Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 5 Feb 1970

Vol. 244 No. 2

Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Dublin Corporation Housing Priority.

63.

asked the Minister for Local Government if he is aware that under the present Dublin Corporation housing priority system a family of three has no prospect of being housed in the foreseeable future no matter how overcrowded the accommodation in which they live, whereas a family of four or more can be rehoused even if not living in overcrowded conditions; and whether he will initiate legislation to change this priority system with a view to basing it primarily on the extent of overcrowding of all the present occupiers of a dwelling.

64.

asked the Minister for Local Government whether under Dublin Corporation's present housing priority arrangements a family living in one room may be deemed not to be overcrowded while a family of similar size living in two or three rooms with a greater total cubic capacity may be regarded as overcrowded; and whether if this is the case he will introduce legislation to replace this by a more equitable priority system.

I propose, with your permission a Cheann Comhairle, to take Questions Nos. 63 and 64 together.

Under section 63 of the Housing Act, 1966, a house is deemed to be overcrowded when the number of persons ordinarily sleeping in the house are such that any two persons, being persons of ten years of age or more, of opposite sexes and not being husband and wife, must sleep in the same room; or when the free air space, in any room used as a sleeping apartment, for any person is less than 400 cubic feet. The interpretation of this definition in relation to approved schemes of letting priorities is a matter for the individual housing authority who may amend their schemes from time to time, with my approval.

Under Dublin Corporation's scheme of letting priorities, first priority within the general overcrowding category is given to the largest family who are overcrowded on a sex basis, second priority is given to a family of similar size which is overcrowded on the basis of the free air space of sleeping apartments. Families who are not overcrowded on the statutory basis are offered housing when all the families in the next lower group, who are so overcrowded, have been offered housing.

It is thus possible that a family living in one room may be accorded a lower priority than a family of similar size in two or three rooms because the division of the available space into rooms may result in the sleeping quarters being overcrowded in the statutory sense.

It is not correct to say that under the corporation's present letting scheme a family of three has no prospect of being rehoused in the foreseeable future. The scheme provides for first, second and third priorities to be accorded in turn to persons displaced from dangerous buildings, persons displaced by corporation development works, or persons living in dwellings subject to closing or demolition orders. Families of three persons in these categories are offered housing accommodation in their order of priority. A large number of families of three persons have, in fact, been rehoused by the corporation since the hand-over of the flats in Ballymun commenced in March, 1967.

I am satisfied that the present statutory definition of overcrowding works out reasonably in practice and I do not think that the introduction of legislation to amend this definition is necessary.

First of all, in relation to Question No. 64 would the Minister not accept that there is a defect in the way in which this particular provision operates and that it is possible to have a situation where people having several rooms will choose to sleep in the smaller of them thereby making a case of overcrowding and getting priority over people having only one room and who, on the face of it, would seem to merit higher priority? I can understand that this was not the intention of the Act.

The Deputy make take it that the officers of Dublin Corporation would not allow any subterfuge such as that to succeed but if the Deputy knows of any case in which he believes this has happened I should be glad if he would let me have the details.

The position is that officials of Dublin Corporation are frustrated by this provision and the reason I am raising it here is that it has been drawn to my attention by an official of the corporation as being a serious defect and one which is preventing them from according the priorities which they think should be accorded.

All the Dublin Corporation have to do is to submit an amendment of their letting scheme to me.

Is the Minister the Dublin Corporation?

I said they can amend it with my approval.

Is the Minister aware that what is in question was created by the Labour and Fine Gael members of Dublin Corporation? It was they who recommended that cases should be judged in the fashion about which Deputy FitzGerald now complains?

(Interruptions.)

I am aware of the fact that many of the deficiencies in the operation of Dublin Corporation are due to the fact that there has been a Coalition majority there for a number of years.

The Government are more interested in making political points than in housing the people. With regard to this question of priorities, would the Minister not agree that a system under which the overcrowding relates not to the overcrowding of the family who are living in the flat but to the size of one sub family living in the flat is a bad system? This can bring about a situation where a family of three living with a grandmother in a flat of, say, four rooms are entitled to be rehoused whereas a family of three living with six or seven brothers and sisters and two parents in a three-roomed flat are not entitled to rehousing. Would the Minister not agree that such a situation is unsatisfactory and that the criteria for assessing overcrowding should be based on the total number of people living in the accommodation and not on the size of the family to be rehoused?

If that were the position it could be unsatisfactory but I do not agree that it is also.

If I submit evidence to the Minister, will he take some action?

If that were happening, which it is not, I would take it up with the local authority.

I know of so many cases where this has happened that I would have no difficulty in submitting evidence to the Minister.

Top
Share