asked the Minister for Local Government whether he is aware that the County Carlow Medical Officer of Health allocated a house to a road worker who already had a three-roomed house, while two other applicants were in a far worse position, one living with his family in a small, one-roomed hut, the wife and family of the other being in the county home, and if he will state what action he is prepared to take in this matter.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Allocation of Carlow House.
I recently received a request from the Carlow County Council for a ruling in connection with the letting of a cottage at Kilcoltrim. There were five applicants for this cottage and the circumstances of each applicant appeared to entitle him to consideration for a cottage. The applicant selected provisionally was recommended by the acting county medical officer as the person appearing, in her opinion, to have the greatest degree of urgency of need for alternative accommodation. It is understood that the successful applicant, his wife and seven children—two of whom are stated to be suffering from tuberculosis— occupy a converted out house consisting of a kitchen and small room which was reported as unfit, overcrowded, damp and in bad repair. I do not propose to interfere in the decision of the county manager.
I do not think it is correct to say that the county council are satisfied with the decision of the county manager. Is it not correct that the council resented it and that the people in the district resented it? This house was allocated to a man who had already two rooms, while there was another applicant recommended who had no room at all, whose wife and family were in the county home. In these circumstances, I think the Minister should alter his decision and interfere.
The information supplied to me was that there were five applicants. The one who was allocated the house was as described. He had a wife and seven children who were living in a converted outhouse comprising a kitchen and a small room. Two of the children are suffering from tuberculosis. The dwelling was reported by the local medical officer as unfit, overcrowded, damp and in bad repair. The man was an agricultural labourer.
The next applicant was an agricultural labourer living with his wife and five children in a one-roomed house reported on by the same local medical officer as being unfit, damp and badly thatched. The acting county medical officer stated that this applicant also needed a house badly.
The third applicant was an agricultural worker living with his employer. His wife and three children were in the county home for some time, but are now living with his wife's sister. His need is reported by the local medical officer as 100 per cent.
The next applicant was an agricultural worker living in one room in his father-in-law's house. The house is reported on by the same local medical officer as being fit but overcrowded, and the need for a house is also given as 100 per cent.
Another applicant was also an agricultural worker then living in a house consisting of a kitchen and two small rooms. There are four in the family.
These are the circumstances in which the decision had to be made, and I consider that the recommendation of the medical officer is reasonable in the circumstances.
Let the county council build four more houses.
Is it a fact that the county council are not in favour of that decision?
I have no evidence of that. My information is supplied to me.
What about the principles of family life, guaranteed by the Minister and his Department?
I think the Minister is trying to give effect to that principle, which is being repeatedly brought up irrelevantly by Deputy Dr. Brennan.
It is not.