determined, if you like, by way of regulation by the Minister. Under this section each local authority, the elected representatives, will draw up their own priorities having regard to certain defined categories and it will then be a matter for the manager to implement their scheme. At any time they can request the manager to inform them before he appoints a tenant of what he proposes to do and if they are not satisfied they can by resolution insist that their priority scheme is adhered to. It is a new provision and something that most local authorities will welcome. A great deal has been said on the section. A number of the points raised by Deputies relate strictly to other sections and there is no point in replying to them now.
Must the Minister then approve of the list of priorities drawn up by the local authorities? Have they to be submitted to him?
The scheme has to be submitted to him.
For approval?
Yes.
And he must approve it or amend it?
He need not necessarily approve it. The point about it is that if he was not satisfied, he would not approve it.
Does the Parliamentary Secretary not think that the Minister should recommend what he believes should be the list?
There is some guide there for local authority representatives.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 61 agreed to.
SECTION 62.
I move amendment No. 71:
In page 41, lines 39 to 44, to delete subsection (3) and substitute the following subsection:
"(3) Upon the hearing of an application under subsection (1) of this section, the justice of the District Court hearing the application may, in case he is satisfied that the notice required by this section has been duly given, issue the warrant."
Perhaps amendments Nos. 71 and 72, which are related, could be discussed together.
The purpose of amendment No. 71 is to delete the unnecessary provisions from section 62, subsection (3). The effect of the amendment will be to bring section 62 into line with sections 39, 66 and 103.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 72:
In page 41, subsection (4), to delete all the words from "a warrant" in line 46 to the end of the subsection and insert "the issue of a warrant under this section and the warrant when so issued shall have the same effect as a warrant under the said section 86."
The purpose of this amendment is to make section 62, subsection (4) consistent with section 66, subsection (16) and section 103, subsection (4) dealing with the same subject matter.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 73:
In page 42, subsection (6), line 4, to delete "paragraph (a) of".
The purpose of this amendment is to correct a verbal discrepancy between subsection (5) and subsection (6). The premises referred to in both subsections are intended to be the same. The amendment will ensure that they are described in the same way.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 74:
To add to the section two new subsections as follows:—
"For the purposes of this section a notice authorised by this section may be served:
( ) (a) by delivering it to a person,
(b) by leaving it at the address where such person ordinarily resides, or
(c) by sending it by post in a prepaid registered letter addressed to the person at the address where he ordinarily resides, or
(d) where it is not possible by reasonable enquiries to ascertain who is such person and where such person ordinarily resides, by delivering it to some person over sixteen years of age residing or employed in the said premises and/or he may affix it in some conspicuous position on the premises.
( ) Judicial notice shall be taken by all courts of law and by any tribunal or inquiry appointed statutorily of the seal on any instrument, order or document purporting to be sealed with the seal of a local authority and shall be admissible in evidence in like manner as an original."
The first part of the amendment, subclauses (a), (b), (c), (d), simply deals with the service of notice to quit. I understand that there is a legal doubt regarding that and that is the reason for the amendment.
In regard to the latter part of the amendment, I understand that difficulties have arisen in the past in proving orders made under the Housing Act of 1931, such as demolition orders and closing orders, due to the absence of any provision in that Act for the judicial noting of such documents which are made under seal. It is simply to get over that difficulty that I have added the second part of the amendment. I am not sure how far my amendments have been met by the Parliamentary Secretary. I think portion of them possibly have been.
The first part has been met by the previous amendment.
It would be better if the Parliamentary Secretary would accept my amendment because it would be clear then as to the mode of service of the notice to quit.
I understand that section 3 of the Bill deals with the service of notices.
That gets back to my original statement that there were legal doubts here. There is a difference between what I might call the practising lawyers and the theory lawyers.
I understand that we have met the case by an amendment of section 3 of the Bill.
My advice is that section 3 does not cover it sufficiently.
As amended, it will.
Even as amended—that it would be better to have it set out instead of having to go back to either the Landlord and Tenant Act or some other Act which may not set out the provisions as clearly as they are set out here. It is purely a question of clarification.
What part of his amendment is the Deputy dealing with?
The whole of the first part of it.
Under heading (a)?
Under subheading (b) which reads:
by leaving it at the address where such person ordinarily resides.
There is very little similarity between section 3 and the amendment proposed by Deputy H.P. Dockrell and I find it difficult to follow his line of argument. He would certainly be helping me if he would point out the differences he sees between the two.
I shall go back to the practising lawyers. They find themselves in court and have to go back through the Landlord and Tenant Act as to the mode of service of a notice to quit. The different Act lay down different methods. For instance, I think the Landlord and Tenant Act does not provide for my last subsection (d) which reads:
where it is not possible by reasonable enquiries to ascertain who is such person and where such person ordinarily resides, by delivering it to some person over sixteen years of age residing or employed in the said premises and/or he may affix it in some conspicuous position on the premises.
That is one of the difficulties.
Included in section 3 there is provision for the publishing of a notice to quit. That has been removed from section 3. Does that not meet the case Deputy H.P. Dockrell has in mind?
No; I do not think it does. It is purely to clarify the procedure to be adopted as regards the mode of service.
There are a number of sections in the Bill which deal with matters of this kind. We feel—and the Minister is quite satisfied—that instead of having this covered by different sections, section 3 should cover the lot.
Yes, but section 3 does not lay down the method to be adopted.
It does.
Clearly it does.
It is obvious Deputy H.P. Dockrell would not put down this amendment, unless he and some of his colleagues in the legal profession were satisfied that the legislation we are setting out to enact could be improved by a further clarification, such as is recommended in it. I wonder in the circumstances—where it is quite obvious this doubt exists—if the Parliamentary Secretary would undertake to make another scrutiny of this matter between now and Report Stage and, perhaps, deal with it on Report Stage?
In relation to this amendment?
In relation to this amendment in respect of section 3, where the Parliamentary Secretary says it is fully covered.
The Minister has examined section 3 and he has amended it to try to meet this situation.
The Parliamentary Secretary is satisfied that it is covered by section 3. With regard to the judicial notice, I wonder could the Parliamentary Secretary give us some idea of that?
I understand it is a much broader issue and will be considered in the amendment of the general local government code rather than in this housing legislation.
In that case, I withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 75:
To add to the section a new subsection as follows:—
"( ) (a) In a case where any person unlawfully enters or occupies any dwelling or building or any part thereof which has become vacant by operation of law or otherwise, the authority may require the said person to vacate the dwelling or building or any part thereof and remove his property (if any).
(b) If a person does not comply with the requisition or notice duly served by a housing authority, the District Court, on the application of the authority, may by order direct the person to comply with the requisition within such period specified in the order as the Court may direct.
(c) A person who does not comply with the order of the District Court, shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on summary conviction of a fine not exceeding £50."
This amendment is simply to cover the situation where a person enters an unoccupied corporation dwelling. I understand there is a provision in the Enforcement of Court Orders Act 1926 relating to the re-taking of possession of premises after execution but the provisions of the section are not very satisfactory. The Garda are hesitant to prosecute in these matters, taking the view that they are really civil matters. It is merely to clarify that position that I have put down this amendment.
Somewhat like another part of your previous amendment, I understand this point is now covered by the section, as amended.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed: "That section 62 stand part of the Bill".
There is one matter I should like to bring to the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary. Subsection (b) does not appear to cover trespassers. Would the Minister have another look at this section?
Could the Deputy develop that a little?
I could not say anything more about it.
You seem to be happy enough that it does cover it.
No, it does not cover it.
We feel it does cover it.
The Parliamentary Secretary seems to be satisfied that trespass is sufficiently covered.
Perhaps the Deputy could develop his argument, but, as it is, it seems to be covered.
What is the section all about, anyhow?
If Deputy Dockrell wishes, we shall have another look at that.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 63.
Question proposed: "That section 63 stand part of the Bill."
In subsection (b), there is covered a situation where conditions:
are such that the free air space in any room used as a sleeping apartment, for any person is less than four hundred cubic feet (the height of the room, if it exceeds eight feet, being taken to be eight feet, for the purpose of calculating free air space), and "overcrowding" shall be construed accordingly.
Surely it is considered desirable, at this stage, that there should be another look at this question of overcrowding of a cubic capacity and where this 400 cubic feet of free air space is inadequate from one point of view, the area to constitute overcrowding for this particular purpose might well be increased beyond 400 cubic feet in respect of each individual. We are all aware that this has been the standard, and it was adopted by the medical authorities. It does not take into account the very human factors that arise in relation to the occupancy of a single room. Many years ago the situation was that it had to be 400 cubic feet per person. At that time there was no limitation as to height. The room could be 14 feet high and for the purpose of considering whether it was overcrowded, the air space with a ceiling of 14 to 16 feet was taken into account. For a number of years very serious overcrowding took place and then a change was introduced, and even though it was belated, it was welcome. When considering whether a room was overcrowded a ceiling of eight feet was taken into account. There was a further change. When considering whether a room was overcrowded inanimate objects such as furniture were excluded. The average height of the ceiling of modern dwellings is around eight feet.
We are dealing with overcrowding in tenement rooms and multiple dwellings. Even allowing a ceiling of eight feet, you can have a father and a mother and two children living in that room and they may well have—if they are lucky—running water and a gas stove or some means of cooking. In that case the family will not be considered to be overcrowded if the room exceeds 1,600 cubic feet. I think this 1,600 cubic feet is too low. Even if it were 2,000 cubic feet, it could still be considered to be overcrowded. The application of the 400 cubic feet per person is too rigid and it does not take into account the fact that in dealing with overcrowding, you are not dealing with families living in separate dwellings, or flats, but to a great extent with families living in one room or in a partitioned room. I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to say if there is any possibility of having that matter re-examined.
Paragraph (a) of the section provides that when the number of persons:
are such that any two of those persons, being persons of twelve years of age or more of opposite sexes and not being persons living together as husband and wife, must sleep in the same room, or
Having regard to the earlier development of boys and girls in our country, there appears to be a case for reducing that qualification of 12 years of age to somewhere around ten years of age, because for the purposes of this section, the sex of the children is not taken into account in regard to overcrowding, and a boy and girl of around 11 years of age may be sleeping in the one room. In the circumstances I wonder would the Parliamentary Secretary not agree that, having regard to the earlier development of children in this country like other countries, the time has come for a re-examination of that qualification set out in paragraph (a) of section 63.
This section deals with the definition of "overcrowding". I gather the point raised by Deputy Larkin is in relation to a single room dwelling. We say here that a dwelling of less than 400 cubic feet per person would not be classified as a fit dwelling. The Deputy's point was whether that 400 cubic feet is determined when the room is empty or making allowance for furniture. Is that the point?
He said the room could be about 20 feet high as well.
That was settled providing that the ceiling level was eight feet. I said that a particular room may also include some means of cooking such as a gas stove, or an electric stove, or an open fire. Surely for the purpose of deciding on overcrowding, 1,600 cubic feet is not sufficient. Even in those circumstances if there were 500 cubic feet per person that should be considered to be overcrowding. A father and mother and two children may live in a single room of 1,500 cubic feet and technically be not overcrowded.
It is the area of air space.
Mr. O'Leary
Will the Parliamentary Secretary say who will measure this area of air space? Which Department will take on this measurement?
It is a matter for the local authority.
Mr. O'Leary
How would the local authority advise on the measurement of air space?
The free air space within the room.
Mr. O'Leary
I am curious to discover how you measure the air space.
The Deputy is not as simple as that. You take the volume of the room and the furniture and take one from the other to get the free air space.
What is the volume of a table?
Mr. O'Leary
Who determines the volume of a bed?
You make allowance for it.
Mr. O'Leary
What is the measurement?
The Deputy has me there. Maybe he would help us by suggesting something.
Deputy Larkin dealt with the position where the total space available is one room. Suppose, for instance, there are two rooms and one is used as a living room, where the cooking, washing and other chores are done during the day time, and they sleep in the other room at night. Suppose there is a place for a bed for one of the children in the living room at night, can it be said this family is not overcrowded?
It relates to the sleeping apartments.
It would not be said they were not overcrowded because a place could be found for a bed for one of the children at night time in the room which was used as a living room in the day time? Perhaps when he is replying the Parliamentary Secretary will deal with that point. I think it is important that there should be a reduction of the age of the children from 12 years to ten years, perhaps. It is a well-known fact that today children are much more advanced than they were some years ago, due to television and various other communications that bring them into touch with these things. I think a case must be made for reducing the age from 12 years to ten.
Can the Parliamentary Secretary say whether this section represents any change in the existing law, and how long it is since the law relating to overcrowding was revised?
The point raised by Deputy Clinton has regard to a two-roomed apartment where the people are all sleeping in the one room. His point is that there should be some provision to enable them to put down a bed in the other room at night. Surely this is a point that could be dealt with by the local authorities?
Mr. O'Leary
Surely the Parliamentary Secretary is looking for a great deal of machinery from a local authority that is not there at the present time if he thinks that this kind of loose phrasing can cover the position? There is gross overcrowding in many areas in this city and the matter of overcrowding is very far down in the corporation's priority list. At the moment five in a room is the situation they are dealing with and I have come across cases where people in two rooms were badly caught for accommodation. I think this phrasing looks at the matter in too cold and too scientific a manner and does not take into account the problems with which we are all familiar.
It seems to me that this does not give local authorities a standard to which to live up in the matter of space. There is the question of the furniture in the room, the size of the fireplace, the cooking facilities, the ages of the children and so on, and then there is the overall problem that the local authorities are not staffed sufficiently well to keep a proper check on the overcrowding position. It does not strike me that this clause will improve the position as it is now. It seems to me to have been phrased badly and I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary what difference there is between this section as compared with the similar section in the previous Act?
None, I understand.
Mr. O'Leary
When was the previous Act passed?
In 1952.
Mr. O'Leary
The last legislation on this matter was in 1952 and now we are going to have the standards of 13 years ago embodied in the provisions in this Bill.
How long have these standards obtained?
Certainly from 1952.
Mr. O'Leary
Would they go back to British rule?
No.
Mr. O'Leary
But they certainly go back to Free State rule.
Are sub-tenants considered for rehousing under this section?
That is not relevant to this section. The Deputy is dealing with priorities and that has already been dealt with.
Surely sub-tenants must be considered in conjunction with overcrowding?
It is overcrowding, no matter how it arises.
Tenants who have been sub-tenants in council houses since 1960 are being allowed in in the municipal areas.
What about the urban and rural areas? We are scourged with sub-tenants in Limerick and they are not qualified for first lettings. Can you get me out of my problem?
Yes. The Minister is looking into that matter.
He said he was going to change it, not look into it. We cannot allow it to go back to looking into it.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 64 and 65 agreed to.
SECTION 66
I move amendment No. 76:
In page 43, subsection (1), line 44, to delete "twenty-one days" and insert "twenty-eight days."
This amendment arises out of section 66(1) dealing with repairs and it proposes to change the notice from 21 days to 28 days. The reason for the change is that under subsection 66(13) a notice becomes operative after 21 days from the time of service. It might happen that service could not be effected for some time after the date of issue of the notice and a person might receive a notice requiring him to do something without giving him sufficient time.
Is the Parliamentary Secretary satisfied that even the 28 days is sufficient? We all know what happens when a house is condemned. Somebody applies for a new house and it often happens that an owner may have allowed a tenant in as a matter of temporary convenience. There is also the case of very many old people who do not appreciate what is meant in a letter from the county council quoting a statute. I would like some better method of ensuring that owners of property are aware of the situation which arises when a house is condemned.
I have in mind a case in which a house was condemned by a local authority and a rather slick auctioneer sold it to an unfortunate woman who spent £300 in putting it into proper repair and then the local authority came along and took the roof off. Certain things must be done to ensure that people know what is meant when they receive a notice that a house is to be condemned. I have no sympathy with a person who contrives to let a house which has been condemned to a person who gets what is known as the golden key in some areas. The one way in which a tenant was able to get possession of a vacant house or cottage was by getting this key and very large sums of money have been paid out for this purpose. I should like to see this dealt with in this section.
Do I understand that the Deputy is worrying about the number of days in which this has to be done? He must get 28 days' notice.
I cannot hear the Parliamentary Secretary.
I will tell the Deputy after questions.
"Not less than."
Progress reported; Committee to sit again.