Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 23 Feb 1966

Vol. 221 No. 2

Housing Bill, 1965: Fifth Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."

The Bill is being discussed along with Motion No. 5.

On the adjournment last night, I was drawing the attention of the Minister and the House to the provisions of section 22 of the Bill. I was doing so in connection with certain damage that had occured in the Anglesea Road area of my constituency during the exceptional floods some time in November of last year. In the exceptional floods that had occured about two years ago, many of these houses were subjected to damage from the flooding of the River Dodder. Last year they were again damaged in the flooding. On this occasion not merely was the structure of many of the houses concerned damaged very considerably, causing the owners or occupiers to be subjected to liability for very serious pecuniary damages, but the boundary walls, the side walls and rere walls of the gardens were completely flattened by the floods that came from the Dodder. That had happened before, so that whoever was responsible for the control of the Dodder was put on notice.

While I think I may submit that under section 4 of the 1962 Act, which this section 22 replaces, the principle of the Minister having discretionary power to relieve distress in cases of flooding has been recognised, in view of the fact that flooding causing severe damage to these houses occurred before, it was, I believe, impossible to secure any cover by insurance companies against subsequent flooding. Accordingly, these people were faced with great liability under covenants in their leases from their head landlords to replace the walls which had been completely flattened out by the Dodder when it overflowed its banks. Each of these people is now faced with very serious loss.

I visited some of these houses and saw what happened myself. Not merely were these walls flattened, causing these people to be liable to replace them at great expense, but inside the houses their goods such as bedding and furniture were seriously damaged also. I know of no provision enabling the Minister or anybody else to give a grant in ease of the owners of houses whose houses have been flooded and in consequence of which furniture and bedding is damaged. But certainly in section 4 of the Act of 1962 there is discretionary power in the Minister to give grants to people whose houses have been damaged in consequence of wind, rain or floods.

The people, faced with the liability of heavy expenditure, formed themselves into an association and their spokesman interviewed the Department of Finance. The case made by the officials there was that the Minister has no power to give a grant for the walls of the gardens to the houses. He has power to give it for the houses but not for the walls. Section 22 is now repealing the section in the 1962 Act. For that reason I was asked to take the opportunity afforded by the Fifth Stage of this Bill to bring the grievances of these people before the Minister and the House in order that provision should be made, in the Seanad if necessary, to meet their situation. I gave what my constituents thought was the officials' attitude: "We are sorry. If it was your house was damaged, we might think about it. We cannot do anything about the walls of the gardens, the boundary and side walls." This has happened before. A sum of £200 or £300 had to be expended in the previous flooding by a number of these people in connection with their liabilities under covenants in their leases to repair and keep in repair. Consequently, I say the local authority and the Government were put on notice to meet the situation. In equity and justice, they ought to meet it now.

I do not agree with the interpretation put by the officials on this section 4. It is intended that the Act of 1962 shall be replaced by this Act. Therefore, instead of the section in the Act of 1962, the operative section enabling the Minister to exercise discretion will be section 22 when this Bill comes into operation. The allegation that houses are confined to the structure of houses, in my view, cannot stand up legally. I have very clear authority for that proposition and have so advised my constituents. In the ordinary concept in the mind of a person who owns a house, when he speaks of his house, he does not mean the four walls of the house or anything inside it, or even out-offices, garages or anything like that. He means the entire of his house, including the back and front gardens and the walls or any other structure surrounding it. That popular view is in strict accord not merely with the most ancient view of legal commentators but also of fairly recent legal authorities. I can quote authority for the Minister and his officials, for the proposition I have made. I do not want to read a law lecture to the Dáil but I think the Minister's advisers ought to know the legal position.

Speaking from recollection, as far back as the 17th century, Coke on Littleton, a very ancient commentary on the law of real property, dealt with the meaning of "house". One would think it was made for this particular section. This distinguished Elizabethan, I think, a Chief Justice, rules as follows: "The word `house' contains the buildings, curtilage, orchard and garden". Now, if it comprises the garden, surely it comprises the garden wall? If there is any doubt about that definition, it was adopted and amplified, if necessary, in a case, St. Thomas's Hospital against Charging Cross Railway. The Minister and his advisers can have the reference in the Law Reports in which it is to be found if they so desire—J. & H., 404, Johnston & Henry. In that case, the Judge, Vice Chancellor Wood, said that the word "house" comprises all that would pass by a grant of a house and would include not only the curtilage but also the garden or paddock which is necessary adjoining to the enjoyment of the house. The garden passes and garden walls must also be included: that is not the official attitude. One might consider that if the walls of the house were injured by the flood, they should be included but here we cannot secure a grant because it is a garden. In considering this Bill when it is in the Seanad, the Minister should introduce an amendment to section 22 as it stands at the moment in order to remove any possible doubt and give the Minister for Local Government, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, power to give grants to cover the people whose property, including their garden walls, has been injured in the recent floods.

I think I am right in suggesting that the principle has been established by the Act of 1962 for the giving of a grant for damage to house property caused by flood. That is in section 4 of the 1962 Act and that section is being carried into this Bill. I suggest that the Minister should consider the amendment of this section so as to make the position clear. I should really prefer him to bring in a separate section to cover specific cases of the kind I have mentioned, where damage has occurred before by flooding and notice is thereby given to the Department of Local Government or to the Minister of the possibility of recurrence. Where damage does occur again, it should be almost a matter of right for the Minister to give relief.

In the particular area to which I am referring, the flooding was very serious. In fact, one of my constituents paddled a rowing boat up Anglesea Road during the flooding caused by the overflow from the Dodder banks. While I am speaking on behalf of and putting forward a case for justice for my constituents in Anglesea Road, there is a wider principle involved also. I myself was captured in a flood, a pool of water, out in Templeogue on 18th November last on the evening of the removal of the remains of the late Mr. W.T. Cosgrave to the church. I was stuck, as a result of a flood coming down over the banks on the right-hand side of the road as one goes out to the church and out on to the left on to a farmer's land beside it. My state car was lifted bodily on to the ditch and, as water came down, the wall was completely damaged. The man who owns the property there told me that it would cost him £300 to repair that wall and that he has been refused a grant. Surely it is inequitable, in these circumstances, that the Minister should not at least have discretion in relation to the giving of a grant? Other people, too, have approached me about other cases of a similar type.

An unusual flooding, causing private damage, is something that comes within the principle enshrined in section 4 of the 1962 Act and section 22 of the present Bill and consideration should be given to it accordingly. While there is any danger of flooding occurring, one will not get any insurance company to indemnify one against possible loss. Therefore, unless the local authority do a better job since the last flooding than they have done before, these private people are in the position of possibly having to meet another liability although they have already met one of a very substantial character.

I press on the Minister the urgent desirability of dealing with this matter in the Seanad. Section 22 should not be kept to narrow confines. If possible a section should be introduced to give the Minister discretion—that is all I ask—in relation to private individuals whose property is damaged as a result of exceptional floods particularly when the local authority, charged to prevent the flood, has allowed it to happen a second time.

I should like to support Deputy Costello's plea on this point. He has represented this area of Anglesea Road for many years and I have represented it lately. The last floods have brought back to us how terribly essential it is to take precautions and to try to prevent a recurrence. Dublin Corporation have brought in a new scheme there but it will be many years before it is finished. In the meantime, the surroundings of these houses may again be damaged as they were damaged twice in the past few months. As Deputy Costello has pointed out, it is not merely in Anglesea Road that action is needed because people in many other parts of the country are affected also.

A definition of "house" would help very much. Deputy Costello also has produced evidence of definitions given in other places. I would support his plea to the Parliamentary Secretary to ask the Minister that, when the Bill comes before the Seanad, it be amended to include the curtilage of a house or even a definition of "house". I am reminded that the definition of "house" is in the Bill but I suppose we do not quite agree with that definition. I would ask the Minister to widen that definition to include the points made by Deputy Costello.

A very serious matter in relation to people concerned is the fact that insurance companies have refused to re-insure. If that happens, they may leave these houses because the local authority cannot help them very much in that respect.

Every effort should be made to help people to preserve the existing stock of houses. In the case of the Anglesea Road, Ballsbridge, houses, had the walls been strong enough, there would have been no floods. The rush of water from the River Dodder swept everything before it and caused thousands of pounds damage. The persons concerned who suffered through no fault of their own are entitled to consideration and I support Deputy Costello's able plea in that respect.

I have already spoken at some length on this Bill. Consequently my final comments will be brief.

First, I should like to thank the Parliamentary Secretary for his acknowledgment of the co-operation he received from both Deputy Tully and myself throughout the discussion on the Bill. The Parliamentary Secretary has considerable experience of local government and I am sure he realised that we were sincerely trying to improve a measure that I, personally, believed to be defective from the start. I expressed the view that the Bill fell very far short of the expectations and hopes of the people. False hopes were raised by the way in which the Minister heralded this housing legislation. We needed to make a complete break with tradition and to make fundamental changes in our housing legislation if we were to succeed in clearing the way for a real housing drive by removing the many obstacles impeding progress, so that the necessary number of houses could be built in the shortest possible time when money again became available.

Instead of that, instead of removing dual control and the division of responsibility as between the county council and the Department, the Minister preferred to continue the same sort of defective legislation. In this measure he has re-enacted most of the existing legislation. Undoubtedly, some marginal improvements have been introduced. Despite the improvements, introduced in the Bill as drafted and embodied in amendments which have been accepted, I maintain that the Bill still falls very far short of what is required in order to solve the housing problem.

On the night before the Bill was introduced, the Minister stated that the target would be 14,000 houses per annum, at a cost of approximately £20 million and that he expected that this target would be reached within a few years. That statement was made last June. In my view, we will not reach the target which the Minister announced in anything like the time which he then suggested because all the obstacles that have existed over the years remain. Some of them may have been reduced slightly but the same inherent weakness as existed in the housing legislation remains and, in addition, there is a credit squeeze in operation at the moment which, incidentally, is now being referred to by Deputies on the Government benches as if it were an act of God, with which they had absolutely nothing to do and had no responsibility for, which, of course, is quite ridiculous and indefensible.

The Fine Gael Party put down a fairly large number of amendments to the Bill, most of which, I am sorry to say, were rejected. We put down these amendments because we knew from practical experience as members of local authorities what it was that was preventing us from providing the houses required in our constituencies. Most of our amendments have been rejected, in my view, unwisely, and grants and other incentives remain practically the same as they were in 1948.

I fail to see how the Minister hopes to reach the targets he has announced. I think it was Deputy Cunningham who said that there was no shortage of money and that houses were being built at approximately the same rate as always. That may be happening in Donegal. I should like to know the number of houses being built there, both in the private and the public sector. I know that in my constituency we are just closed down because we have been waiting for money since last September. There are practically £1½ million worth of housing proposals in the Minister's Department still awaiting sanction and we just do not know when it will be forthcoming. I am in touch with private builders in County Dublin who tell me they are down to 80 per cent of their normal activity. I do not know whether to accept that or not but I do know that there is a great recession in the building industry.

Early last year and, indeed, throughout most of the year, the Minister was expressing the view that there was no shortage of money for house building. That may have been his opinion but it gave a totally false picture of the situation. The situation in County Dublin is that over 97 per cent of all houses built were built by private enterprise in the past seven or eight years and if private enterprise ceases—and it is slowing down at the moment and no new plans are being made and no new contracts are being signed—we will lose the skilled workers; they will emigrate and they will not return. In these circumstances, I do not see how the Minister can expect to reach his target.

The Minister stated that one of the improvements that would be introduced in the Housing Bill would be to make more people eligible for SDA loans and grants. That is quite true but the position is that we have been flooded with applications since the building societies and other credit organisations have failed to supply the necessary accommodation. On paper, the applicants qualify but we can do nothing about them. Daily, people ring me up asking if I could do anything in their case. They tell me of houses having been finished since last September and that they are paying enormous prices for accommodation in flats and elsewhere and cannot get into the houses because the builder will not let them in until the house is paid for.

The intention, I am sure, was good but it is quite obvious that the targets mentioned will not be reached, like many of the other targets mentioned in the Second Programme for Economic Expansion.

I got a report some time ago which I think should be on the record of the House. It relates to the effect of bad housing on mental patients. The report was supplied by the Chief Medical Officer of the largest mental hospital in this country to a visiting committee on 16th November, 1965.

I will read the first paragraph:

For many months now I have felt a growing concern over the number of tragic housing situations involving our psychiatric patients. As the mental health services of the Dublin Health Authority deal mainly with patients from the lower socioeconomic groups, it is inevitable that problems of housing accommodation should be widespread amongst both the inpatient and the outpatient population. In too many of these cases the psychiatric break-down—indeed, repeated break-downs—can be seen to follow directly from the deplorable housing conditions involved. Often such factors make it impossible to discharge patients from hospital and in other cases considerably delay their return home.

I visit one area where the degree of overcrowding is deplorable, namely, Ballyfermot. I visit it usually every second Sunday. I see evidence of the stress on people where as many as 15 to 20 persons may live in one small house. They might see some hope this week of families where five persons are living in one room being housed and in the following week the families being housed are families of eigth persons living in one room.

Targets are not being reached in Ballymun or anywhere else. The Minister has given us as an explanation that weather conditions have been deplorable during the year for the building industry. That is quite true. The weather has been most unsuitable for building operations and that does provide some sort of explanation but I do not think it is the complete answer. It is wrong to give people the impression that this problem will be solved in a much shorter time than will be the case. The figures quoted and the targets mentioned are much more optimistic than the measures taken by the Government to provide houses would justify and much more optimistic than the rate that can be achieved on the amount of money being provided.

A short time ago we tried by way of a motion in this House to improve the housing situation by the introduction of a tenant purchase scheme. That was rejected also by the Minister. That rejection was a grave mistake. If our suggestion had been adopted it would have considerably eased the problem in regard to local authority housing and would have had other beneficial effects also.

The main thing that can be said about this Bill is that it is an enabling Bill. It merely enables local authorities to spend more and to contribute more through the rates than they have been doing while, at the same time, there is no increased contribution from the Department of Local Government. If it is fair to expect the ratepayers to increase their contribution towards this housing drive, it is equally fair and reasonable to expect the Department to improve theirs. There is a real housing crisis and, as I have said before, the responsibility for that crisis must be placed fairly and squarely at the feet of the present Government. The facts are there. We do not have to analyse the figures. The Government have failed to reach the targets set all during the past eight years and we have not yet got back to the number of houses built per year all over the country before this Government came back into office. The figure is down considerably and how anyone can say that there is more activity and more work than heretofore is something I cannot understand.

As I have said, we are waiting for money. We are waiting for money for housing sites. We are waiting for the signing of contracts for the building of houses. At the moment, the Minister is probably in a position in which he can do absolutely nothing about that but that does not relieve him of responsibility when he introduces a measure like this, a measure which would clear the way for a comprehensive housing drive, once the money becomes available, and, in my opinion, the Government have an obligation to give priority to expenditure on housing. Someone suggested he would be prepared to take money away from roads and put it into housing. If that were the only way to get the necessary money to build houses, I would be prepared to reduce the amount spent on roads and divert it towards housing. I have been in many continental countries in which there is an immense amount of industry. The roads in many cases are not as good as ours. Until this crisis is overcome, we could afford to divert more of the money used on roads into housing. That step is called for.

I said I would not say very much on this, and I do not intend to say much on it. I have already spoken at some length. Deputy Jones and I were in communication with the Department in relation to compulsory purchase and when Deputy Jones comes to speak, as I hope he will, he will deal with that.

There is another matter which has been brought to my attention. It is the devesting of cottages in certain circumstances. A case has just come to my knowledge in relation to a house that was vested. Apparently there was a fundamental flaw and it cracked right down the centre of the chimney. This would be a reconstruction job completely outside the tenant purchaser's ability. As a result of the passing of this legislation, the Government will be able to get back the house, but it can never be vested again in the same tenant. If that is so —I must admit I have not probed the Bill to the extent of finding out whether or not it is so—I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to have a look at that aspect before the Bill is finally passed because I can visualise the extreme case in which it might be desirable to have the power at least to move in in such a case, devest the cottage, do what needs to be done, and hand it back. I know that would be a very bad practice because tenant purchasers might get the impression that they could afford to neglect ordinary everyday repairs in the knowledge that, when the houses fell into a very bad state of disrepair, the local authority would take them back, do the repairs, and then vest them in the tenants again. That would be a very bad thing and there should be safeguards in any measure designed to enable something like this to happen to prevent such an eventuality.

In the course of earlier discussions, I referred to the system of valuing houses for loan and grant purposes. I put down a question to the Minister asking him if he could see his way to doing something about this. I did that because of the very considerable deposit required. In the Dublin region the deposit is never less than £500 and, in some cases, it is as much as £700. It would be quite an exercise if some change were made in the system of valuing. That would give us a check, too, on whether or not there is too much profit made. I asked the Minister whether he was considering any change in the system for the valuing of houses for loan and grant purposes and if he intended increasing grants. We know, of course, that he has not increased grants, but his reply was: "While I do not propose to make any change at present in the prescribed method of determining the value of a house for the purposes of house purchase loans, I am keeping the matter under review." I do not know whether the Minister has given any further consideration to this, but I certainly know that the existing system is not satisfactory.

The valuation put on by the local authority valuer, in my experience, falls very far short of the selling price, and in many cases debars a would-be house purchaser from ever owning his house. It is a matter of urgency that that should be changed. It was fixed some years ago. I know the people who build houses have the right to appeal, but when they appeal to the commissioner the local authority does not have to accept that valuation and, as far as I know, never does accept the valuation. It may increase the original estimate but not sufficiently to leave the house purchasers free to buy their house without having to provide a very large deposit. There is a scheme in England whereby the entire money is provided. The local authority buy the house out completely and hand it over, that is, in cases where people are graduating from local authority houses to the SDA type of house. This makes more local authority houses available for the people.

I was anxious—and it was a very small request, but apparently the Minister did not see his way to meet it— that the full subsidy would be given in the case of temporary dwellings like caravans, where in emergency cases, of which there are many at the present time, such accommodation supplies the housing deficiency. In every case so far the Minister has refused to grant the two-thirds subsidy. The number is not so very big; it would not affect his budget enormously, but it would alleviate a considerable amount of the hardship endured by those who are compelled to pay extra rent because of the lack of subsidy. The Minister can say he does not prevent the local authority from making up the deficiency from the rates but there are many here who will agree with me that rates are at the present time much too high and are rocketing every year, including the present year.

There are certain improvements in this Bill and we are glad to see them. However, these improvements have not changed the whole housing legislation in any fundamental way, and that fundamental change is necessary. We must accept what we have got and the people should know what we have got, a very limited measure.

Like Deputy Clinton, I have already made some observations on this Bill and I avail of this opportunity merely to refer to matters appertaining to the needs of the people of my constituency. In saying that, I think it is tragic that in the recession which we in this country are experiencing, particularly in regard to the acute shortage of money, housing, the most essential of all our services, should be the first to suffer in this credit squeeze. It is true to say that there is dismay, anxiety and unrest in the minds of all members of housing authorities, and particularly in the minds of all those in need of rehousing, about the present situation. For some months past it has been the experience of those who are members of local authorities that it is impossible to secure from the Minister's Department the amount of money required to proceed with our housing commitments. Many of us have plans for the provision of much needed houses for a considerable length of time, plans which have reached the final stage and merely rest in the Minister's Department awaiting sanction of the money involved. Despite the many questions raised in the House and the direct representations of the officers of the local housing authorities, there is no sign whatsoever of these moneys coming to hand for the purpose of proceeding with these schemes.

It is a matter of grave concern to us that we have arrived at that sad and sorry situation. There is a great social obligation on us all to end the long purgatory of waiting by these people in appalling circumstances, grossly overcrowded conditions, lack of essential sanitary services and sometimes rat-infested hovels or tenement flats. Apart from that great human problem of the housing of our people which is a serious blot on our society. at large, we are also concerned about the employment content involved in this important industry, the building industry. The recession to which I have adverted has already hit that industry and there is evidence of a falling off of activity in all housing authorities. There is evidence already of a fall in employment in the building industry, and the trade union chiefs of the various unions representative of that industry are fearful that unless there is some fulfilment of promise by the Minister, that unless the necessary moneys are forthcoming soon, we shall have reached a serious crisis in the building industry by the middle of this summer, with widespread unemployment and perhaps the loss of many of our tradesmen who will be obliged to seek work in other places, most probably abroad. I would appeal to the Minister, despite the difficult situation in which he may find himself, to insist that in the order of priority housing must take first place——

What about education?

——and that he must find the necessary money to proceed with this essential service. In respect of education, it is in the very same category as housing, grandiose schemes and no money. I sincerely hope the Minister will be honest with the local authorities and indicate to them as soon as he possibly can the allocation of money for which they may hope in respect of their present commitments, at least. It is not good enough to invent the various stalling devices with which officialdom is gifted in order to find excuse while the real excuse is lack of money. We must be honest with our housing authorities and tell them precisely where they stand, indicating, if there is this shortage of money, their particular allocation and let them decide the priorities in their own realms. The stalemate evident at present must be resolved or it will lead to chaos.

I am perturbed that this rigidity in the allocation of money has now reached a stage when, although moneys are sanctioned by the Department of Local Government, particularly in respect of SDA loans, and when in normal circumstances the local authority could pay these loans forthwith on demand, it is now the procedure that they must be requisitioned from the Department of Finance and even then we experience long and undue delay causing great embarrassment, anxiety and hardship to homebuilders until moneys approved many months previously come to hand.

I am concerned that in my own town of Clonmel we have what seems to be the best scheme of housing planned for a long time at Gortmalogue for which we secured, luckily we felt, the services of the National Building Agency for the erection of the houses. We have £40,000 for this purpose and we need another £60,000. Despite all our representations to the Minister's Department there is no sign of this money coming to hand. It was hoped that the Gortmalogue scheme would be commenced by the National Building Agency last August and some 50 house-builders, mainly young married people in my own town, paid their deposits and hoped that by now or very early this year they would be living in this nicely-planned scheme. Their hopes have been dashed; they have been completely frustrated in their desire to occupy these new homes.

It is all the more disconcerting when we realise that a semi-State body like the National Building Agency is involved. The corporation felt they were fortunate in getting the services of this body but my feeling now is that we would have been much better off if we had got one of our local contractors in the hope of not being involved in the amount of red tape associated with this Agency and the Minister's Department in general. I appeal to the Minister so that the essential money for this purpose will be made available without further delay. In regard to the suggestion in this connection by the Minister that the corporation in fact have money available that they did not utilise, he or his officials were under a misapprehension. Any moneys available for housing purposes to Clonmel Corporation are committed to loans or grants or other facets of housing. Unless we receive approval for some £60,000 for this scheme it cannot be commenced and there is no hope of finding an alternative source in regard to this money. It is self-evident that many local authorities have sought money for housing purposes, whether for new houses or repairing cottages, and have, in fact, been refused by the lending agencies including the banks and it is to the Minister's Department we look with hope for approval of this much needed money to proceed with these essential schemes.

A similar situation exists in regard to a small scheme of houses in Clonmel known as the Old Bridge. The people of Old Bridge have always been regarded as a people very much an entity in themselves, something akin, perhaps, to the people of the Claddagh in Galway. They live across the River Suir in County Waterford. They have a special love and respect for the area and it is the desire of the corporation that they should be allowed to remain there in decent housing circumstances. For that purpose this very nice scheme of houses was designed for Old Bridge and application for sanction for the necessary money has been in the Minister's Department for a considerable time and there is yet no indication that the money is forthcoming.

There are many other housing schemes in my constituency about which I am very concerned. Only today I put down a question to the Minister in respect of the need to expedite approval for a site for rehousing people in urgent need at Ardfinnan, Clonmel. This small town has a most serious housing problem. It has been found extremely difficult to find a suitable site there. A site chosen some time ago by the housing authority of Tipperary South Riding was turned down by the Minister on appeal by the aggrieved landowner. The council were put to the trouble of selecting another site which was the subject of a further objection and inquiry. The findings of the inquiry are with the Minister's Department for some time and we are anxiously awaiting his decision in the matter. I hope that decision will be favourable and that this much-needed site at Ardfinnan will be conceded to us as soon as is humanly possible so that we may rehouse these people.

As one who knows the housing needs of my constituency reasonably well, I have no hesitation in saying that Ardfinnan is the worst area in respect of housing. For such a relatively small population the incidence of those needing houses is high and many working class people are living in extremely bad conditions. Therefore, I again express the hope that the Minister will realise the urgency and importance of sanctioning this site so that we may erect these much needed cottages. Of course when one has arrived at the happy state of having secured sanction for the various stages of house-building, one comes to the question of money. I can only hope that by the time this essential scheme for the erection of these cottages is put up for tender, this appalling credit squeeze will have eased and we will be able to find ways and means of securing the necessary money.

I want to draw the attention of the Minister to an anomaly which I think should be rectified without further delay. Quite recently I tabled a question to the Minister for Finance asking whether tenants of local authority houses had the same rights as the tenants or owners of private houses to appeal to the Commissioner of Valuation where they were aggrieved by the valuation fixed and which they thought was unfair.

I do not think the Minister for Local Government has any responsibility for valuations. It would arise on an Estimate.

It does affect the rights of tenants of local authority houses.

The Minister has no responsibility and therefore the Deputy may not pursue the subject.

I respectfully submit that it is something which can be included in the Bill——

It is not a matter for the Minister.

It does impinge on the rights of tenants of housing authorities.

That may be so, but the Minister has no responsibility. The Deputy will not argue with the Chair on this point. It has been established that the Minister for Local Government is not responsible for the valuation of houses.

Very well; I will take it up at the appropriate time with the appropriate Minister, but I did feel that if it was not strictly appropriate now, it was certainly very relevant.

I want now to refer to the document which the Minister issued in November 1964 entitled "Housing—Progress and Prospects". This is a useful document containing quite a lot of valuable information and also containing certain lines laid down by the Minister for the public at large and particularly for officers of local authorities and county managers. I want to refer to a particular aspect in this booklet in which the Minister refers to rents. He differentiates between rents based on current building costs and those actually charged in the majority of cases by the local authorities. Clearly in this document the Minister recommended the variation, or a rationalisation, of the rent policy adopted by most local authorities. He says:

As a further step in the same direction local authorities have been encouraged by the Department to adopt graded or differential rent schemes under which the rent charged to a tenant varies according to his family circumstances.

He also says:

The inhibiting effect of heavy housing charges is, in fact, being increasingly felt by many local authorities, some of whom have faced the difficulty by increasing the rents of their old houses, thus enabling newer houses to be let at rents less than the full economic level, without imposing an unduly heavy burden on either the tenants or the rates.

He goes on to refer to the income taken in rent and the manner in which it varies. The whole intent of this paragraph is towards a recommendation that housing authorities should vary their present rent structures. Whether or not the Minister intended it, this paragraph to which I have adverted has been taken as a clarion call from the Minister to county managers to proceed forthwith to increase council rents. Already some managers have embarked upon a rackrenting device of this kind. In my constituency there is great indignation and unrest at the attempts being made by the county manager to increase the rents of the tenants of Clonmel Corporation and in the county council area of South Tipperary. The proposals made seem to me to be nothing less than outrageous.

In respect of Clonmel Corporation, it is proposed that the differential rent system be applied to all houses, old or new. The House will agree that this is a radical change and a complete departure for the majority of houses and particularly for older houses, from the fixed rent system which the tenant had come to know and understand. It is a change to differential rents which would very from week to week in accordance with family income and which would involve people in what they term an odious means test whereby they would have to reveal the income not only of the breadwinner but of all the earning members of that family.

Many tenants regard that as a variation of their tenancy agreement, a document solemnly entered into to pay a certain rent, the only variation included in that agreement between tenant and council being that in regard to the rates variation, which they have been meeting from year to year according as the rates went up or down. The Minister's recommendation is now being used by county managers as a money-raising device to butters the rates at the expense of the tenants of local authorities. It is neither fair nor equitable to apply this new device or these new standards to old structures, many of which were built 20, 30 or 50 years ago. The comparison between those old houses, from which the managers now wish to extract an economic rent in terms of modern standards and values, is odious. Those houses are entirely lacking in the modern amenities of bathrooms, hot water, built-in presses, terrazzo floors, concrete paths and tarmacadam avenues, even at the backs of the houses. The standards of old houses vis-á-vis new houses are primitive and archaic. From any standpoint, managers or members of housing authorities cannot be justified in seeking to extract from the pockets of those tenants the hard-won earnings of the family. It must be borne in mind also that when those people first entered those houses some considerable number of years ago, as newlyweds, they may have found it difficult then to meet the rents prevailing but there was no redress for them by way of a graded differential rent system. They had to meet the demand of the local authorities. They met that demand through good times and bad.

It seems to me to be flagrantly unjust that when those families have reached the happy stage of having reared some of their children, and those children have gone out to work, they should have imposed on them this rackrenting device of a differential rent. In respect of some of the proposals made by certain housing authorities, which are being resisted vigorously and vehemently, and up to now, successfully, the proposals are so out-landish and so extreme that in respect of some schemes it is now proposed to very the rents on a differential basis upwards to 300 per cent. The lower rented houses can increase to 300 per cent; the middle income group can increase to a maximum of not less than 125 per cent and with regard to the more modern dwellings it is proposed to increase to a ceiling of not less than 75 per cent.

The Minister may have laid down those conditions in a time of relative prosperity, or alleged prosperity, in this country but he must realise now that we talk in different circumstances. We are being admonished now—at least the working classes of this country are—that in respect of the wage demand which is in the offing they cannot hope to secure more than 3 per cent, otherwise the economy of this country may be disrupted, or so Government spokesmen tell us. They say 3 per cent for the working classes and yet managers of housing authorities have the audacity to increase the rents of working class people by upwards of 300 per cent. I submit to this House that it is the height of folly to admonish the working classes of this country, or the trade union movement, to be moderate, reserved and disciplined in their response if this kind of carry-on is to be allowed by housing authorities.

I am adverting to this matter because the fight we are waging in Clonmel and which we waged last night in the council chamber in defence of tenants' rights is a fight for the tenants of all Ireland because the clarion call of the Minister, which has been conveyed to managers, will, most likely, sweep like a prairie fire through every housing authority in Ireland. At a time of restraint and acute shortage of money, it is greatly to be deplored that housing authorities are now turning for increased revenue to the local tenants by the extraction of some extra thousands of pounds, to bolster up the rates, from the pockets of the ordinary working classes.

May I bring to the Minister's notice, as well, the necessity to facilitate the local authorities to proceed with their commitments in respect of piped water? Many of us have a proud record in this respect. We want to continue the good work of providing piped water for all our people. It is disturbing that in relation to many of our schemes, now at the stage of final planning and with the Minister's Department for some time, there is no indication as to when the final approval of the Minister will be forthcoming so that the much needed work can commence.

I am concerned that the piped water supply schemes in respect of Ardfinnan, Dundrum and Emly, which are in the Minister's Department for some considerable time, should now be approved and the money provided so that we can proceed with the schemes. The areas, to which I have referred, are essentially dry areas and there is great hardship imposed on the farming community, cottiers and householders generally in those areas by reason of an acute scarcity of fresh water. It is disheartening to a progressive county such as South Tipperary, having made such progress, that we should now reach what seems to be stalemate in respect of our plans. Unless some early break-through is forthcoming in respect of those essential schemes, many of our dedicated planners, engineers and officers generally will become disillusioned and frustrated in their efforts and we shall fall into a state of inactivity which will be detrimental to the people we represent.

I shall not take up the time of the House any longer on this subject, except to express the hope that the Minister will take a clear and positive step in relation to the Government's financial obligations to meet their commitments in respect of the housing drive. They should end the atmosphere of doubt, suspicion and distrust and, at least, be good enough to give to all of us in local authorities some idea of the amount of money we can hope for in the ensuing year in respect of our commitments. I hope that matter will be cleared up at the conclusion of this debate.

It is agreed that one of the first social obligations of any State to its citizens is the provision of an adequate educational system and, of course, to ensure that those of our people who cannot afford education be given it free. High in this list of priorities is the provision of adequate housing, at low cost, to those of our less well off fellow citizens. There has been a lot of emphasis placed in this debate on our country having one of the worst housing records in Europen, arising out of figures formulated by a UN journal. I think it only fair to analyse the figures presented by this journal. The journal quoted is not being entirely fair to our country. The figures arrived at are on a unit basis, rather than on a single dwellinghouse basis: to put it another way—on a flat complex basis rather than on a single dwellinghouse basis. After all, there is very little valid comparison between living in a flat and paying the rent and the eventual ownership of one's own house. This is the point this UN journal missed.

Deputy Hogan, I think, mentioned the February edition of the OECD Observer. Again, the figures quoted in this journal were 3.2 units per 1,000 of the population in this country. This is also arrived at on a unit basis, rather than on a single dwellinghouse basis. It would be helpful and desirable that the Department of Local Government should bring this point to the notice of the Secretariats of these very helpful and informative magazines when they come to formulate their comparisons in the future. For instance, can Ireland be compared with an economic giant like West Germany? I do not think so— that is in relation to housing, of course.

There are one or two points I should like to raise in relation to the constituency which I represent. There are a few black spots in it, namely, the centre of Dún Laoghaire, Shankill and Sallynoggin. In the centre of Dún Laoghaire there are many Victorian and Edwardian dwellings in which families are living in the most appalling conditions. Having conducted a survey there myself only recently, I was astounded and, indeed, shocked, to see the conditions in which some of them live. These people are paying rents to landlords which they would gladly pay to the State for the privilege of living in a local authority house. I do not use the word "privilege" loosely, as some of these families are so desperate they would consider it a privilege rather than their entitlement to live in a proper house or flat with its attendant dignity.

Again, in the Shankill area, there is one estate in particular where families are living chock-a-block in rooms fit for only two or three persons. I also noticed three cases of families living in outhouses at the back of those houses I have already mentioned. Shocking! On this point, the Department of Local Government should ensure that those people living in the Shankill area should have priority in respect of a first-class new estate which is now being erected there. It will be completed by September or October. But I would appeal again to the Department to ensure that the people living in this area are given priority in respect of this new Shankill estate.

The housing programme has gained speed and the Minister has a lot to be proud of. These points I bring by way of observation and not with any particular desire to criticise. The system of grants is dealt with extensively in the new Bill. One hopes that in the future when young married couples are purchasing their own houses with local authority loans some of these grants they receive will go towards the cost of lowering the interest on the loan or, indeed, in the future—in the distant future—towards the giving of interest-free loans. I relate this particularly to section 15 of this Bill.

Those grants are the same grants as were there in 1948.

My point is that some of those grants should go towards reducing the interest on the loans, or the total abolition of the interest payable on the loan. Maybe I did not make that point clear in the first instance.

There is another point I should like to mention before I conclude, that is, that the Department of Local Government should issue a directive to local authorities to give all those people who seek a housing application from, in the first instance, a pamphlet setting out clearly how they fit into the statutory requirements in respect of housing priorities. This would give everyone so applying a clear indication as to when they could hope for a house. It should also give people some idea of the housing programme in the area. This most important leaflet or pamphlet would leave no one in any doubt. Doubt in respect of housing leads to speculation of an uninformed nature, leads to anxiety in most cases and, in other cases, to ill health.

Finally, the housing panel. This is the panel on which names are entered in order of priority. Could there not be two panels open to public scrutiny: the first panel on which the person's name is entered at the moment of application and the second panel to which such a person's name is transferred in order of statutory priority? This second panel would have opposite such a person's name the reason for its being transferred to it, stated clearly and plainly without any legal jargon. The position at the moment is that people seeking local authority houses are convinced that public representatives, councillors and Deputies, can pull a house out of a hat for them. If they are told clearly by a process of communication that when they fulfil various requirements, then and only then will they be considered for housing, it would do away once and for all with the idea, a fraudulent one on the people, that councillors or Deputies have pull in respect of housing. It is my hope it is not the case.

A lot of your Deputies are thriving on that allegation, that dirty inference that they can do those things.

I have no facts in support of Deputy Treacy's allegation. If he allows me to make my case without interruption——

The Deputy will remember having interrupted me.

It was more a correction than an interruption.

It was an interruption and the Deputy need not look pure innocence.

There is one important function that councillors and TDs have to perform in respect of the allocation of houses. It is to ensure their constituents get fair play. I am sure even Deputy Treacy will agree with this pure sentiment. It might also bring an end to the practice of some representatives writing to recipients of houses, on the publication of the panel, congratulating them on their success. We all know that when public representatives receive the housing panel, their first urge is to take out pen and paper and write to those fortunate enough——

Deputy Andrews should speak for himself and not for public representatives generally.

I am speaking of what I know.

Yes, and the Deputy is very close to it.

Is the Deputy suggesting he is blameless? Look over your shoulder.

I am suggesting it is a practice that should cease.

In the Fianna Fáil Party.

Among some public representatives.

For some of us it has not begun yet.

I do not think it would be fair to give the answer in this House but if the Deputy meets me after I sit down, I shall discuss it with him.

Give it to me now.

This is disorderly.

He cannot make accusations recklessly like this.

If this panel were open to public scrutiny, there would be none of these malpractices. I seem to have hit Deputy Clinton rather near the bone.

Not this Deputy—he is in the clear.

I do not propose to involve myself in this interchange. I should like to make a few remarks about the situation in my constituency, particularly in relation to the operation of section 5 in regard to essential repairs to houses. Last year, during a similar debate, I asked the Minister to consider paying such grants on certificates of payment which the Department received from the engineers inspecting the work on behalf of the local authority. In the interval, that has not been happening. Perhaps I did not make the case clear enough and I shall try to make it clearer now.

For instance, John Brown applies for a grant under section 5 of the Housing Act. His application is filled by the local authority and if ultimately reaches the Department. The local authority send out an inspector to examine the work and on his report decide it is suitable for a grant. Up to that stage it has been accepted by the Department. The person proceeds with the work and when it is completed, the local authority engineer goes out and inspects the house. He decides the work is sufficient to qualify for the grant and he issues a certificate of payment to the local authority. About a year ago Leitrim County Council passed a resolution asking the county manager to pay on the council engineer's certificate because the delays in payments coming back from the Department were desperate. When the council's certificate for payment goes to the Department, there seems to be no money there with which to pay the grant.

Heretofore we had to wait until the Department paid us before we could pay the person concerned. All of the people using the benefits of section 5 for new houses or for reconstruction are poor people who cannot afford to wait. Many of them are married men with families living on small farms; some of them old people. At the moment they cannot get credit from local contractors or from builders' providers because they, in turn, cannot get credit from the banks. If this scheme is to be as successful as we should like it to be, we must insist that the Department speed up payment of such grants. On the score of the circumstances of people availing of such grants, the Minister might make recommendations to the valuation people not to increase the valuation of houses after reconstruction in this way. The people concerned are poor.

Another matter I should draw the Minister's attention to in this respect is the size of the grants. They have not been increased since 1948 and we all know the increases there have been in building costs in the meantime. I appeal to the Minister to have another look at this matter with a view to increasing the reconstruction grants. On the question of building new houses, I doubt if any new houses have been built in my constituency during the past few years. In this matter I do not know if the Department of Local Government are entirely to blame. I think a certain amount of blame attaches to county managers who, I suggest, should examine their consciences. The Minister would know more about this than I do.

I do not agree with Deputy Clinton that we should take money from roads, particularly from by-roads, in order to continue our housing programme. That might suit him, coming from County Dublin, but if he lived in a county where only 25 per cent of the roads are blacktopped, he would think differently.

The payment of grants generally is being delayed, more so for the past year or year and a half than hereto-fore. It is not unusual nowadays to find a grant being held up by an inspector just because a door has not been painted, because a pane of glass in a window is broken or for some other such trivial reason. That is not being fair. If the Department are so hard up financially they should convey to the applicant that they will pay him when the money comes to hand rather than having him putting in the pane of glass or painting the door and then having to notify the Department again. In that way the whole vicious circle begins again and can mean a waiting period of from four to six weeks.

Another problem is this. Very often in an area where new houses are being built, application is made to the Department for a group water scheme. Yet, when it comes to paying the grant for a house, the Department pay only the grant for an unserviced house. I had a case recently where a man installed a bathroom with all the fittings, but was paid only the grant for an unserviced house. Anybody who completes a house to that extent is certainly entitled to be paid the grant for a fully serviced house. He has bought the goods and all he requires is the water. He may get a temporary supply that would not be suitable. But he has committed himself to the contractor and the builder's provider and has paid for these goods. If he has not paid, the contractor and the builder's provider are waiting for the money.

I have seen this work in reverse. Within the past six months a person in my constituency decided to build an unserviced house. He made application to the Department but was refused the grant for an unserviced house. He discussed the matter with me. I told him I did not think it was fair, but I asked him why he would not build a fully serviced house. The reason he gave was sensible. He said he had sufficient to build an unserviced house and that he had nobody else living with him; but the Department would not give him the grant. Yet, When a house is completed with bathroom and fittings, they pay only the grant for an unserviced house. That indicates clearly that the where-withal is not there to pay. If the Department told the people the exact position and when they would be paid, it would not be too bad, but to hold the matter up and deprive people of grants is not fair.

I should like to refer to the position of vacant vested cottages. These cottages had been occupied by people who now have emigrated but are still paying the rent. Some of them have been vacant for three or four years. Neither the local authority nor the Department, as far as I know, have any power to take over these cottages. The Minister should either take power to himself or give it to local authorities to deal with this problem. It is most unfair to see houses built with the aid of grants from the Department and the ratepayers not being made use of.

Another problem concerns the purchase of vested cottages. I admit it is probably more prevalent in my constituency than others, because a number of our people are compelled either to emigrate or migrate within the county. Some of these people whose cottages have been vested are compelled for financial or other reasons to emigrate and they offer the cottage for sale. The Labourers Acts are so wide that most people come within their scope. I had a case recently where a married man with a wife and four children, was working in a particular place. There was also a single man working in the same place. Both were in receipt of about the same wage. The married man wanted a house very badly but all he could afford to pay was £200. The unmarried fellow paid £400 and succeeded in getting the house.

The Minister should do something about this problem. He might say there is no reason why the married man could not get an SDA loan from the local authority. However, I happen to live in a county council area where the county manager decides that John Brown is not so creditworthy and asks him to get two sureties. John Brown is unable to get the sureties and the manager decides he will not give him the capital he has applied for. I pleaded with the Minister before, and I do so again, to give a direction to county managers on this matter. Not all of them carry on this business of looking for sureties, but a few of them do. What better surety can they get than the deeds of the house for which the person is applying?

At the outset, I am sorry Deputy Andrews is not here. I do not know if he is a member of a local authority. I am not, and I am given to understand he is not either. I do not think it was fair or correct of him to impute to members of local authorities the type of allegation he made in respect of them here this evening. When challenged in this respect, he did not substantiate his allegation. The House is the place to substantiate these matters.

As far as my own local authority are concerned, I am aware that the members make representation to the executive, the manager. I am also aware that it is in the light of the specific recommendations of the county medical authorities in regard to the conditions in which people live that the manager discharges his function in this matter. I have no reason to think that what Deputy Andrews said here— that members use their influence and claim credit for themselves for obtaining favours for housing applicants—is widespread. I do not know. But it is unfair to publicly impute to members of local authorities, who are giving their time to these problems, the type of motive the Deputy imputed here this evening.

In regard to the Bill, there is a matter to which I should like to draw the attention of the Minister in public. Deputy Clinton and I have already spoken to him on it. It concerns a procedure which we feel would be useful in speeding up the provision of houses where local authorities are concerned. This consists of the bypassing of the present procedure whereby the local authority have to obtain possession of land by means of a compulsory purchase order, if they are unable to obtain it simply by agreement.

The Minister is very well aware that the procedure of a compulsory purchase order is adopted (1) where the landowner is not prepared to dispose of land for housing purposes by agreement; (2) where there are title difficulties in regard to the land being acquired; and (3) where agreement cannot be reached on compensation. Having thought about this, we feel it would be an improvement on the situation if, where a landowner is prepared to dispose of his land, he agrees to give it to the local authority for housing purposes and the only question at that stage is the price the authority are to pay for the land. Where there is agreement on this issue, the Minister ought to be able to do in the first instance what he would do in the last instance when a compulsory purchase order is made: in other words, he would appoint an official arbitrator to decide a fair price for the land.

The position at present in regard to compulsory purchase orders is that we have the procedure whereby there must be advertisement of the council's intention to acquire the land by proceedings. This requires notification in the papers and a time lapse between notifications. That, of itself, is perhaps no great drawback. I am sure the Minister is aware that the procedures councils adopt at that stage have been invalidated by reason of defect in the drawing up of the compulsory purchase order by the local authority due either to faulty mapping or to the documents they are required to prepare on this matter.

Having been informed by the local authority that they propose to acquire land and that the landowner is willing to dispose of it but that there is disagreement on price, we suggest that the Minister be empowered, at that stage, to take the procedure which he finally takes under the compulsory purchase order machinery and which is enshrined in the Third Schedule to this measure —in this case, in section 5 (2). This procedure, if adopted by the Minister in the first instance, could be helpful in speeding up the process and in avoiding unnecessary delays. For that reason, we decided that it would be a useful thing for the Minister to do.

There is a precedent, I think, in section 9 of the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Act, 1957. A person, who has applied to the local authority for a loan and who is aggrieved by the amount of loan awarded to him, has the opportunity of appealing to the Commissioner of Valuation and he may recommend an altered valuation which may or may not be accepted by the local authority. Having decided that this is a type of precedent which the Minister could use in this measure to short circuit delay and the risk sometimes of a compulsory purchase order being voided by reason of one of the defects which I have mentioned, I would hope he might give some further attention to this aspect of the matter. It would be appreciated if the Minister, when replying to the debate on this Bill and to our motion, would refer to this matter and perhaps tell the House the reasons why he thinks it better he should follow the procedures laid down in this Bill rather than the type of procedure adopted by way of ministerial amendment. Perhaps, before taking this Bill to the Seanad, the Minister would have another look at it to see if this suggestion is not worth adopting.

The debate on this Bill is now nearing its conclusion in this House. It is a Bill which consolidates all the housing legislation up to this. It is a long Bill and it has been dealt with here at great length. Speaking for this side of the House, I am sure we hope that the effect of the discussion here, and the Bill which has resulted from it, will be of great use in the speeding-up of the solution of problems in regard to housing, particularly at local authority level. The wording of our motion refers to the decline in house-building, the consequences that stem from that and the provision of finance to make a housing drive effective and then the steps which could be taken to deal with the situation.

The Minister has been hearing at length about the decline in house-building. As the Parliamentary Secretary said last night, if there is less money at the present time, there must be less housing, although he pointed out that there would be more money in the coming year. However, I think the effective point is that the cost of building has gone up so much that the provision of extra money does not automatically ensure that houses will be available to people, in proportion. Some years ago, a housing survey was mentioned. The Minister said he had instructed the local authorities to carry out a survey and I should like to know if it is complete and accurate. Up to quite recently, the local authority in my county has been issuing notices from time to time in the local newspapers asking for details from people in various areas who require housing. These details are still flowing in to the local authority indicating in some places more and in other places less than might be anticipated in regard to a need for more housing.

It is not yet possible to state the total housing needs but certain it is that local authorities have a formidable programme which would require comprehensive and phased planning. This, of course, presupposes that all the initial work that is required has been done or can be done. For instance, sites must be available. I do not know what the position generally in the country is, but in my constituency the local authority finds it extremely difficult in places to obtain sites convenient to existing services. That is a matter that requires careful planning. In the past, where water and sanitary services were made available, particularly in the case of villages, they were installed on a rather confined basis and without regard to future requirements. It is becoming increasingly evident that the need at present is to provide fully serviced homes. That means that the homes must be built in close proximity to existing services or in areas to which these services can be extended.

One factor impeding progress is that a county manager, in supplying demands for the provision of water and sanitary services, may have to slow down the extensions necessary to enable building to take place. I would hope that under the Town Planning Act now coming into operation more generally a clear indication will be given as to areas earmarked for dwellings as against industrial use so that the necessary extension of water and sanitary services will be undertaken in those areas.

There is another matter in connection with which the Minister might use his good offices. Employment grants are made available during the winter period. These grants could be used for the purpose of development of building sites so that the sites would be capable of being used when the question of building arose.

The financing of housing is a very important matter. Local authorities are anxiously awaiting an indication from the Minister—which I expect to hear from him when he is replying to the debate—as to the amounts that will be available to them to meet their housing requirements in the immediate future. The Minister previously spoke of local authorities planning for anticipated needs, not for a period of a year but as discovered by the housing survey and making their financial arrangements on that basis. Local authorities should have from the Minister a firm indication of the finances that will be available for this work.

Reference was made here a short time ago to the fact that grants remain practically the same as they were. The Minister must appreciate that building costs have increased. If the amount of money available for housing is not sufficient to keep pace with increased costs will some consideration be given to the introduction of new systems of providing houses? Would the Minister say if any thought has been given, for instance, to the new system building and as to whether its adoption would help to solve the problem? It has been suggested that new techniques could be adopted in school building. It is estimated by the engineers of the Office of Public Works that a prefabricated building could give from 50 to 80 years services and, in some cases, if properly treated, could last 100 years. The Minister should give very serious consideration to the question as to whether such methods could be adopted to deal with a housing problem in the case of a local authority that is in dire need.

Despite the efforts which have been and are being made by local authorities to provide housing, there still obtain the problems which flow from bad housing conditions. This has been a legacy down through the years, and there is now, urgent necessity to get rid of this festering canker in our social conditions. This situation is particularly evident in some of our rural towns. I have in mind those in which in the past housing was owned by foreign landlords. Naturally enough, they built these rather small houses. These passed in those days, but they would now be regarded as hovels. When a local authority goes in to deal with one of these in one particular town it is alleged that more favourable treatment is being given to one portion of the local authority area as against another. I mentioned on an earlier occasion—I do not think there is any necessity to impress it on the Minister —that the conditions in which people live in these hovels is quite tragic. It is something which always appals me. However, even in the building of our own houses, we are inclined to limit the amount of bedroom space. This can lead to undesirable social conditions. I should hope one would not have to expatiate on these conditions in order to impress on the Minister the undesirability of the situation.

Debate adjourned.
Top
Share