Deputy O. J. Flanagan gave notice that he would raise on the Adjournment the subject matter of Question No. 27 on the Order Paper of 22nd May, 1962.
Adjournment Debate. - Tullamore Housing Applicant.
On a point of order— I want to seek the guidance of the Chair. In a matter where the Minister has not responsibility——
I cannot hear the Minister.
In a matter where the Minister has not responsibility and which is raised on the Adjournment as this question was raised on Tuesday last and, accepting the ruling of the Chair as every Deputy, including Ministers, should, I was available and waiting on Tuesday but the Deputy who wanted to raise this question on the Tuesday night suddenly got his mind changed and for some reason completely unknown to me was not present, presumably he will be good enough tonight to tell the House why he was not present?
Mr. Ryan
That is a most impertinent question.
That is not a point of order the Chair can decide.
I gave notice of my intention to raise this question on the Adjournment on Wednesday last and in the course of my opening remarks, a member of the Fianna Fáil Party directed the attention of the Chair to the fact that a quorum was not present. I respectfully submit——
A point of order is not being discussed. What is being discussed is the subject matter of Question No. 27 on the Order Paper of 22nd May which the Deputy gave notice he would raise.
I addressed the question to the Minister for Local Government and asked if he would undertake a special investigation into the failure of the local authority to provide a house for an applicant, Mr. Michael McNamara, Spollanstown, Tullamore, in view of the fact that the applicant was recommended for tenancy of a vacant house by the local health inspector and County MOH; and if he would ascertain under what circumstances these recommendations were not more favourably considered.
In his reply, the Minister says the letting of local authority houses and the determination of the order of preference in the selection of tenants are functions of the housing authority concerned and that he did not propose to undertake a special investigation into this case. That reply conveys to me that if the Minister wished to make investigations he could do so but on this particular occasion he does not propose to do so. I believe it is my right as a Deputy to tell the Minister why I think he should call for a special investigation in this case.
Here is a case in which we have a most industrious worker badly in need of housing. May I add that he is not a political supporter of mine but a political supporter of the Minister's Party and I raise this matter in full knowledge of that because I have sympathy for the applicant's wife and children who are living in the most desperate and shocking housing conditions. This man finds himself living in a room in a council cottage at Spollanstown with his wife, his daughter Noreen, aged 16½; his son Michael, age 13½; his other son, Dermot, aged 10, and a further son, John, aged 4. They must all live, eat and sleep in the same small room. In the same house there is the tenant John McNamara, and his wife, his son Seán, aged seven years, his daughter Joan, aged five years, his daughter Bernadette, aged four years, his son Michael, aged two years. In the same house reside the tenant's mother, Mrs. Nora McNamara, at a very advanced age, and an aged uncle, William McNamara.
I respectfully suggest this is a case which qualifies for re-housing on the grounds of overcrowding. Here is a case of overcrowding which, in the interests of public health, should be given sympathetic attention by the Minister's Department. Tullamore is a town in which it is difficult for anybody to obtain a house at present. The local urban council is erecting ten houses for which there are 75 applicants. If 100 houses were erected in Tullamore, I believe there would be applicants for all of them.
On a point of order, can this discussion go on while the Minister has his back turned to the Chair and is carrying on a conversation while the Deputy is speaking?
That is not a point of order.
It has been conveved to me that a regulation of the Minister's making prevents this applicant getting a house because he is a sub-tenant in his brother's cottage. It is the Minister's duty to change that regulation if it prevents such people as the applicant I have in mind being re-housed. I understand that the subsidy payable by his Department to a local authority would not be paid in the event of re-housing, even though there is evidence of the health of the family being seriously affected by over-crowding. There is also the moral aspect that there is a girl of 16½ sleeping in the same small apartment as her brother, 13½. Sleeping, dressing, washing, the most intimate and private actions of a household are undertaken in the presence of grown-up boys and girls. There are 13 people living in this county council cottage. The county medical officer of health has written a letter to Councillor John Callaghan of Kilcormac in which he says:
Although most deserving——
And Mr. McNamara is deserving.
——there are others on the waiting list for much longer periods.
However, if you are on the waiting list and you have no children or one child, seemingly according to this regulation, you have a better chance of being housed than a person residing in a small cottage with 12 other people. Some of them have to sleep in the kitchen. I have known a case similar to this where because of over-crowding, some of the family had to sleep in the cowhouse. That can be borne out by Mr. Gerry Brady, the local national school teacher.
The Minister speaks of the progress of housing, particularly in County Offaly. It is deplorable that over-crowding in such cottages should mean that the family have to separate at night time and that some of them have to sleep in the cow-house. That can be borne out by anybody who goes to inspect the conditions in which some people are living under the health authority to which the Minister refers.
I ask the Minister to give the House the reasons why, in view of the opinion of the county medical officer of health, his report was not acted upon and why this family were not granted the tenancy of the house for which they applied. It is degrading for an honest, good-living, Catholic family like this to have to live in these shocking conditions which no public representative could stand over. Does the Minister intend to allow the same conditions to prevail in other parts of the country as exist in Tullamore? I raise this matter so that there will not be a repetition in other parts of the country of what has taken place in Tullamore. The housing position in relation to this family must be nearly the worst in Ireland. I am asking the Minister, in the interests of the health of the smaller children of this house and in the interests of the older people who want to have a house to live in in their old age, to look into this matter.
The Minister may say the reason this man was not re-housed is that he went to live in his brother's cottage. If his brother would not take him in, who would take him in? Where else would a man go except to live with his brother and his aged mother? Because of this sympathetic consideration given by his mother and brother, he cannot obtain a house. This is a state of affairs in regard to which the Minister and his Department should hold down their heads in shame. It is housing conditions like these that bring disgrace upon the country. I respectfully put it to the Minister that this is one case that calls for special investigation and I trust he will hold that investigation with the least possible delay.
Is it not a fact that, according to the housing regulations, where a child of 16 years shares a room with its parents, they should be granted priority?
We have just heard a dissertation from a past-master of the art of blackguarding anybody who comes his way if he is given the opportunity. He talks about disgrace and tries to throw responsibility on the council, on myself and my Department for this case and it is talk like that that brings disgrace on all of us. This talk, like the Deputy, brings disgrace on all of us, on county councils and State alike, and on the country as a whole. It is, I think, unnecessary, really, to say that to those of us who are unfortunate enough to have known him in this House over very many years.
The facts in this case are very different from the alleged facts outlined by the Deputy. In conformity, however, with his usual approach in matters like this, his regard for fact and truth is not by any means apparent. In the question tabled, it is asserted that the applicant was recommended for a tenancy of a vacant house by the local health inspector and the county MOH. Neither of these statements is a fact. Yet the Deputy repeated them here to-night.
Furthermore, the individual in question, who is, no doubt, badly in need of housing accommodation, was not on the housing list of persons seeking houses until last January. At the date of his application he was occupying a 7-roomed private house. If anyone is in any doubt about his regard for his family, and their being overcrowded, there were in that 7-roomed private house, as well as himself, his wife and children, no fewer than ten lodgers. On May 2nd of this year he moved from that house into his brother's cottage. It is not asserted, or held, by me, or anybody else, that he is debarred from getting a local authority house because of the fact that he is a sub-tenant—he was so described here tonight—in his brother's house. That assertion was never made by me as Minister for Local Government in relation to this case.
The evidence submitted by the Deputy is based on a letter written by the MOH to a member of the county council.
Councillor O'Callaghan.
Again, the Deputy's statement is not a fact. It is not a fact that the local health inspector recommended this man. It is not a fact that the MOH recommended him.
I should like now to draw the Deputy's attention to the fact that not so very long ago he was making a furore in this House about the number of houses needed in his constituency, especially in Tullamore. Why the furore then? Why did he come in here on more than one occasion alleging the great need that existed and describing the conditions under which people, who were waiting for houses, were living? What were we and the local council to do for these people? What were the local council to do for these people who have been on the waiting list for years, who have been seeking houses for years? Indeed, the Deputy has been noisily seeking them for them in this House. Were they to be disregarded now and a house made available to this man, a man who only entered into his present housing conditions so recently as 2nd May?
Surely every reasonable Deputy will agree that Deputy Flanagan's approach tonight in this matter has not been straightforward. It is not a true reflection of the facts. Indeed, it is, if anything a reflection on the members of the local authority in Tullamore. To my knowledge, at any rate, the members are doing their job ably and well.
The idea of a special investigation seems to appeal to the Deputy. He asks why such an investigation should not be held. There is nothing in his alleged facts which would convince me, or anybody else, of the need to hold a special investigation. What the Deputy stated are not facts.
That is not so.
The Deputy bases his case on the alleged recommendations of responsible people.
Children over 13 years of age, of opposite sexes, sleeping in one room. That is a fact.
The Deputy quite ignored tonight that the urgency in this matter was not so urgent this night week or on last Wednesday night. He notified his intention of raising this matter on the Adjournment at four o'clock last Tuesday. He was informed, as I was informed, at five o'clock that the matter was in order. Yet, the Deputy who was in such a state of panic over this case, could not make himself available on Tuesday night at 10.30 p.m. to discuss the matter. He did not have the courtesy to inform me that he would not be available. I did not know——
That is not so.
——neither was it conveyed to me——
The Chair knows that is not so.
It is so.
On a point of order. Surely the Chair recollects the fact that on Wednesday night last, I raised this matter on the Adjournment and the Chair adjourned the House at the request of Deputy Vivion de Valera.
I am speaking of Tuesday night. It is a fact that on Tuesday night at five o'clock I was informed this matter would be raised on the Adjournment. I am drawing attention to the fact——
The Minister is trying to draw attention away from the facts by dragging in a red herring.
I am drawing attention to the fact that the argument that Deputies are being denied rights to which they are entitled is founded on false premises. The Deputy who complains got that right on Tuesday night last. He did not use his right. He was content to leave the Minister and his officials twiddling their thumbs, waiting on him.
That is what the Minister is paid his salary for.
I hope as much publicity will be given to these facts as was given to the misrepresentation of the situation last Wednesday.
Red herrings.
The Minister does not know what he is talking about.
Order. The Minister is entitled to conclude without interruption.
Red herrings.
Would Deputies please allow the Minister to make his statement?
Not with red herrings.
Surely the Minister is just as much entitled to make his statement as any other Deputy.
But not with red herrings.
Might I ask you, Sir——
I will hear the Minister concluding.
On the question?
On the question.
Perhaps the Minister will come to the desirability of children over 13 years of age, of different sexes, sleeping in the one room.
Perhaps the Deputy will come to the question of why he did not turn up last Tuesday night.
Why did the Minister not answer on Wednesday night?
Will the Deputy answer that one now?
Why did not the Minister answer on Wednesday night?
Answer that now.
Why did the Minister not answer? Because hé did not know the answer.
Order.
Where was the Minister on Wednesday night?
At least I did not mislead anybody as to where I was.
The Deputy did not mislead anybody, and that is more than the Minister can say.
They are behind the Minister tonight.
Order. The Minister concluding.
To come back to the special investigation, about which the Deputy is so concerned; if there were a special investigation, and if it were found there was something wrong—I do not for one moment admit there is anything wrong——
But can we rely on the Minister?
The only step open to the Minister in such an eventuality would be to abolish the council. Having abolished the council, what then? The Minister would not be in a position to provide a house for that particular applicant, or, indeed, for any applicant. The provision of housing would still be a function of the then non-existent council. Possibly, and probably, the Deputy would like to see some such crux evolve so that he might ride on it to some further notoriety. If he thinks that I, as Minister for Local Government, will provide him with that kind of satisfaction, he is very much mistaken. I would suggest to him, and to all Deputies who seem inclined to follow his trail, that they should, first of all, try to ascertain the facts and, having done so, give them to the House and the appropriate Minister. Then, at least, we will be able to answer the facts rather than, as I have been compelled to do to-night, deny alleged facts which have no foundation in fact. Finally, I have not the responsibility the Deputy seems to think I have in this matter.
Of course, the Minister has.
And, after that is said and done, will the Deputy—and I challenge him—say why and for what reason he absconded last Tuesday night?
Why not ask that question of Deputy de Valera?
Yes, the Minister should get that information from Deputy de Valera.
Deputy O.J. Flanagan should answer that one.
The Dáil adjourned at 11 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Wednesday, 30th May, 1962.