The matter which I wish to raise concerns a circular letter, H. 5/67 from the Department of Local Government, dated 14th April, 1967, received by Dublin Corporation and I assume by other similarly situated local authorities throughout the country. This circular sets out a number of facts and regulations concerning methods whereby local authorities are subsidised in the provision of housing accommodation. It deals particularly with the position affecting sub-tenants of existing local authority houses, that is, people in this city who live in corporation houses and who are not tenants. There is a very large population of such sub-tenants in this city. In fact, wherever you look and see a corporation scheme, you can be sure that, in a great many of the houses you are looking at, more than one family resides due to the great housing needs which exist in the city and to the impossibility of obtaining accommodation which has resulted, as we know, from the inactivity of various authorities in recent years, thus creating the present housing problem.
Now, some years ago, it appeared that the Department of Local Government and Dublin Corporation were concerned with the problems which might arise wherein the sub-letting of corporation houses would be done in a manner that sub-letting was not necessary, that demand was not created by reason of the housing shortage and that there might be a certain amount of exploitation of sub-tenants. Efforts were made some several years ago to control the degree of this particular kind of sub-letting. The situation, as it was then looked at, was entirely different from the one which now exists.
The ordinary tenant of a Dublin Corporation house does not wish to have a sub-tenant in his house. In almost all cases where sub-tenancies exist, the position is that we find the original tenant and his family being forced, by reason of lack of accommodation elsewhere, to make room available for one of his children, or children-in-law, and for their family which, in turn, creates gross overcrowding in literally hundreds, if not indeed, in fact, thousands of cases.
I think the number of sub-tenants Dublin Corporation has listed as sub-tenants of this kind is somewhere between 2,000 and 2,500. One would imagine the principal housing authority—the Minister for Local Government and the Department of Local Government—would take all possible steps to ease this situation. One would imagine they would impose no penalties upon the tenants of corporation houses for taking in their own kith and kin, their own flesh and blood, literally off the streets, and giving them a room or some sort of accommodation. This is not the case.
In the circular letter to which I have referred, it is stated, in paragraph 102, page 2:
The Minister will be prepared to allow a similar concession for persons rehoused from local authority houses—
—the Minister is speaking of housing subsidy—
—on any of the statutory grounds for higher subsidy—
—being usually grounds set out in respect of families rehoused under the Housing of the Working Classes Acts which provide for preference to be given to people coming from tenements, condemned houses and overcrowded conditions—
—who are at the date of this circular letter sub-tenants or lodgers living in overcrowded conditions or for whom an agreement between the tenant and the housing authority is completed within six months from that date. Licensed sub-tenants or lodgers whose occupation started after that date will normally be considered for higher subsidy on statutory grounds only after the expiration of three years from the date of the permission.
Now, this is the whole nub of the matter I want to air this evening. I want to ask the Minister to look at and to rectify it because it creates a grave injustice. First of all, the reference to licensed sub-tenants has no reality. The City Manager of Dublin has informed the members of the corporation that his interpretation of this circular is that any family such as I have described which has gone into a corporation house in the capacity of sub-tenant will not be regarded as eligible for consideration for rehousing, either in a flat or in a house — say, a Ballymun flat or a Coolock house—unless they are licensed.
The first mention I heard of this question of licences was about two months ago. I am a member of Dublin Corporation and a member of the Housing Committee. I never miss a meeting of the Housing Committee or of the corporation. The first mention I heard about this question of licences was about two months ago. How, then, can it be expected that ordinary citizens, who have not the close contact I have, should know that this question of licences ever arose? The City Manager says any person who did not apply for a licence to become a sub-tenant and who was not accorded written permission since 1st July, 1967, will not be acceptable, according to this circular, as a housing applicant for whom the maximum subsidy will be payable by the Department to the corporation.
In consequence, such families— there is a very large number of them— are discriminated against to the extent that, if they took up residence as sub-tenants in their parents' house, they may not be considered for rehousing in new dwellings until three years have passed. As there are no dwellings of any kind other than new dwellings becoming available, and these in limited number, it can be seen that such people are in a most unfortunate and difficult position and, indeed, in a position which must be quickly attended to and rectified.
This is a somewhat technical question and I am certain the implications of it are not easily to be grasped by ordinary citizens who are not familiar with the tortuous mass of red tape and legislation which attends and surrounds the whole question of housing of the working classes in Dublin city and throughout the country. It is one of which members of local authorities will be aware. Every dwelling built by Dublin Corporation is in theory subsidised by the State to the extent of two-thirds of a certain amount of the cost. By virtue of this circular, the Minister says: "If you house anybody as a sub-tenant since last July. we will not give you the usual two-thirds but one-third." As a result of that, the City Manager says: "We cannot put you into new houses but into houses which have been formerly occupied if we are to get the full benefit."
This is unjust. I will give a few instances of the injustice of it. Without mentioning names, I will mention two cases out of scores which I have in this book in front of me, a book which contains a complete record of the thousands I interview every Sunday of my life in an area well known to the Minister and to anybody who has heard me talking in this House. This is a fact. Before me I have the book about Ballyfermot. It contains at page 193— with an average of ten houses to a page over a period of 18 months—a considerable number of cases all within the one district. Here are two cases which are hit by this regulation. On Landen Road is the case of a sub-tenant family, a man, his wife and one child living as sub-tenants in a corporation house with their in-laws. There are 13 people in four rooms. The circular letter says that these people, because of the fact that they took up occupation of the house in November last without any knowledge of the need for applying for a licence or anything of that nature, may not be considered for a house by the corporation until three years have elapsed.
On the other hand, at Fatima Mansions, not in my electoral area at all, there is a family, a man, his wife and two children who came back from England after having been there for some time. They have been in a flat in Fatima Mansions since September. There are 19 people in three rooms here. This family is one of four. Were it not for this regulation, they would before now have been offered a flat at Ballymun but because of this circular letter, they are been denied this facility which they so earnestly desire.
In raising this matter on the Adjournment, I want to ask the Minister to brush this red tape aside because it seems to me the letter and the whole idea of it puts across a misconception of the housing situation in Dublin. The housing situation is such that we cannot tolerate this kind of niggling regulation which interferes with the desire of the housing authority to provide accommodation for the people. I have had difficulty in trying to put into simple terms here what this circular letter means and I am certain I have not succeeded in doing it. Everybody listening to me here is not clear as to what I am at.
What chance has the ordinary person who is suffering in overcrowded conditions such as I have described, people living on top of one another, from 13 in four rooms to 19 in three rooms of understanding this position which has been brought about by the emanation from the Minister's Department of this circular? It is a gross injustice to expect them to understand because they are suffering. I could repeat these cases in scores. There are many such cases in Ballyfermot and throughout the rest of the city and in every working class area. I do not know if the Minister is too familiar with this circular but I do say to him that there is on him an obligation to get rid of it and to say so to the corporation. The City Manager has been anxious to interpret the terms of the letter in as liberal a fashion as possible but he and the officials are caught by the threat of reduced subsidy if the circular is ignored.
At a later stage in the month, there will be a deputation coming to see the Minister from the Housing Committee of Dublin Corporation to discuss this and other matters. I am discussing it tonight because it is of pressing urgency. It is not something which can wait till the end of the month for discussion and then be referred back to the Department for further discussion or upon which a decision can be taken in a month's time. It is something which needs rectification now and it is something the Minister can settle easily now.
