Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 1 Apr 1954

Vol. 145 No. 4

Committee on Finance. - Housing (Amendment) Bill, 1954 —Committee and Final Stages.

Sections 1 to 21, inclusive, put and agreed to.

FIRST SCHEDULE

Mr. Keyes

I move:—

In page 8 to delete the following:—

No. 24 of 1936.

Labourers Act, 1936.

Sub-section (2) of Section 18.

It is rather extraordinary that such an amendment as this should have to be moved. The Bill has been welcomed by all Parties as being both necessary and desirable for the promotion of housing but I propose now that we should not delete sub-section (2) of Section 18 of the Labourers Act, 1936. The deletion of that sub-section means in effect that the right of appeal vested in the tenants when they come to buy their homes from the county councils is being taken away from them. No statutory provision is being put in its place.

The Minister, in introducing the Bill last evening, said that there are so many technicians and so much technical advice now available to local authorities it is considered unnecessary to have the right of appeal still vested in the tenants. I think that is a senseless suggestion, because if these people buy their homes from the county council or the board of health, as the case may be, these bodies are the custodians of the property for the Minister and they must see that the houses are handed over in proper order and repair. Hitherto the tenants had the right of appeal to the Minister if they were not satisfied. That is the first and last time they have that appeal, because once the job is done the tenants must assume responsibility for maintenance subsequently. I do not know what has inspired the Minister to introduce this provision. The allegation seems to be that staffs are too busy to give their time to this inspection work in connection with appeals, but there is no evidence to justify or warrant that assumption.

Delay in vesting has taken place for many reasons, but appealing to the Minister because of lack of proper repair was not one of them. If this is being done in anticipation of tenants being housed in greater numbers than in the past, I still think the provision is unwarranted. I also think it is an unwarranted assumption on the Minister's part that he will not have enough inspectors to deal with appeals, because he anticipates, quite unjustifiably, a large number of appeals; no one can say that numbers of people will make appeals of a vexatious or frivolous character. If their houses are given to them in a satisfactory state of repair that will be the end of it. Some tenants may hold that the job is not properly done and, if they are of that opinion, I think they are perfectly entitled to appeal, because it will be the last occasion on which they will have an opportunity of doing so.

If this section in the Schedule is permitted to go through, then there will be no appeal because the county board of health can do the repairs to the houses. In many cases they are done by direct labour and in other cases by contractors under the auspices of the board of health. It has been suggested that the appeals can be done locally. That would be, so to speak, appealing against yourself. I think that this section is perfectly unfair and unnecessary. In fact, I suggest that it is irrelevant to introduce it at the end of a very nice Bill because really it has no relation to a Housing Bill at all. I am strongly of opinion that it should not be allowed to go through. I think the Minister should be able to see his way to agree to its deletion because it has no relation to the Bill proper. It is inflicting an unwarranted intrusion on the tenants and is depriving them of the statutory right which was given to them under the 1936 Act.

Minister for Local Government (Mr. Smith)

I would be inclined to agree with many of the arguments advanced by Deputy Keyes if the owners of these cottages or houses were private persons. If they were, I certainly think that the purchaser should have the right of an appeal so as to ensure that the standard of repair would be sufficiently high. On the other hand, one does not expect a local body to shirk its responsibilities in relation to the tenancy of labourers' cottages in the same way that we might be suspicious of if this related to private persons. While I am also inclined to the view that if, say, an assistant county engineer were to inspect cottages that had been repaired in his area, and if the appeal is determinable by the local body under which that engineer was employed there is perhaps the possibility that if the county engineer went out on the job he might be prone to take the view of his assistant and to support the report made by him, I still think that even in that case, it is stretching the matter a wee bit too far to suspect that an individual such as a county engineer would behave in that fashion.

The reason for the insertion of this provision in the Bill is that the number of appeals that have come to us has not been very large. That may have resulted from the fact that there were not many purchase schemes. There is the tendency now on the part of the occupiers of labourers' cottages and of other houses owned and controlled by local bodies to buy out their houses.

The type of appeal that we get is very trivial. First of all the number is small. Secondly, the nature of the appeals was so trivial that we felt the matter could be safely left in the hands of the councils themselves and their engineers. This is not the only case where an official is charged with the responsibility of making a report, and of where the same Department is called upon to make a determination on appeals. Mention has been made to me of the Valuation Office. In that case it does not, of course, follow that it is the official who made the first report who will be sent out on the appeal.

Our reasons, therefore, for this deletion are that these cottages and houses are owned by the local bodies. These local bodies have not in the past, nor are they likely in the future, to behave towards their tenants, in the case of a sale to the tenants, as perhaps private persons might, if they were allowed to get away with it. The prospective purchasers of these houses will always have the redress that comes to them through their local representatives. Even in the event of an appeal, I think it is possible, in fact probable, that an officer of the same authority could be found to adjudicate fairly on it. If there was any additional work required, or if the standard of the work was not sufficiently high, I would not have any hesitation in accepting the view of any county engineer in the country that I know as against maybe the report of one of his assistants in regard to a matter of this kind.

I do not want to contend that there is any big principle over which we need have any struggle here in regard to this matter. The fact that it has been proposed that this provision should be deleted does not at all mean that we would not be interested in seeing in the event of complaints being made to us that a high standard of repair was provided, or that we would not, in fact, check up on the reports coming to the Department as to the failure of a local authority to do its work properly. But we do not want to have a statutory obligation placed on the Department because we believe, from what we have seen, that it results in a lot of frivolous appeals on the part of people who really do not intend to go through at all with the purchase of the houses of which they are tenants, but who use that machinery for the purpose of effecting advantages over other tenants in the way of having prior claim as regards the repairs which their houses may require.

As I have said, I have no very strong feeling on this one way or another. At the same time, I think that we can safely allow the proposal to stand. Deputy Keyes and the House can be fully assured that, in the event of tenants expressing dissatisfaction as to the way in which a local body is discharging its responsibilities under the 1936 Act, we certainly would take an interest in that, and see that a general inspection of the work complained of was made. We feel, however, that this provision will be helpful to all concerned, and that, since a large number of schemes for vesting are coming before us, it will help to speed up the whole process, and not in our view to the detriment of the interests of the tenant purchasers.

Mr. Keyes

I want to assure the House that my amendment was not put down in a frivolous fashion nor with the object of dealing with frivolous objections that might be made by tenants. My whole idea is to preserve a fundamental right for the tenants. I would be prepared to accept an assurance from the Minister that the rights of tenants are not going to be infringed upon. At the same time, I am concerned to know how that is going to be effected by the deletion of this sub-section. The Minister is taking himself completely out of the picture. We all know that Ministers, generally, have been very popular. Hence, we want to keep them in this Bill so that the rights of the tenants will be determined by the Minister himself. The Minister, really, is the custodian of all the property represented by these houses in the country. The houses are, of course, under the immediate control of the local bodies through whom the tenants buy them. It is quite possible that unsatisfactory repairs will be done. I have had to make complaints this week about six unsatisfactory repairs in County Limerick of which I am sure Deputy Collins, the chairman of the county council, is aware. Unsatisfactory repairs are being done, and if that is going to continue when it is the final repair that is involved, I want to know where is the appeal going to be made by the tenant who has a legitimate, honest-to-goodness grievance because no longer can he avail of the provision under the 1936 Act. To whom is the appeal going to be made? He can only appeal to the county manager or county engineer. They are the people who are themselves responsible for having carried out what we hold to be unsatisfactory repairs.

I would like to see the Minister stepping in there and I do not care what action he takes to enforce his authority. If there is not a sufficiently large engineering inspectorial staff I would be prepared to suggest that a housing engineer or anybody else you wish should be employed under the authority of the Minister. In any event I want to see some separate authority set up against the person who did the job. Appealing against the person who did the work does not make sense.

This is a serious infringement and nothing is being put back in place of what is being deleted. This is simply a bald deletion out of an Act of Parliament for which there is no justification. I would ask the Minister to make arrangements to have the inspection carried out by some other person than the man who actually did the job.

Mr. Smith

Our attitude is that we do not want to have placed upon us the legal responsibility in this regard even in the case of what is obviously a most trivial type of objection. The fact that we are trying to relieve ourselves of that responsibility does not mean, of course, that if a substantial complaint were made, even apart altogether from these provisions, it would not be examined thoroughly by one of our inspectors and taken up with the local authority concerned.

I do not want to force this thing on the House. We have examined it very carefully and I could give the Deputy and those who are interested an assurance that it is not just to escape work or to escape the employment, if necessary, of additional people. The whole of the experience which has been gained in the Department has suggested to us that we could divest ourselves of the legal responsibility while at the same time admitting that in the event of a substantial complaint being made, which in fact has scarcely ever reached us, as to the manner in which the local authority was discharging its responsibility in the repair of houses, we would, of course, exercise in the normal way the functions and responsibilities that undoubtedly rest with the Department. I think the Deputy could allow this to stand. I can see his point but I am not doing this for the sake of depriving people of the right of appeal which in the theoretical sense seems to be wrong but in practice is not going to be wrong.

Mr. Hickey

The very fact that there will be a right of appeal will make them do the job right.

Mr. O'Higgins

It does seem to be a matter of principle.

Mr. Smith

I do not want to resist the demand but in the general interest it is not the best thing to do.

Mr. O'Higgins

I am impressed by what Deputy Keyes has said. It does seem reasonable that if you are going to have machinery for satisfying the Department, the local authorities and its tenants that work in accordance with the statutory obligations under the Labourers Act is done, the only way of ensuring that is by having an outside mind on it. You cannot ensure that if the hand that does the work is also the hand that will write approval for the work later.

Mr. Smith

Why should an engineer employed by a local authority want to scamp a job seeing it is going to cost him nothing and knowing it would be a terrific injustice to do so against a person of the labouring class who is about to purchase a house? It is a most unlikely thing and even if the assistant engineer did that, is it likely that a county engineer on re-examination on appeal would take the side of his assistant as against that of the applicant for a labourer's cottage?

Mr. O'Higgins

The only thing is that the Minister has very complete faith in bureaucracy. I have not.

Mr. Smith

In human beings I have.

Mr. O'Higgins

I know human beings to be merely human and the human element is very strong in all of us. There is no doubt that it will not happen often but it may happen occasionally that a job may be skimped. Possibly the tenant may be mischievous or may be an annoying type; he may get the engineer's back up and accordingly an injustice may be done. I am impressed by what Deputy Keyes has said.

Mr. Corish

In view of the fact that the Minister has admitted that many appeals have not been sent to him, it would not incommode the Department to leave that subsection there.

Mr. Smith

Although certain counties have taken advantage of the 1936 Act, only in my own and a couple of other counties was any considerable number of houses purchased at all. I may point out as well that the 1936 Act still places the legal responsibility on the local authority to put the house in a proper state of repair and the tenant purchaser has that legal support there all the time.

Mr. O'Higgins

I can see that, but the appeal there would have to be to the courts. I do not think I have heard of any case where there has been an appeal to the Minister but I think it is an important principle that ought to be preserved.

Mr. Smith

If you saw the types of cases that come to us as a result of it you would be inclined to lean with me in what I am proposing now. It is not of that great importance that I should resist terrific pressure but I feel I would be giving away something that would not be in the general interest.

Mr. Hickey

I think it is desirable that the provision should remain. I could tell the Minister that of 20 cottages which were let out under contract five or six of them were very badly done. There is no use in appealing to the person who did the job to have it put right.

Mr. Smith

Do you mean to tell me that officials would try to get away with anything like that with Deputy Hickey and others here?

Mr. Keyes

You are going to open a flood of litigation with people seeking for their rights in the courts although they could be protected very simply under the Act. The protection of the Minister would be sufficient guarantee to purchasers instead of their going into court against the contractor who made a bad job of their house.

Mr. Smith

In order to satisfy everyone and entirely against my own will and judgment, and against whatever little experience I have, I will give way entirely. In doing so, I am not doing what is in the interest of those concerned at all.

Mr. J.J. Collins

We have had some experience of this in Limerick and while I was anxious that the Minister would retain some right and some protection for the people concerned, I agree with the Minister that it is primarily the duty of the local authority to see that proper repair is given to people who intend to purchase their cottages. At the moment we may be going ahead with a fairly big cottage purchase scheme. Quite recently I had to make a complaint to the county manager and county engineer and as a matter of fact I went to inspect the houses myself and was thoroughly dissatisfied with the repair given to those people. We shouldered our responsibility in the local council and insisted that our county engineer and county manager would give the people competent repair. I know we attend to all our cottiers and when they apply for the purchase they get three forms, A, B and C; and we warn them not to sign C unless they are satisfied they have a proper repair. Then if there is a hold up or delay in giving purchase to these people, the local authority can inquire as to the cause.

It is not the Minister I would blame or the local authority for the type of work that is being scamped; it is the clerk of works or the deputy engineer who allows or approves work of that nature, who should be severely dealt with. We should not be asking the Minister or his staff, or the engineering staff, to run round half County Kerry or anywhere else investigating a particular case. I believe that it is the intention of all local bodies to give such people a good repair and hand over their houses in a pretty sound condition. I am glad the Minister has given way, because there is this point in it also, that if any member of a local body makes a complaint, naturally the senior engineer will have to investigate it and, human nature being what it is, and as professional etiquette might be inclined to influence it, there might be cases where the county engineer would cover up the deputy engineer.

Mr. L. Walsh

Fire both of them.

Mr. J.J. Collins

We could not fire the engineers.

Mr. L. Walsh

Why not, for failing in their duty?

Mr. J.J. Collins

I am glad the Minister has agreed to allow that to stand. It is only fair that local authorities should act and speak in the name of the people who elected them and that we should keep in the Minister that right; and I am very pleased that the Minister has agreed to Deputy Keyes' amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

First Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Second Schedule agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported with one amendment.

Bill, as amended, received for final consideration, and passed.