asked the Minister for Local Government and Public Health if he is aware that the Housing Department of the City of Dublin in their reconditioning scheme of housing in the Gardiner Street and Seán McDermott Street districts are dispossessing tenants of rooms without offering alternative accommodation within their means to pay; and, if so, if he will ensure that suitable alternative accommodation is offered to those about to be dispossessed; and that, in future cases of compulsory acquisition, the arbitrator will have power to recommend alternative accommodation.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Reconditioning of Dublin Houses.
It is understood that it is the practice of the Dublin Corporation where tenants have been displaced by reconditioning operations to provide them, as far as possible, with accommodation in the reconditioned premises, or, alternatively, as close as possible to their places of employment, with due regard to the incomes of the families involved. The rents of the rooms in the Gardiner Street and Seán McDermott Street houses before they were acquired by the corporation ranged from 3/4 to 8/- per room. These houses have been reconditioned into one-, two-, three- and four-roomed flats, and they are re-let at rents of 2/7, 5/5, 7/6 and 8/4, respectively, or an average of 2/6 per room. These rents, however, have no relation to the economic cost of reconditioning and are subsidised to a considerable extent by contributions from State subsidy and rates. The corporation has done everything in its power to provide suitable alternative accommodation for the surplus families and has so far succeeded in doing so. The Deputy, of course, is well aware that this is primarily a matter for the Corporation of Dublin of which he is a member.
The Minister has not answered my question. I asked him if he were aware that the corporation was dispossessing tenants in order to recondition houses and was not giving them alternative accommodation. Is he aware that in the case of a widow with 4/- a week poor law relief living in the back basement of a kitchen, the corporation can come along and tell her to get out as they want to recondition the premises? I want to know if the Minister will see that that unfortunate victim will get a house at a rent that she can pay. The last portion of my question refers to the arbitrator. Will the Minister give power to his arbitrator to recommend alternative accommodation in the case of those unfortunate people?
It is obvious that the Deputy does not know what the proper functions of an arbitrator are. However, as I have already stated in my reply, this matter is primarily one for the Dublin Corporation of which the Deputy is a member.
If it is correct to assume that the primary responsibility for this reconditioning scheme is that of the Department of Local Government and Public Health, will the Minister say what is the woman in a back kitchen, who is dispossessed in order to facilitate this reconditioning, to do if she cannot find a room into which she can go? Does the Minister think that she should go to the South Dublin Union, because I do not?
The Deputy's assumption is incorrect. In any event, I have already, in my reply, stated that the Dublin Corporation has succeeded in finding alternative accommodation for the people.
That is not so. Is the Minister aware that in this very week people are being brought to the courts in order to get them dispossessed from basement dwellings, from the rottenest holes in Ireland, and that they are not getting alternative accommodation from the corporation? Will he intercede and see that they are not sent to the workhouse?
Will the Minister give an undertaking to the House that he will give this matter his own personal attention and satisfy himself that those people who are necessarily removed from their present accommodation will get a room somewhere and not be forced to go to the Union? I am not suggesting that the Minister wants them to go to the Union. I know that he does not, but will he watch the matter himself, take a personal interest in it, and see that they will not be driven out?
I shall give no undertaking which would make me responsible for what is a proper function of the Dublin Corporation.
Suppose the corporation cannot, or will not, provide alternative accommodation for those people who must be disturbed in order to do this reconditioning work, will he do what I ask him? I am well aware that this reconditioning scheme is the Minister's scheme, and that it is a most excellent scheme. All that I am asking is that he take an interest in the matter himself, and ensure that those people would be given some accommodation which would not impose on them the necessity of going to the South Dublin Union.
If I were to give an undertaking that I would propose to interfere with what is the proper sphere of responsibility attaching to the Dublin Corporation, the first to complain of that in this House would be Deputy Dillon.
Surely no landlord in Dublin would throw people out on the side of the road and tell them that if he could not find a room for them they could go to the Union. The Minister would not do that. Why will he not say to the House that he will do his best to get something for them? That is all any reasonable man could want.
And yet Deputy Dillon is suggesting that the Dublin Corporation would.
These poor people may be simple and may not know the right way of going about it. I was born amongst them and I know the conditions in North Gardiner Street. If there is such a person who cannot get a room, and does not know how to go about getting a room and if that person goes to an officer in the Minister's Department, will the Minister help him to get a room? That is all I am asking. Will the Minister undertake to do that?
The corporation actually does.
I am asking the Minister.
I am speaking as a councillor.
I live amongst them.
So do we.
I have cases in mind of people who are being put out this week and who are not getting rooms.
Go and see the city manager about it.
Why should he?
That is his job.
Mr. Walsh
That is his function.
The corporation officials——
Question 2.