I agree that the alibis and excuses people are trying to make for bringing in panic legislation are not justified. The members of the Housing Committee can have another special emergency meeting if they want to consider my contribution. It will not disturb me. If justice is done, it is more important.
We come to another problem—to find out why we have difficulty in relation to dangerous buildings. The 1890 Act imposes on Dublin Corporation certain obligations in relation to dangerous buildings. In large measure, they have failed to discharge these obligations. Again and again, when the Dangerous Buildings Section were asked to specify what work they wanted or what particular portions of the house were dangerous, they failed to be specific. Instead of encouraging and assisting the owners and occupiers to put the house right, the Corporation left things too late until the building had become so dilapidated that there was no alternative but to apply for a court order for demolition.
Another reason why we have the present crisis is that Dublin Corporation are not even now taking a reasonable course, that is, the course of shoring up many of the buildings alleged to be dangerous. I know it would be unsightly to have our city festooned with buildings being shored up, many of which would protrude out on to the street and adjoining properties. If anything could be done to provide temporary accommodation for some of these unfortunate people, it would be desirable to do it, no matter how unsightly the building might be in the meantime. This might allow us to catch up on the housing lag allowed to develop. In the meantime, I cannot see why, even under existing legislation, steps could not be taken to shore up these buildings and prevent a bad situation getting any worse.
One section of the new Bill is useful if the Corporation would use it. As I said, I believe existing legislation would have permitted them to take like action but now it is being spelled out to put it beyond doubt that the Corporation may require the owner to repair, or in default, may themselves repair, any part of a structure. As I said earlier, there are often cases where only portion of a building is dangerous but at the moment even a defective chimney-breast is sufficient to condemn the whole building. I see that the Minister is providing in the future that orders made by the Dublin Corporation may refer to part of the structure and I hope that provision will be properly used and that we will not have the situation in which a blanket order is made requiring the demolition of the whole structure to the satisfaction of the Corporation, and the Corporation failing to explain what would meet their satisfaction and thereby allowing unscrupulous landlords to demolish the whole building.
I notice that we are to have two definitions of ownership, if we pass this Bill as drafted. Section 6 of the Dublin Corporation Act, 1890 provides that in the provisions relating to neglected or dangerous structures or party structures, the term owner means the person in possession or in receipt of the whole of or any part of the rents or profits and so on. Under the Bill, we are proposing that an—
"owner" means any person (other than a mortgagee not in possession) who is for the time being entitled to sell or otherwise dispose of the fee simple of the land in relation to which the said word is used or any term of years for the time being subsisting in respect of the land of which the unexpired residue exceeds one year.
At present the Corporation can serve notice on any person in receipt of the profits; under the new Bill this will not be adequate notice and instead of simplifying the Corporation's difficulty, or expediting action which can be taken in the case of a genuine dangerous building, we are imposing an obligation on the Corporation to serve only the owner. The fact that they serve notice on the person receiving the rents or profits is not sufficient but there are many places owned by absentee landlords or by those who do not want their identities as landlords known.
I notice in section 15 power is given to the Corporation to compel certain persons, including those in receipt of the rents and profits, to give such information as they may have to the Corporation but there are plenty of escape clauses, and I understand in relation to one case that came to my notice that the person in receipt of the rents did not know on whose behalf he was collecting them. If we pass this Bill as drafted, then in such a case there is no action which the Dublin Corporation can take. If the owner cannot be found, if the Corporation are unable to establish ownership, no action can be taken by the Corporation. That seems to me to be a most undesirable situation to permit.
Under the 1890 Act, as Deputy Jones pointed out, there was a provision that the Lord Mayor or the Justice could require that people evicted from housing accommodation would be received into the local workhouse. That section applied today means that there is an obligation on the health authority to receive people into the temporary night shelter in Griffith Barracks, but instead of continuing that provision, grossly inadequate as it is, it is being repealed in toto, so that in future there will be no obligation on the Dublin Health Authority to provide even a night shelter for homeless people evicted from dangerous buildings. Instead, a section is being put in which does not need to be written in, that is, that the local authority may if it thinks fit provide housing accommodation for people being evicted from dangerous buildings.
At the moment Dublin Corporation where they see fit is providing housing accommodation for people being evicted from dangerous buildings but where they do not see fit, as they have not seen fit in about 400 cases since this alleged emergency began last June, at least there is an obligation on the Dublin Health Authority to provide shelter for women and children. Husbands, however, are expected to sleep elsewhere, in a ditch or somewhere like that, wherever they can find a place to lie down. At least there is some semblance of a recognition that society has an obligation to these unfortunate people, but now apparently we are to take a step which is really a backward step and remove any obligation on the local health authority or the local assistance board even to provide night shelter for these unfortunate people. That seems to me to be an unpardonable step to take.
I do not pretend to be an expert on all aspects of local government law. Somebody has described this as a jungle and as I move in more civilised circles than a jungle, some of the time I am not sure why we impose an obligation on a local sanitary authority instead of a local authority, and I should also be glad if the Minister would explain how a sanitary authority is involved in the question of dangerous buildings. The Minister in his statement said that section 3 of the Bill covers dwellinghouses as well as other buildings. Why he put it in the way he did, I do not know. Existing legislation covers dwellinghouses and therefore it is not news to say that it covers dwellinghouses. Existing legislation provides exemption in relation to business dwellings and I should like to know what good reason the Minister has for not providing some exemption in relation to business premises or else spelling out that compensation should be paid.
It seems to me that as many landlords will avail of every opportunity to avoid their responsibility for paying compensation, the obligation to pay the compensation should rest on the Dubin Corporation, if at their behest a building is being evacuated and demolished, and that thereafter the Corporation would have the right to recover the compensation paid from the owner. In most cases the Corporation will have no difficulty in recovering the compensation because many, if not most, of the sites which carry dangerous buildings would be valuable sites if they were completely cleared and in many cases they would be more valuable than if they had derelict buildings on them. It would seem desirable that where small shopkeepers have won certain rights by reason of their long stay, compensation should be paid.
The section dealing with quarries and other dangerous places is to be welcomed. I understand the reason for it is to provide local authorities with power to deal with dangerous places which are not adjoining public roadways or places of public access. Up to now the legal excuse has been that people were trespassing in crossing private property where there was a quarry or an excavation away from the public road, but as unfortunate children suffered in most cases, it was undesirable that we should permit owners of these dangerous places to use the ass of the law, as it were, to ride away from their own responsibilities.
It strikes me, however, the Minister is not going far enough. I can see endless arguments in certain places as to what constitutes a dump. The extent to which a place would be used for the deposit of rubbish might determine whether or not it was a dump. One problem which arises in Dublin and, I am sure, elsewhere and of which the Minister must be aware, is the location of places surrounding cities and towns for depositing old motorcar bodies. If ever there was a dangerous place, a place where old motorcars are deposited is certainly an invitation to danger for children. There have been several accidents with children suffering serious disfigurement or the amputation of limbs as a result of playing around old motorcars.
In some cases there may only be one or two cars, say, on the side of the road or on some piece of ground adjoining the side of the road. If the local authority endeavour to remove these structures from ground adjoining a road, they may well be faced with a notice and with an effort to stop them because it was not a dump within the meaning of the Act. The Minister should try to spell out more clearly the kind of place he has in mind so that any place in which dangerous rubbish, including motorcars, is deposited will be regarded as a dump.
Again in Dublin city there are many private laneways, laneways which give access to the rear of houses and which have not been taken in charge by Dublin Corporation because they are not regarded as being of general public utility but simply of private utility. In some cases, these laneways may lead to as many as 50 or more houses. Many of the laneways have become most objectionable depositories of domestic and other rubbish and, as Deputy Dunne has mentioned, are often infested by vermin of many types. It is desirable that some provision should be inserted in the definition section which will allow Dublin Corporation or any other local authority to clear up such objectionable places.
There are also many cases in which some private gardens, particularly gardens where the boundary walls or fences are broken down, are being used as dumps either by the inhabitants or the adjoining occupiers. I am doubtful if the definition, as broad as the Minister has tried to make it, will cover private gardens in cities. It may well be it does but it is not clear enough.
There is reference to reservoirs, ponds and streams but there is no reference to a canal. There are many cases, certainly in Dublin, where the canal is used as a dump more than any pond or stream. It is desirable that the Minister would include a provision in this Bill to permit the local authority to take action in relation to a canal, if that should be necessary, because I do not think CIE, who are custodians of the Grand Canal in Dublin, are taking adequate steps to prevent the canal being a danger.
Passing along by the canal yesterday between Rialto and James's Harbour, I counted, as I was passing within the speed limit of 30 miles per hour, some four derelict cars parked either in the canal or on the bank and several children from the adjoining Dublin Corporation flats were passing in and out of them. The Bill as drafted would not allow the Dublin Corporation to take action to clear away these derelict cars from that or any other stretch of the Grand Canal, but if somebody happened to turf these cars half a mile down the road into the Camac stream, apparently Dublin Corporation would have the power to remove them. It seems unnecessary and undesirable not to include canals in this general definition section and I should hope the Minister would have second thoughts on the matter during the debate on this Bill.
Before I conclude, there are a few sections of the Bill to which I would ask the Minister to give consideration. I have already mentioned the difficulty which may face him in relation to ownership of dangerous buildings because he is restricting the definition of ownership, or perhaps it is that section 6 of the 1890 Act will still apply in relation to dangerous structures. If so, that is satisfactory enough in relation to dangerous structures, but he requires that the sanitary authority in relation to a dangerous place shall serve notice on the owner. The difficulty may arise in relation to some of these dangerous sites or dangerous places that the owner may not be easily ascertainable Section 2 (3) reads:—
Whenever a sanitary authority give a notice under this section to any person, the authority shall, within seven days after giving the notice to the person, post a copy of the notice at or near the place to which it relates.
I should like the Minister to provide that where the ownership of the property cannot be ascertained by reasonable inquiry, to use his own phraseology from section 3, that notice shall be deemed to have been given by the insertion of a notice in the newspapers circulating in the locality or by posting it at or near the place to which it relates.
Many of the problems faced by the local authorities arise by reason of the difficulty in ascertaining owners; sometimes indeed owners possibly are uncertain as to whether or not they own the property. In order to avoid any further undue delay in regard to the problem of dangerous places, I suggest a section such as that should be put in. If the question of compensation arises and the owner is unknown, there is ample machinery to allow payment of a suitable amount into court or into some other fund which would be reserved until ownership has been established.
In section 3, I notice that Dublin Corporation are apparently endeavouring to run away from the obligation which now lies on them to serve notice on occupiers in relation to dangerous buildings. I can see difficulties in serving notice on owners when they are not known, but I cannot see any undue difficulty in serving a notice in relation to dangerous buildings on occupiers. The people are either there or they are not, and I should be very suspicious about the way in which the section would be used if a local authority could give as an excuse that they made reasonable inquiries but were unable to ascertain the occupiers. There again, rather than allow the local authority to avoid responsibility by such an escape clause, it ought to be provided that where the name of the occupier was in doubt a notice be affixed to the premises in question or to any part of the premises.
Section 3 (1) (a) gives belated recognition to the fact that it is possible to divide a building into parts, stating what parts are dangerous and what parts are not. It is satisfactory to have this division of buildings spelled out in this Bill. In relation to section 3 (3) which requires that Dublin Corporation may specify that the works should be commenced forthwith and that they should also be carried out in accordance with such conditions, if any, specified in the notice, that will work satisfactorily only if Dublin Corporation are a little more co-operative than they have been in the past and take the trouble to specify in detail what works they need done, and not leave owners, occupiers and others in doubt day after day about what needs to be done. What has arisen in the past is that the work has been done and has been found not to be to the satisfaction of Dublin Corporation and it has to be done again. If they would only give written, detailed notice of what was required in the first instance, many of the difficulties would not have arisen.
Section 3, subsection 10, will have to impose mandatory obligations on the local authority to provide living accommodation. I think it will also have to provide for compensation to be paid where living accommodation is not offered. That compensation clause must also include compensation for owners of businesses who themselves have not been in default.
Section 5 says that the decision of the district court under this section shall be final and unappealable. That is most undesirable. What we are providing is that Dublin Corporation may serve notice without testing its validity or fairness. They can serve a notice requiring things to be done. If a person is aggrieved by the notice, he may move to have it set aside in the district court. I am aware of the manner in which district courts work and of the burden of business imposed on them at any time. I am acutely aware of the particular burden and stress of business in relation to dangerous buildings imposed on them at present in the present atmosphere of crisis and alarm. I am not entirely satisfied that you will get an absolutely objective verdict in such an atmosphere.
I do not think it desirable that we should say that matters should not be appealable from the district court. I can certainly see that it might be desirable to impose limits on the time in which an appeal can be taken and that we might say it should be taken within seven days, but I think we should not allow the matter to be determined beyond yea or nea in the district courts. That is no reflection on these courts or on the capacity of the justices trying to reach a fair verdict but we must be realistic about this, and we should not make it possible for a situation to arise in which the atmosphere of crisis and alarm makes an objective verdict difficult to get, particularly where there is a conflict of expert evidence.
If you have a dangerous building inspector from Dublin Corporation who may not be a qualified engineer or architect giving evidence and on the other side, a qualified engineer or architect and the justice finds in favour of the unqualified person, I think it not unreasonable to say there should be another tribunal to review the matter. Therefore, I think it not unreasonable to suggest the Minister should take another look at this section.
Section 15 does not go far enough. It does not allow the serving of notice on persons in receipt of rents or profits in substitution for the owner. On that account I think the Minister should amend it.
The section dealing with the abstraction of water from ESB reservoirs does not call for comment, except to say that it is a great tribute to the Fine Gael Party that we have so many such reservoirs arising out of the electrification scheme, because if other people had had their way, there would not be so many places for the benefit of the water or electricity consumers. We are only too glad to see the great national asset that has been built up by dams and reservoirs being used by the people in a way that might not have been contemplated at the time the Electricity Act was going through.