asked the Minister for Local Government (a) the number of appeals against the condition of council cottages, when vested, in County Meath, which are under consideration in his Department; (b) the number which have been examined by his inspectors about which the appellants have not been notified; (c) the number which have not yet been inspected; and (d) the date on which the appeal regarding the first cottage in (b) and (c) was notified to his Department.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Meath Cottage Repairs.
25.
114 valid appeals under Section 18 of the Labourers Act, 1936, from tenant purchasers in County Meath are awaiting or under consideration in my Department. 83 of these appeals have been examined by my inspectors and the balance of 31 are at various stages prior to inspection.
The oldest of the 83 appeals was received on 28th October, 1959, and the oldest of the 31 appeals was received on 11th August, 1959. In the former case, an inspection was made in March, 1960, but the inspector could not gain admission. Since that date, numerous inquiries have issued to the tenant purchaser asking him to make arrangements to have the cottage open for inspection but no reply has been received. In the latter case, the tenant purchaser was asked in August, 1959, and on subsequent occasions to indicate all the items of repairs which he considered necessary to put the cottage into good repair but no reply has yet been received in this case either.
Apart from these cases, where my Department is not responsible for the delays, the appeals longest with the Department under heads (b) and (c) were first received on 8th May, 1961, and 21st April, 1962, respectively. In case (b) the tenant failed to reply to repeated inquiries between May, 1961, and December, 1962.
Will the Minister not agree it is a ridiculous situation that, when people appeal against the condition of their houses when vested to the Department, they have to wait years afterwards and even then find that the houses have not been inspected and that if they have been, the reports as to their condition have not been sent either to the aggrieved persons or to the local authority?
As I explained, in the two cases mentioned here, the delay was not due to the Department but to the persons concerned—the tenant purchasers.
If the Minister says so, I will take his word for it, but I have very grave doubts.