Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 6 Feb 1946

Vol. 31 No. 5

Housing (Amendment) Bill, 1945:—Report and Fifth Stages.

I move amendment No. 1:—

In page 2, after the word "undergoing" in line 43 to insert the word "suitable".

This amendment is self-explanatory. On the last occasion, I outlined a case that appeared to me to be one that should be covered. I think that we should give the county medical officer of health a discretion as to whether an individual should be treated in his home or in an institution. If the word "suitable" were not inserted, I am afraid that a person might be able to get a mandamus to compel the medical officer of health to give a certificate as to whether he approved of that person being treated at home or not.

I ask the Seanad not to accept this amendment, as it is quite unnecessary. I cannot conceive any circumstances in which a medical officer of health would issue a certificate so that a person might continue to receive treatment which was unsuitable to his condition.

It appears that that is, in fact, the only position that would be safeguarded against, that is to say, that a medical officer would issue a certificate which would preclude a person from going to a sanatorium and compel him to accept the alternative accommodation which would be provided under the Act. I think it is inconceivable that a medical officer would put him in that position. The amendment is quite unnecessary.

I have not the slightest doubt that if a person——

This is the Report Stage.

I am entitled to reply.

Acting-Chairman

The Senator has the right of reply.

The Minister is not the only person who knows the regulations of either House. I have not the slightest doubt whatever that if any person comes in to me and tells me that he is receiving treatment at home, that a doctor is attending him for tuberculosis and that his house is, without question, not sufficiently large, he will be advised by myself or any other solicitor that once he is undergoing treatment and once the house is not sufficiently large, if the county medical officer of health will not give him a certificate, he can be made to do so by a process of mandamus. That is a process which is known, I think, to most people, and it is a process which will without any question succeed in this case. It will be interesting to see in due course whether any such person does take that action and to see whether the Minister's interpretation of this amendment is incorrect.

Acting-Chairman

Is the amendment being pressed?

I am not withdrawing it.

Amendment put and negatived.

I understand, on no very reliable authority, that amendments Nos. 2 to 7, which stand in my name, are being accepted by the Minister. If that is so, as I have already given my views at some length on the Committee Stage of this Bill, I should not like to occupy the time of the House in repeating what I have already said. I believe the amendments are very important and I believe they will add a doubly beneficial effect to the section.

I am prepared to accept amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 4; No. 5 with a certain modification, and Nos. 6 and 7. They are practically all consequential on the acceptance of amendment No. 2.

I, therefore, formally move amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 4:—

2. In page 3, line 1, to insert after the word "proper" the following words "treatment or for his".

3. In page 3, line 9, at the end of subparagraph (a) to insert the following words: "or towards the alteration or modification of an existing room".

4. In page 3, line 11, at the end of subparagraph (b) to insert the following words: "or of the alteration or modification of an existing room".

Amendments agreed to.

Acting-Chairman

Amendments Nos. 5 and 5a may be taken together.

As regards amendment No. 5, I am quite willing to accept the Minister's alteration as outlined in amendment No. 5a because I understand, again unofficially, that the Minister is going to make in his rules provisions which are substantially the same as the remainder of my amendment.

So far as the plan design, construction and the site are concerned, they will be dealt with by regulation.

Amendment No. 5 not moved.
Government amendment No. 5a:—
In page 3, line 18, at the end of sub-paragraph (d) to insert the following words "or for having an existing room altered or modified".
Amendment agreed to.

I move amendments Nos. 6 and 7:—

6. In page 3, line 21, after the word "room" to insert the words "or the alteration or modification of an existing room".

7. In page 3, line 26, after the word "room" to insert the words "or the alteration or modification of an exist-room".

Amendments agreed to.

Acting Chairman

Amendments Nos. 8 to 10 may be taken together.

I move amendment No. 8:—

In page 3, Section 3, after sub-section (4), to add a new subsection (5) as follows:—

(5) Where an extra room in or attached to a house is provided at the expense of the owner or occupier who would have qualified for a grant under the provisions of this section if such grant had been applied for, the house shall not, on any valuation or revision of the valuation thereof coming into force within seven years after the completion of such provision, be increased on account of any increase in the value of the hereditament or tenement arising from such provision.

I gather that amendment No. 10 is intended by the Minister to substitute for my amendment No. 8. The only thing I would like to ask him is why there should be any fundamental difference between Section 4 and the new Section 5. Apparently the new Section 5 will only apply to a house that has been built or reconstructed with the aid of a grant under the Housing (Financial and Miscellaneous Provisions) Acts, 1932 to 1944. It is not at all clear to me why there should be any difference between the two sections. Both provide that there may not be an increase in rates. It appears to me—and this is a point I should like the Minister to clear up—that if a person gets a grant under this Bill, he will not be liable for an increase in rates whether or not the house has been built or reconstructed under the Housing Acts, 1932 to 1944. It is not clear to me why if that is the case, it should be confined to that class only. I am not going to attempt to quarrel with the Minister about it, but I think we are entitled to a clear explanation of the distinction between the two.

I was under the impression that I made my attitude in this regard quite clear on the Committee Stage of the Bill. I do not think that the Senator's amendment, as drafted by him, is proper to this Bill at all because it relates to a general remission of rates in respect to a house which has neither been built nor reconstructed under the Housing Acts. It is provided under other statutes that if a house has been reconstructed or built during a particular period, a certain remission of rates may be granted. These houses are dealt with under the Local Government (Remission of Rates) Acts. I did say, therefore, to the Senator that, while I was sympathetic to the amendment, if he wanted to deal with the comprehensive terms of his amendments, he would have to wait until the Local Government Bill at present before the Dáil came to the Seanad when he would have an opportunity of discussing it. That attitude did not appeal to the Senator, but I went to this extent at least to meet him. I said that provided the amendment was confined to those houses which were built or reconstructed under the Housing Acts, I would introduce an amendment on the Report Stage of this Bill which would at least cover some of the houses the Senator had in mind. We have got to remember in this connection that so far as the houses dealt with in sub-section (4) of Section 3 are concerned, they are houses in respect of which an application has been made to the local authority for a grant on the grounds that the premises and the applicant both fulfil certain conditions. In the case the Senator sought to cover by his original amendment, no such application had been made and, in fact, no stipulation was included that the owner or the occupier of the premises would even have consulted the medical officer at all.

I have made this concession to the Senator: if the owner or occupier can get a certificate from the county medical officer of health that he would in fact have been entitled—for that is what it amounts to—to a grant under this Bill by reason of his domestic circumstances, that is to say that there was a person in the house who was suffering from tuberculosis, that the additional accommodation was necessary to enable that person either to secure proper treatment or to be segregated from the other members of the family, and that the house was suited for the provision of this additional accommodation, but for reasons of his own he did not apply for the grant, I am putting that person in the same position as a person who had made an application in the ordinary way. I am only making what I think is a reasonable reservation, and that is that the premises of the person concerned will have been built or reconstructed under the Housing Acts. If, however, my amendment does not satisfy the Senator we can both withdraw them.

I am astonished at the method adopted by the Minister. He must know perfectly well that I have no personal interest in this, good, bad or indifferent. The only question is whether it is a desirable thing or not. If his only interest in the matter is whether it pleases me or not, and there are no merits in it, I am surprised he went to the trouble. I agree that on the Committee Stage the Minister stated that he was prepared to accept the principle, provided it was confined to houses which came under the Housing Acts. I read through the Report, and I asked him again to make clear the reasons why a person who did not get a grant when they built the house, the house being of the same size, should be precluded from the benefits of the Act. I think the amendment as it stands is very much better than no provision at all. I am still quite unconvinced as to the sound reasons for the distinction between the two. But, although I am opposed to the Minister, I am not going to give him an opportunity to withdraw a provision which would benefit a certain number of persons whom I assume he thinks should be benefited.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 9:—

In page 3, Section 3, before sub-section (6) to insert a new sub-section as follows:—

(6) Every regulation made by the Minister under sub-section (5) of this section shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas as soon as may be after it is made, and if a resolution is passed by either such House within the next subsequent twenty-one days on which that House has sat annulling such regulation, such regulation shall be annulled accordingly, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done under such regulation.

I dealt with this matter on the last occasion. The actual form of the wording of the amendment is, of course, the standard form that is in every Bill. So far as the necessity to table regulations is concerned, I do not think that is questioned by the Minister. The Minister was of opinion on the last occasion that, because this Bill is, under the last section, cited with the Principal Act, that automatically meant that the provision for tabling in the Principal Act governed, also, regulations that should be made under this Bill. I do not think that is clear, and I think it would be far better that it should be set out clearly in this Bill.

I do not think in fact that this amendment is absolutely necessary, but if it will ease the Senator's mind I am prepared to accept it.

It is not a question of easing the Senator's mind. It is a question of easing a senior counsel who has proved the Parliamentary draftsman wrong on a number of occasions already.

Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 10:—
In page 4, before Section 5, to insert a new section as follows:—
5—(1) Where—
(a) a house has been built or reconstructed with the aid of a grant under the Housing (Financial and Miscellaneous Provisions) Acts, 1932 to 1944,
(b) the county medical officer of health or medical superintendent officer of health acting for the area in which the house is situated certifies that a member of the household of the house is suffering from pulmonary tuberculosis for which he is undergoing treatment and that the accommodation of the house prior to the provision of the extra room referred to in paragraph (c) of this sub-section was inadequate for his proper treatment or for his segregation from the other members of the household, and
(c) it is certified—
(i) that an extra room has been provided in or attached to the house,
(ii) that the provision of the extra room has been completed in a proper and workmanlike manner, and
(iii) that a grant has not been obtained under Section 3 of this Act in relation to the extra room,
the valuation of the hereditament or tenement consisting of or including the house shall not, on any valuation or revision of the valuation thereof coming into force within seven years after the completion of such provision, be increased on account of any increase in the value of the hereditament or tenement arising from the provision of the extra room.
(2) In paragraph (c) of sub-section (1) of this section, the word "certified" means, in relation to the matters specified in that paragraph, certified by an officer appointed by the Minister to certify those matters or, in case of an appeal to the Minister from a refusal by the officer so to certify, by the Minister.
(3) A person aggrieved by the refusal of an officer appointed under this section by the Minister to certify the matters referred to in paragraph (c) of sub-section (1) of this section may appeal against the refusal to the Minister, and on the appeal the Minister may, as he thinks proper, either confirm the refusal or give the certificate which was refused, and the decision of the Minister on the appeal shall be final and conclusive.
Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 11:—

In page 4, before Section 5, to insert a new section as follows:—

5.—(1) Where a county medical officer of health or medical superintendent officer of health certifies that a member of the household of a house situated in the area for which such officer acts is suffering from tuberculosis for which he is undergoing treatment and that it is desirable either for the furthering of such treatment or for the proper segregation of the sufferer that there should be provided an outdoor hut or shelter within the curtilage of such house the following provisions shall apply:—

(a) the local authority administering the Tuberculosis Prevention (Ireland) Acts, 1908 and 1913, in the area in which the house is situated may provide and erect such outdoor hut or shelter for such period or periods as the county medical officer of health or medical superintendent officer of health may from time to time certify to be necessary;

(b) the local authority may, if it thinks fit so to do, make upon the householder or the sufferer such annual or other charge in respect of the cost of erection and the use of the hut or shelter as may be reasonable in the circumstances of the case.

(2) The Minister may make regulations for the purpose of this section.

When I was adumbrating this amendment on the Committee Stage the Minister made a remark which at the time very much impressed me. He said that an amendment of this nature did not come in naturally on a Housing Bill, but I gathered that he was rather in favour of some such provision appearing in some Act in the immediate future. But thinking it over, I am not so sure that the Minister's objection is as strong as I thought it was at first. The argument appeals to legal men like myself who like to have compartments where they can find things easily. Unless I am assured that a similar provision will appear very shortly in some other Act, I am rather inclined to press this. Parliament has laid down a great many precedents for itself, which are not confined within too strict legalistic lines. There is an Act of Parliament which provides simply that one Richard Rose, cook to the Bishop of Rochester, should be boiled to death without benefit of clergy. At that time, of course, Parliament took rather a poor view of cooks who, having the opportunity of poisoning their masters, took advantage of that opportunity. I merely give that as an example of what Parliament can do when it likes. I suggest that this particular amendment is of such importance that the House could quite properly introduce it into a Housing Act. Before I go any further with explaining the object of it, if the Minister can tell me that either in the new Public Health Bill or in some Bill to be introduced and debated at a very early stage he will introduce provisions substantially the same as this, I shall not occupy the time of the House any more. Otherwise, I shall have to urge the necessity of introducing the amendment into this Bill. Perhaps the Minister will give me some indication.

The position, of course, as I think the Senator is aware, is that for a considerable number of years local authorities have assumed that they are empowered to provide those chalets, and in fact some 14 local authorities have provided a number of them. Those chalets have been accepted by us for the purpose of recoupment under the Tuberculosis Acts. That would seem to indicate at any rate that there is power under existing statutes to provide those temporary shelters. Whether there is or is not power under existing law, that position I think will be clarified in the new Public Health Bill, which will undoubtedly authorise local authorities to provide temporary accommodation of this sort, and will of course allow the local authorities concerned to secure the benefit of such recoupment as they may be entitled to under the Tuberculosis Acts.

With regard to the amendment itself I would be very strongly opposed to including it in a Housing Bill. The Housing Acts are designed to deal with permanent structures, with houses and homes and habitations. They are not designed to provide temporary accommodation of any sort. For that reason, I would be very strongly opposed to the inclusion of this particular amendment.

In the circumstances, I will withdraw the amendment, but I hope that, on the Public Health Bill, if it is not set out sufficiently clearly to call it to the attention of the local authorities, I may be enabled to move some similar amendment. When the Minister tells me that only 14 local authorities are operating a scheme like this, it does seem to me necessary that much wider publicity should be given to it and much greater pressure brought to bear on local authorities to make use of their powers.

I should like to support this. On the whole, I feel that the chalet approach to this matter is much more economical and satisfactory than this extra room provision. The extra room provision would be open to great abuse, and I think every encouragement should be given to the chalet proposal as against the extra room.

Mine is not really a chalet; it is a portable shelter.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question—"That the Bill, as amended, be received for final consideration"—put and agreed to.
Fifth Stage to be taken now.— Agreed.
Question—"That the Bill do now pass"—put and agreed to.
Bill to be returned to the Dáil with amendments.

Acting-Chairman

I understand that as a result of certain conversations that have taken place it would be more suitable to take the Report Stage of the Rent Restrictions Bill on the 27th February. Is that agreed?

Agreed.

Top
Share