The purpose of this Bill is to facilitate the building of houses, and to encourage and assist local authorities to build houses for the people who are badly in need of them. Section 6 of the Act of 1883 was passed almost 70 years ago when the rights that were then considered were not the rights of workers, but the rights of the demesne owners. That was the time when the British Parliament, who made the law, was controlled, not by people who were interested in the workers, but by people who were interested in demense preservation.
Committee on Finance. - Housing (Amendment) Bill, 1950—Committee (Resumed) and Final Stages.
Debate resumed on Amendment No. 27:—
It was put in by the House of Lords.
That section has been found by our local authorities and by the Minister, who is endeavouring to build houses for the people, to be an obstruction and, very properly, in 1950 he proceeds under Section 24 to remove that obstruction to house building. As the Minister has said, Deputy MacEntee desires to preserve a circle with a 75 yards radius around these particular houses. He wants to say to us here in Dublin: "No matter what your housing needs may be, you will build no house within a circle having a radius of 75 yards from the particular type of house protected by the Act of 1883."
It is regrettable to see that the Deputy cannot read.
The Deputy can read and that is the purport of the amendment. The amendment limits this protection to 75 yards. The Minister wants to wipe it out altogether. If this Housing Bill is so urgently wanted, surely we must remove obstructions of that kind? As the Minister has said, this Bill will be operated by the local authority. Deputy Briscoe, Deputy Byrne and many other Deputies are members of local authorities and those members of local authorities will exercise the powers given under this Bill with discreation. If inquiries are to be held in regard to compulsory acquisition, it is a reasonable assumption that the arbitrator will act on reasonable lines. That being so, I do not think that anyone needs to have any great worry that the personal interests or rights of the particular individuals will be unduly interfered with. If it is necessary that the property of these people should be acquired to build houses, compensation is provided and the method of compensation and the procedure to obtain compensation are provided under the law. I would ask Deputy MacEntee to withdraw this amendment and to allow this obstructive provision in the old 1883 Act to be removed in the way the Minister proposes.
I want to emphasise again that I am afraid—and Deputy Sweetman agrees—that there is quite a new development enshrined in this Bill. Deputy Byrne says what. I am saying. I can quite understand that Deputy Cowan disapproves of this somewhat belated attempt to protect the rights of private property, no matter who the owners may be. First of all, Deputy Cowan has approached this amendment as if it were going to apply in the centre of the city where there is no such demesne. It could possibly apply in Dublin if the boundaries were being extended or in Dún Laoghaire if it were proposed to take over land on which this type of residence might exist. What I object to is that whereas when the local authority were taking over the whole property, compensation was heretofore fixed on the basis of the total value of the property including the house, now the local authority is going to be in a position to go to a man and say: "We are not going to take your house but we will take the land and compensation will be paid for the land so acquired."
No. That is the whole kernel of the matter at issue.
The Deputy agreed there was a new departure in this.
For acquisition but not for compensation.
What does it imply? It implies that you can now say: "I am taking the land surrounding the house but I am not necessarily taking the house."
That is a most unfair presentation of the case.
Does the Minister suggest that local authorities are going to acquire properties in the future as in the past? If he says that, what is the need for the section? Deputy Sweetman must know how these acquisitions have been carried out in the past and I want to warn him with the utmost sincerity of what will happen under this section if my interpretation of it is right. The local authority will now come along to a man and say: "We are going to take your bit of land but you can keep the house and we shall negotiate with you on that basis. We are going as far as we like up to your back door or to your front door." The Deputy has only to go out to parts of Dún Laoghaire and Monkstown and he will see what has happened with these old type of demesne houses. The old house is still left there and has perhaps been converted into some kind of small hospital and all around are built these smaller types of houses. Does he want to convince me that if I am left with a house of that kind, that I am going to be as comfortable as I would be if some of the land were left around the house?
Of course you are not but you are going to get compensation for it.
If the local authorities say: "We are not taking the house" it does not enter into consideration on the compensation question.
It does.
Are you not compensating him for the deterioration in the value of the whole place?
This I suggest is a new form of undisclosed State socialism.
I give Deputy Briscoe credit for all sincerity but I suggest that he has mixed up different principles. There is first the principle of acquisition and secondly the principle of compensation. The position heretofore has been in regard to demesne lands that no matter what compensation you offered there was a complete and absolute bar prohibiting acquisition. That complete and absolute bar is now being removed. So far as compensation is concerned, forget you are dealing with demesne land.
The position as I understand it at any rate, is that if you are taking only portion of a man's land he is entitled to put forward when you come to arbitration for compensation, not merely the intrinsic value of the blades of grass or the square of land that is being taken, but in addition to that the fact that his removal from ownership of that square of land, is going to interfere with his utilising the remainder of his land. That principle, as I understand it, has always been accepted by arbitrators. If that is so, that principle is not affected in any way in this amendment of the law.
Read Section 24 in conjunction with what I am saying.
That principle is not affected in any way by the ministerial amendment. The ministerial amendment provides that now you can go in and take half a man's field if it is not demesne land; taking half may mean that the other half is no use and that it is no longer an economic unit and, therefore, the compensation for the particular half should be increased. That has been considered by arbitrators up to now and now the situation is that you are putting the demesne land into the same position and if a local authority acquires demesne land near a man's house in consequence of which the value of the house is diminished, that diminution, as I understand it, is enabled to be taken into account in fixing compensation on the land so acquired and so long as that principle is there, that diminution of the value of the residue can be taken into account. I am afraid that the whole of Deputy Briscoe's argument falls to the ground. I think that has always been there and this amendment does not affect it. All the amendment does is to say that demesne land can be considered in the same way as ordinary non-demesne land is considered.
Assuming that Deputy Sweetman's argument is correct, let us see where that leads us. Under the section the Minister or the local authority has power to destroy altogether the amenities of a residence which is inhabited largely because of the amenities which surround it and which, if it were not for those amenities, would not be inhabited at all. Deputy Briscoe has referred to instances of that here in the City of Dublin and the suburbs and in the Borough of Dún Laoghaire where because of the fact that lands immediately adjoining and contiguous to a house have been occupied, the house has been left derelict for a number of years until some way of using it for institutional purposes was thought of. How is that going to help the housing problem? Certainly it is not going to lighten the burden of local authorities because as the position is, local authorities may encroach so deeply upon the private gardens surrounding a house and may build, so to speak, up to a man's door so that the house becomes at once a white elephant and is of no saleable value. Therefore, on Deputy Sweetman's argument, the local authority must, at the public expense, at the expense of the rate-payers, because it has encroached so deeply on what might be regarded as the normal amenitsies of a residence as to destroy its whole value, compensate the owner as if it had bought the residence from him. Is that not where Deputy Sweetman's argument leads us and is there any justification in the public interest for placing local authorities in that position?
I am not surprised that Deputy Cowan should take exception to this amendment and so warmly support Section 24 in the form in which it is because we know that Deputy Cowan is the avowed enemy of the property owner. We know that he regards the man who lives in a house with a garden as a public enemy, but do the people of the country as a whole take that extreme attitude to a person who has a house and garden? All we are asking for is that reasonable protection should be afforded. I think it is necessary because if Deputy Cowan and those who are with him have their way and secure control of local authorities—they are setting out to it now —how do we know——
On a point of order. We have debated this matter for several hours and no personalities have been introduced until Deputy MacEntee came in a minute ago.
Personalities are regrettable and should not be indulged in.
I should be glad to know where I have been personal. I heard Deputy Cowan referring to Deputy MacEntee; referring to what Deputy MacEntee wants to do. Surely I am entitled to point out what Deputy Cowan's avowed purpose is in public life. He wants to take over the land of Ireland and divide it among the people who support Deputy Cowan. That is Deputy Cowan's avowed policy; but leave that to one side. Deputy Cowan is so ashamed of his policy that when it is mentioned, he immediately takes umbrage and suggests that it is a reflection on Deputy Cowan's personal character. If I were in the position of advocating a policy which I thought unmentionable in public, I would keep my mouth shut and turn my mind to some more rational and acceptable course in public life. However, I am not surprised that Deputy Cowan should welcome this because this does mean that if a certain Party secures control of local authorities and wishes to abuse the power which has been given to it, it may use the amendment of the existing law which the section proposes in order to carry through, not a housing policy, but a policy of expropriation without adequate compensation. They may drive out, if they like, and render more or less homeless, people who live in houses surrounded by a garden. It may not necessarily be a large house but may be a modest residence which a person has built or purchased because of the fact that it is surrounded by a certain amount of territory. I can see Deputy Sweetman shaking his head but this section does say:—
"the deletion of the words ‘the scheme shall avoid all interference with amenity of residence of the owner of the lands proposed to be taken...'"
I am leaving out the word "demesne." If a man has a demesne of 1,200 acres surrounding his house or a home farm of 200 or 300 acres and if it is necessary to take a reasonable portion of that for the purpose of providing houses for the people, none of us is going to get up here and say that the local authority would not be justified in doing so, but this would allow any lands to be encroached upon. The section goes on:
"or with any home farm, or lands immediately adjoining and customarily occupied with such residence."
Oh, no. "Such residence;""such" being the word relating it to "demesne."
Surely the Deputy is misleading himself. He is certainly misleading the House. The section reads:
"The scheme shall avoid all interference with . . . amenity of residence of the owner of the lands proposed to be taken."
Leave the word "demesne" out. We will not raise any issue regarding demesne lands. All we are asking is:
"The scheme shall avoid all interference with ‘amenity of residence of the owner of the lands proposed to be taken, or with any home farm, or lands immediately adjoining and customarily occupied with such residence."
That is what we are anxious to preserve. As the section stands, it would mean that a person who occupies a residence—it does not matter what size the residence is if he occupies it—and portion of the land surrounding it is proposed to be taken, all the land could be taken right up to the hall door. I do not think there can be any question of that so far as I read the section. I think that most fair-minded Deputies will agree that that is not reasonable. After all, if a man has built up his home, if he has reared his children in it, if he has made the garden—and it takes a long time to make a garden—if he has beautified the site, surely we are not entitled to take the last rood or the last square yard he has? Under Section 24 as it stands that could be done.
All we are saying is that the law ought to provide some protection against arbitrary acts which would either wholly depreciate the house if unoccupied or which would permit a man to be virtually driven out of it. That is what we are trying to secure by this amendment. If some people think that 75 yards on either side of the residence is too much, perhaps we can come to a reasonable compromise. I think, however, that the principle which the amendment endeavours to give effect to as a reasonable protection for a man who has lived in a house, made his home there, and whose people may have lived in it for generations should be accepted.
Deputy MacEntee has missed one very important small word in Section 24 which reads: "The scheme shall avoid all interference with the demesne and amenity of residence." It does not say "with the demesne or amenity of residence." I think Deputy MacEntee, now that I have put the point to him, will agree that the effect of these words "amenity of residence" is merely to amplify the word "demesne"; that all that the section deals with is "the demesne", which is part of the demesne lands and, "amenity of residence" which is the garden inside the demesne and the residence thereon, and that it only affects, not the small house to which the Deputy referred, but a residence and amenity on a demesne and that the amendment which the Minister is including can only affect demesne lands.
I am not a lawyer, but I think the Deputy is misreading the section because it says: "The scheme shall avoid all interference with the demesne and amenity of residence of the owner of the lands proposed to be taken, or with any home farm, or lands immediately adjoining and customarily occupied with such residence." That would surely extend to the man's garden or a paddock which he might have.
The demesne lands.
Not necessarily. I am a layman arguing with a lawyer, but I think the effect of the section is to allow any portion of a man's land to be taken, to allow everything that is customarily occupied with the residence to be taken.
I think it is necessary to get back again to what the section actually proposes. There has been such extravagant language used by some Deputies that you would think the local authorities were all modern Oliver Cromwells, that expropriation was to be undertaken. This is only meant to enable a local authority to get on with a reasonable house building scheme. Experience in recent years has shown that they have been handicapped by inability to make a reasonable approach in order to get some land. Nobody expects a local authority to have the right to take over a whole demesne or estate. In recent times, if one of these places had not been adjacent, they would have been building houses on the hill tops. The powers sought will be operated in a reasonable way and the same rights will be vested in the owners of demesne lands as in any farmer or any other landowner.
I can see the point that Deputy MacEntee is aiming at in his amendment but, even if it were accepted, it would not cover the point he wants to cover. As I mentioned, there are demesnes on which the house will be adjacent to the village street. Under this amendment, the 75 yards mentioned would preclude the building of houses on the village street. If we were to visualise local authorities making drastic and excessive use of their powers, we would have to be very cautious, but we are only seeking to remedy something which has been found to be a grievance and a hardship on local authorities. We are allowing the same protection to the owners of demesne lands as is allowed to the ordinary farmer. In fact, Deputy MacEntee's amendment would apply not only to demesne lands but to every residence in the country.
We believe that these powers will not be abused; that the local authorities will show their usual discretion in dealing with the matter. If they do not, there can be a public inquiry and there is a right of appeal to the courts eventually. In my opinion, that law has been too long in operation. When you are engaged, as we are, in trying to house the people, is there any justification for this anachronism being allowed to continue? It dates back to 1883 and has been preserved up to now. The tolerance which has always been shown by our people is a guarantee that the elected representatives will not go further in using the powers given under this Bill than is necessary to carry on housing schemes without inflicting any hardship on the owners of demesne lands.
The compensation provided for is ample and what has been visualised by Deputy Briscoe is utterly impossible. I cannot see it arising. He believes that a local authority can take over an entire demesne and build cottages right in front of a derelict house. That is only a figment of the imagination. Even if you left the 75 yards mentioned in the amendment all round the building, it would not be in a much better position. What will happen is that reasonable opportunity will be afforded to local authorities to secure portion of demesne lands suitable for building adjacent to local amenities. If local authorities are inclined to go too far, provision is made for preserving the rights of owners. I think they are perfectly safe without the amendment. I feel that the amendment would not afford any additional protection, but would definitely handicap and hinder the operations of local authorities.
I wonder what protection the Minister suggests a person who might be aggrieved by this matter would have. Is it the inquiry the Minister would propose to hold, because, if so, it might quite easily happen that the protection would be purely illusory? Everybody knows that before that inquiry is held proposals to acquire the site have been sent up to the Department, that the question whether the site is suitable has already been discussed in the Department. There are few Ministers who have the time to examine exhaustively the evidence which may be adduced at an inquiry, and if it is agreed that a housing scheme on a particular site should go ahead you may have this matter settled by the Department before the inquiry is held and then it may be exceedingly difficult for anything to be done to extend the protection to the private individual. If that is the sort of protection the Minister is holding out to this House or to people who happen to live in houses with gardens— and I must emphasise that that is at stake here—the protection is, as I have said, highly illusory and I think we should have in the statute some definite bar.
It is all very well to talk of demesne lands extending, in some instances, up to the village street. In how many cases is a demesne of such restricted area that, even if it did extend to the village street, the land which it was proposed to acquire for housing purposes would not be more than 75 yards from the residence? There may occasionally be, throughout the length and breadth of Ireland, one or two places where the house might be within 75 yards of the village street at one particular point, but surely if that is the type of village we are considering, just as acceptable sites could be found elsewhere than on the village street. I thought the whole tendency, when we were trying to plan housing schemes and particularly housing schemes for workers who have large families, generally of young children, was to keep away from the village street and to try to secure sites which could be laid out as residential areas, but with such remoteness—while not being unduly remote—from traffic that children would not be in danger of life and limb. Our whole idea was to try to get them off the main traffic routes. Now we are told that in the generality of cases, houses for workers in the rural areas must necessarily be built along the village street.
Deputy Sweetman, Deputy Harris and other members of the Kildare County Council can point with pride to some of their most recently carried out housing schemes and I do not think that any one of them was along a main road or a village street. They were set back a considerable distance from the road, and not merely have the districts been made safer for children but the general appearance and amenities of the houses have been very greatly improved.
It depends on whether you mean a main street or a side street.
That deals with the question of erecting houses along the village street. I think they are very rare and exceptional cases and surely land is not so scarce in rural Ireland— and it is rural Ireland we are dealing with now—and in areas outside the boundaries of the county boroughs that you could not secure quite suitable sites and afford, by statute, the sort of protection which we are asking the House to extend to the person who owns a house and—let me repeat it— a small plot of land, a garden of two or three acres around it. That is really the principle at stake. If the Minister thinks 75 yards too great, we would be prepared to meet him, if he wishes to reduce it to 50 yards, but, in this instance, there should be some minimum left to the person who owns the residence. The point is that, if the person wants to sell the residence and land, nobody would object, but this is a case of a local authority being empowered to step in and acquire a man's land, despite his reluctance to sell.
Does the Deputy suggest that the Minister never overrules a local authority's desire to acquire land because the lands are too near a residence?
I cannot say what the Minister does now. I am not the Minister.
I can—he does.
Question put and declared lost.
Section 24 agreed to.
SECTION 25.
I move amendment No. 28:—
In sub-section (2), lines 33 and 34, to delete "the publication of advertisements or".
I trust the Minister will see his way to accept this amendment.
I am accepting this amendment. Its acceptance will render necessary the alterations set out in amendments Nos. 28 (a) and 28 (b).
Amendment agreed to.
The following ministerial amendments were agreed to:—
28 (a). In sub-section (2), line 34, to delete "published or" and in lines 36 and 37 to delete "publication or".
28 (b). In sub-section (3), lines 39 and 40, to delete the words "the advertisement is required to be published or" and in lines 41 and 42 delete the words "the publication of other advertisements or".
Section 25, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 26.
I move amendment No. 29:—
Before Section 26 to insert a new section as follows:—
Sub-section (6) of Section 43 of the Act of 1948 is hereby amended by the insertion, after the words "no objection", of the words "other than a withdrawn objection".
Section 42 of the 1948 Act enables the Minister to confirm a compulsory Purchase Order without inquiry, in so far as it relates to land to the acquisition of which no objection was made, or to the acquisition of which an objection was made and subsequently withdrawn. Sub-section (6) of Section 43 deals with the time of coming into operation of such an Order. As it stands, it fixes the time of coming into force of an Order made in cases where there is no objection, but it makes no provision for the case of an Order to which there was an objection which was withdrawn. The purpose of the amendment is to make provision for this latter case.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 26, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 27.
I move amendment No. 30:—
In line 7, before "represents" to insert "after consultation with a qualified quantity surveyor".
It is felt that the only person qualified to assess the cost of building a house is a person with qualifications from the Institute of Chartered Surveyors. It is the feeling of builders and purchasers of houses in general that it is possible that the people sent out to value houses under this legislation will be people without the necessary qualifications to assess properly the cost of a house. Therefore, I recommend this amendment to the Minister.
I am not prepared to accept this amendment because I feel it would be imposing too great a restriction while I am in favour of the principle advocated by the Deputy. The local authorities will have to have the best possible and most competent persons to assess value. Personally, I favour a quantity surveyor but I do not think it would be a wise provision to insert in the Bill. I prefer to allow the local authorities to exercise the necessary discretion to ensure that the persons to be appointed by them as valuers will be fully competent to advise them in regard to the reasonable cost of the houses. The matter is capable of being dealt with administratively. My own policy would be to encourage the procedure suggested by the Deputy but I do not think it would be fair or reasonable to put it in as a section of the Bill.
I agree with the Minister. To my mind it seems to be unduly restrictive. I think the housing architect or the county engineer, who generally looks after housing, is just as competent to assess.
The amendment would be too restrictive.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 31:—
In lines 8 and 9 to delete "of the legal and other expenses" and substitute "of the other costs, fees, expenses and charges".
It was felt that the terms of this section are a bit loose. A great deal of trouble was experienced in the administration of the last Act by the drastic depreciation of valuations. It is felt that under this part of this section the local authorities could extract two separate meanings out of the wording. It is suggested that a house is valued in relation to the cost price but I would suggest to the Minister that it should be made perfectly clear what he means by "cost price". I am quite confident as to the meaning, but I think he should give a certain direction to the local authorities who will be administering this Act. It could mean, first of all, the cost price of the structure. It could mean the cost price of the structure plus water charges, site works and loan charges. It is said here that it would include the cost price, "if any, of the legal and other incidental expenses". I think it would be better if that term were clarified.
This amendment, I understand, is intended to clarify the meaning of the sub-section. I have had the matter examined by the draftsman and am informed that there is no necessity to alter the wording of the sub-section.
Deputy Belton recently drew the attention of the Department's officers to the possibility of ambiguity in relation to the words "and other expenses incidental thereto" (lines 8 and 9). He represented that the words "and other expenses incidental thereto" might be interpreted to relate to the word "legal", whereas they are intended to relate to the "reasonable cost of building" (line 7). The matter was discussed with the Parliamentary Draftsman who is satisfied that no change is necessary. It would not clarify the sub-section. The intention is clearer at the moment. The draftsman says it is all right.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed: "That Section 27 stand part of the Bill."
Mr. Byrne
I want to draw the Minister's attention to what I consider is an injustice to people who make applications for loans under the Small Dwellings Act. Dublin corporation, in some cases, are to blame for some of the injustices that were done to such applicants through the excessive rents they asked for sites. I would ask the Minister if any applications come to him again for sanction for rents for sites, that he would see to it that a £12 10s. rent is not forced from the unfortunate person who is building his house under the Small Dwellings Act. I hold that £7 10s. for a terrace house and £10 for a corner house is a full rent.
How does the Deputy relate that to market value?
Mr. Byrne
I am coming on to that. I asked the Minister a question some time ago as to the difference it would make in market value if a corporation were to charge £7 10s. as against £12 10s., the rent which they charged to about 100 tenants quite recently. The Minister agreed that it would make a difference of £100 on 20 years' purchase. It made a remarkable difference in the advances that had to be made to the unfortunate tenant because the ground rent was taken into consideration in relation to the market value. I maintain that, in the case of houses under the Small Dwellings Act, ground rent should not exceed £10 so far as the municipality is concerned. In some cases they were charged £7 10s. and in others £10, but I was amazed to see a charge of £12 10s. being imposed. To be fair, when I protested—and others of my colleagues protested also—they reverted to the £7 10s. and £10, and I would like to know if there is any possibility of amending or altering the leases of the people who had to pay £12 10s. for their sites to Dublin corporation. I think the Minister should fix ground rent so that the people would get full value.
Rents for corporation sites vary from £8 to £12, according to location, size, etc. There is no question of a fine for these sites and the ground rents are reasonable in comparison with privately owned sites. In connection with a matter under discussion previously about the operation of the loans, I would like to say that I feel that the question of the date of operation of the provisions of this section is, as I said, a matter for the housing authority. There is nothing in the section that would prevent a housing authority from reopening negotiations in respect of loans which have already been granted, but if a new mortgage was involved it would, perhaps, present certain difficulties. They will have to have regard to the circumstances of each case and to the fact that there is need to conserve their resources for future borrowers. I would like to say, however, that where negotiations for a loan are not completed at the date of the passing of the Bill, I would consider it reasonable for a housing authority to consider appeals for revised application in respect of that loan. These are matters that I think have been adverted to.
Mr. Byrne
The people would still have to pay the £12 10s. 0d.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 28.
I move amendment No. 32:—
In line 20, before "to" to insert "or by the builder".
I am accepting this amendment as a reasonable amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 28, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 29.
I move amendment No. 33:—
Before Section 29 to insert a new section as follows:—
A local authority may and, if the Minister so requires shall, establish a Board of Appeal for the purpose of advising such local authority as to the merits, or otherwise, of applications for increases in the market value of houses, as determined in accordance with the provisions of Sections 27 and 28 of this Act, such Board of Appeal to consist of not more than three members who are conversant with the building industry and who are not employees of such local authority.
It was felt that an appeal board would be essential. Under the old Act, local authorities had a right to appoint an appeal board of three. This amendment suggests that an appeal board be created wherever necessary and it is felt that the appeal board should consist of three qualified surveyors.
It seems to me that some step of this kind is essential in present circumstances because there has been very considerable hardship caused in and around the City and County of Dublin by virtue of the level of valuations which has been arrived at by the valuers. I understand that at the moment there is some provision whereby a form of appeal board can operate but when you consider the fact that the existing valuer or valuers compose part of that appeal board it would appear that it is not the most satisfactory kind of board for this purpose. If the Minister could consider in some way or other meeting this amendment it would be a very progressive step. The tendency has been, over the past few years, for valuers to undervalue—to some extent at any rate—houses which are under construction. That had a beneficial effect inasmuch as it has brought down the price of houses but, on the other hand, persons who have been availing of the loans under the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Acts have been suffering by virtue of such undervaluation. Accordingly, I think it would be a good thing if some protective steps were taken, as suggested in this amendment, whereby, when a house is valued at a certain figure by existing valuers, and is deemed by the applicant seeking the loan to be such as not to afford him an opportunity of availing of the loan—as frequently happens —the applicant will have another avenue of appeal.
As mentioned by the mover, there is nothing in law to prevent local authorities at present from setting up these appeal boards. It is considered, however, that it would be unwise to give statutory effect to the constitution of these boards on the grounds that it would lead almost certainly to an inflated number of applications—some reasonable, some unreasonable—for appeal. We are going to have a different type of valuation from what we have had up to now as far as "market value" is concerned. The local authority will be at pains to secure a competent man to give a reasonable estimate of the cost of building. It is within the discretion of a local authority to appoint an appeal board if they feel like doing it. I do not think it would be wise to give statutory effect to the constitution of these boards for the reasons I have stated. If there is machinery of that type statutorily constituted, people will be trying to make use of it unnecessarily. After all, the local authority has discretion in regard to the appointment of such a board. I think the statutory appointment of such a board would defeat its own ends and I am not, therefore, prepared to accept the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 29 put and agreed to.
SECTION 30.
I move amendment No. 34:—
After Section 30 to add a new section as follows:—
The Minister may make regulations for the purposes of the Small Dwellings Acquisition Acts, 1899 to 1950.
Deputy Belton's amendment, which is being accepted in principle, would only enable regulations to be made for Part VII of the Bill. The official amendment will enable regulations to be made dealing with all parts of the Small Dwellings Acquisition Acts.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Amendment No. 35 not moved.
I move amendment No. 36:—
After Section 30 to add a new section as follows:—
To resolve any doubts that may exist it is hereby declared that an advance under the Small Dwellings Acquisition Acts, 1899 to 1948, may be made to joint proprietors or owners and the said Acts shall be interpreted and administered accordingly.
I understand that the Minister is accepting the amendment which is for the purpose of clearing up doubts.
I would ask permission to make a verbal alteration—to change "1948" to "1950".
That is agreed to. It should be "1950".
Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
There are three or four amendments which I accepted with grave misgivings because the ministerial amendments were pretty wide also and the Bill more or less omnibus. Amendment No. 37 is one of them.
I move amendment No. 37 which stands in the name of Deputy Major de Valera:—
After Section 30 to add a new section as follows:—
Where a local authority is entitled to the immediate possession of any house and where any person is in wrongful possession of such house by reason of trepass to or upon the same, the provisions for summary recovery of the possession of a building conferred by sub-section (2) of Section 34 of the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1931, shall apply.
I think the Minister knows what lies behind this amendment. It is for the purpose of trying to cheapen the cost of legal proceedings for the local authority. There have been cases which could not be tried in a certain court, although the actual value of the case should have been there, but had to go, maybe, to a circuit court. The Minister is aware of the purpose behind this amendment and I think he himself would be anxious to avoid costly litigation to the local authority in cases of the kind which the amendment seeks to cover.
The provisions for summary recovery of possession under sub-section (2) of Section 34 of the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1931, enable such proceedings to be taken in the District Court.
The sub-section applies only to proceedings under the Housing of the Working Classes Acts. It does not apply to proceedings under the Small Dwellings Acquisition Acts.
Section 13 of the Labourers (Ireland) Act, 1883, makes the tenant of a labourer's cottage a cottier tenant, subject to a summary form of jurisdiction applicable to cottiers.
It is not clear what the amendment is aimed at. It may be designed to apply summary jurisdiction to cases of recovery of possession under the Small Dwellings Acquisition Acts to which summary procedure does not apply. It is not considered desirable to introduce a summary jurisdiction procedure under the Small Dwellings Acquisition Acts.
The Deputy may, however, have a point about squatters in houses under the Housing of the Working Classes Acts and the Labourers Acts. The present procedure for getting rid of them involves proceedings in the Circuit Court as the matter relates to ejectment on the title. The Courts of Justice Acts, however, reserve jurisdiction in questions of title to the Circuit Court, and it would be undesirable to change this principle in a Housing Bill for a particular type of case.
Therefore, I think we ought to carry on with the law as we have it and I am not inclined to accept the amendment. The matter will be examined, I might say, in consultation with the commission in connection with rent restrictions.
That is satisfactory.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 37 (a):—
After Section 30 to add a new section as follows:—
An Order for the recovery of possession of a dwelling-house or cottage provided by a local authority under the Housing of the Working Classes Acts or the Labourers Acts and of which a local authority is for the time being the landlord shall not be made unless the court considers it reasonable to make the Order.
On the Second Stage of the Bill I gave the Minister an instance with which I was personally concerned on the day on which I spoke. The position is that in the past 30 or 40 years the local authorities have become the biggest landlords in the country — some tens of thousands of houses are owned by local authorities. Under the Acts governing these houses, notice to quit could be issued by the local authorities and proceedings brought in the District Court or in a summary court.
The very fact of the notice to quit being issued meant that the local authority was entitled to obtain a decree for possession and the summary court or the district justice could not inquire into the merits or inquire as to whether or not the local authority had good grounds for bringing proceedings. All the summary court or the district justice could do was simply to give a decree for possession on the grounds that notice to quit had been served by the local authority.
That was not too bad in the old days when the local authority had to make up its mind whether or not it would bring proceedings. In that case, the occupant of the labourer's cottage or the local authority house had protection, because the local councillors would have to meet and pass a resolution to eject the particular individual from his house. If such matter were on the stocks, the person concerned had a right to interview the local councillors, put his case, and the merits of his case were, in fact, argued by the local authority before proceedings were brought.
To that extent he had some protection, but the introduction of the Management Acts introduced a new feature into this legislation. It deprived the individual of whatever protection he had under the local authorities as previously constituted and, under the Management Acts, the power of eviction is given to the county manager or city manager and the local councillors have no say in it. If the county manager or the city manager decides to evict a person on some information that may be given to him privately — and, unfortunately, I have come across instances of that happening — he directs a notice to quit to be served. It is served and the person is brought down to court. He has no defence and the district justice has no option, however grievous a wrong may be done to the individual, but to give a decree for possession.
I have mentioned already a case which came to my knowledge a couple of weeks ago in the City of Dublin where an individual and his son, under 16 years of age, had some difficulty with a caretaker. The caretaker of the flats sent a letter to his superior saying: "Serve a notice to quit on this family." That letter was written on 6th April and on 14th April the notice to quit was served by an official of the corporation, and was alleged to be under the authority of the city manager. That very decent man, who has been living in a corporation house with his family for over 30 years, was brought to court and, on evidence that the notice to quit had been served and possession demanded, the district justice, although he was most sympathetic, had no option but to order an eviction.
No person could stand over that. It has also arisen in many cases through the country in connection with proceedings to dispossess occupants of labourers' cottages from their cottages, and practising solicitors who very often come into court to try to put up some kind of front for the unfortunate person, know they have no case going in. The district justice knows they have no case, but very sympathetic justices will adjourn cases for some period so that some pressure may be brought to bear on the county manager and that the order of eviction may not stand.
This question of the rights to possession of a house is a very important one. Against the landlords who were in this country in other days it was a fight that was carried on for many years, a very bloody fight, but eventually that fight was successful, and the tenants of ordinary houses got protection by Statute. I have felt for a number of years, and I have advocated it, that there should be statutory protection given to the occupants of local authority houses and, if they are to be put out, let them be put out on a case which, to the justice hearing all the facts, is sufficient for him to make the order of ejection.
I have said that the city councils, the county councils and the town councils or town commissioners have no say whatsoever, good, bad or indifferent.
I would not be so sure about that.
Legally, they have no say.
That is another matter.
Certainly they have no say in Dublin so far as the bringing of proceedings against the tenant is concerned. I feel this is an opportunity given to us now of giving a certain measure of protection to tens of thousands of tenants so that they can only be put out of their cottage or their house in which, perhaps, they and members of their family have lived for generations, for reasonable cause, such cause as will commend itself to the district justice who hears the case.
I ask the Minister and the House to accept this amendment. I want to make it perfectly clear to the Minister that when I drafted the amendment I tried to do it in a very simple way by deleting a sub-section out of the Rent Acts, and the Ceann Comhairle told me that it was not in order in that form. It was so important that I was very anxious to get it on the Paper, and I redrafted it in the form in which it now appears, in order. It has nothing to do with the Rent Acts, for which the Minister for Justice is responsible; it has only to do with the Minister for Local Government and with local authorities. It has no object other than that set out in its wording — to give some reasonable protection to the tenant of a local authority house so that he cannot be thrown out at the whim of a county manager or a city manager.
I hope the Minister will not accept this amendment. Deputy Cowan has recited a lot of theory in so far as it concerns city government. He has spoken this evening as one who not only has no knowledge of the practice that operates, but apparently is very far away from it. In this age, he is asking us to approach the State and local authority provision of houses for the working classes in the same manner as were the approaches to the Irish people under the absentee landlords. Deputy Cowan talks about a notice to quit and suggests that any official of the Dublin Corporation, if he dislikes a tenant, can send up a docket to the city manager to put the man out, and the city manager acts on that. I can assure the Minister it is not that easy. A notice to quit is resorted to by officials of the Dublin Corporation — I can speak with knowledge only of the Dublin Corporation — only on what is called "good cause". We have our own legal department, which will consider it. There are two types of case where notice to quit can be brought in, as far as I know — one is arrears of rent and the other is where the individual so misconducts himself and so misbehaves that he becomes a nuisance to his neighbours and some steps have to be taken, but that is under an approach to a district justice. What does Deputy Cowan want to introduce? What does he want to suggest as a power to be given to the ordinary district justice? It is in the amendment —"reasonable". What does he mean by "reasonable?" The district justices are always reasonable. If a person has the misfortune to be in arrears of rent through circumstances which are genuinely sad and hard, the district justice will not give an order for possession if there is a willingness to make an attempt to pay.
He must do it.
I have been to court myself in many of these cases and stays have been granted.
He can be forced.
He could be compelled. He must give the decree.
A question was asked as to how many evictions took place.
That is not the point.
It is the point. In the City of Dublin we are becoming very rapidly a vast landlord. Whoever the representatives of the city will be will have the responsibility, on behalf of the ratepayers and to a certain extent of the taxpayers, of continuing to build houses and set them to the citizens, under the best circumstances they can do it, for the purpose of not putting on the backs of the ratepayers unreasonable rates by maladministration. One of the serious things that could happen is that we could have a "No Rent Campaign". We could have, in any section of the city at any given moment, some gentleman organising that. The State and the local authority have recognised the need for proper housing accommodation for the people and are considering the best way to adopt this differential rent, although it is a very much discussed matter at the moment. For the purpose of immediately reducing rents, where persons suddenly find themselves unable to pay the rents previously agreed on and where all this is taken into account, we could have some active gentleman organising a "No Rent Campaign" in Dublin. You could have the city threatened with complete chaos, if we attempt, in this kind of legislation, to interfere with the ordinary protection of the public and the State in the ordinary course of law as we understand it.
I do not think the Minister would agree that there has been any harsh treatment, generally speaking, in any part of the country by any local authority. I want to say this here in the House — I am saying this as a member of the Dublin Corporation — that if an officer of the corporation, a caretaker in the building of flats, because he did not like the colour of someone's eyes or for some unfair reason, got a notice to quit against a tenant without justification, I feel sure that the Labour organisations to which that official might belong would be very glad to sit on him and punish him very severely.
That is nonsense.
Deputy Cowan says it is nonsense. I have heard a lot of extravagant statements made by Deputy Cowan in connection with city administration under the managerial system.
We are at this amendment now.
This amendment is not necessary, in my opinion. There were 12,000 prosecutions in Dublin in a period of two years by the Dublin Corporation against its tenants, and there were 21 evictions in the whole two years, possibly because these evictions, in certain individual cases, were justified. You are bound to have a black sheep where we have so many thousands of tenants and, when you have this tremendous liability and this risk on the shoulders of the people who are ratepayers, you cannot afford to be giving the impression that you are going to be generally lenient and generally "reasonable".
What does Deputy Cowan mean by "reasonable"? If there is a flaw in the method of procedure against tenants of a local authority, I suggest that that is a matter for the Department of Justice, to bring in legislation under the auspices of the Minister for Justice and to have something done. Those of us who are not legal men are concerned only with the ordinary layman's administration of local affairs, and we cannot be expected to understand all the intricacies of legal documents and legal practice. I am satisfied that the position should be left as it is. There is a sufficient margin of safety for the people and the corporation is not unreasonable in its treatment of its tenants. The proof of that lies in that nobody is afraid to become a corporation tenant. We do not find people afraid of that, as they get decent treatment and if they, in return, give the corporation decent treatment and behaviour, we can continue to build the houses as fast as we can and will not be retarded by any fear that would become inherent in the backs of the minds of the people if such an amendment were to be part of the local authority housing legislation.
What recommends this amendment most to me is that under the present system the district justice is nothing more than a rubber stamp. Provided that the formalities necessary for a valid notice to quit are complied with, the district justice has no discretion whatever and in matters of this kind he is simply a penny-in-the-slot machine. Provided that the formal proofs, as we know them, are in order, the district justice, however sympathetic he may be, has to say to the tenant who is defendant before him that, while he is very sorry, he has no power to refuse the application of the local authority for the order of ejectment.
On what grounds would it be?
No grounds need be given.
That is the law at present.
Does any local authority take proceedings without cause?
That has never occurred.
The local authority in these cases is under no compulsion, as complainant, to give the grounds for an eviction. I am not saying that the grounds are not given or validly submitted in such cases. But the important point is that there is no obligation on the complainant to give any grounds whatever, once he has established his formal proofs.
What proofs?
That the notice to quit was, in fact, served and that it is in proper form.
I would like to see you going before the district justice.
Do not talk nonsense. I will bring you down on Friday and show you hundreds of them.
Order!
The position at present is so incredible that reasonable men just cannot understand that the position is so. Deputy Cowan and I are speaking from practical experience. If any district justice is consulted he will admit that he is nothing more than a penny-in-the-slot machine; once the formal proofs are in order — that is, the notice to quit in valid form and the proof that it has been served on the tenant—there is no obligation on the complainant to give any grounds whatever. Now there have been cases to my knowledge of reasonable applications for an adjournment. There have been cases in which the district justice, if he had a discretion, would exercise it in favour of the tenant sought to be ejected. There have been cases, for instance, where the local authority fails to keep a cottage in a proper state of repair and where the tenant, in desperation, says: "I will not pay the rent until this cottage is put into a proper state of repair and until the local authority fulfils its contractual obligation to me under the agreement." All his pleas with the local authority fail, and he adopts this course.
No rent.
Yes. The local authority then comes along and says: "This tenant is not paying the rent; let him have a notice to quit," and out the tenant goes. He is not permitted to put up the defence in court that the local authority has failed in its contractual obligation to him. The district justice has to say to him: "Under the law as it stands, even if the local authority has failed in its contractual obligation to you, I am afraid I cannot pay any heed to that; you have a contractual obligation to the local authority, and you have to fulfil that; I cannot let one cancel the other out."
Now, I had on to-day's Order Paper a question to the Minister for Local Government about a case in point in County Tipperary where the local authority over a period of one year failed to repair properly the roof of a bedroom occupied by a man suffering from tuberculosis; the roof is leaking. They had some dispute with the contractor. They were offered labour. But this man is left under a leaky roof all the time. If the man refuses to pay his rent the local authority can go to the district justice, who has no discretion and who cannot say whether the local authority is acting reasonably or unreasonably in its attitude, and the district justice will have to give the order for possession. I agree there are times when the district justice can say to the county council solicitor: "I think that this is a case in which justice would be done by adjourning the case for two or three months." As a matter of fact he usually does that in cases where the local authority's reason for the ejectment proceedings is failure to pay rent. But if the solicitor says: "My instructions are to oppose any application for an adjournment or any suggestion of any adjournment," the district justice has to forgo his own desires and the application of the defendant for the grant of an adjournment. For the sake of common-sense, this amendment ought to be accepted.
And have one form of law for the private landlord and another for local authorities.
I think the strongest argument in favour of the amendment is the astonishment of my non-legal friends on the other side——
At fiction.
——when they are told by both Deputy Cowan and myself what the state of the law is at the present time.
May I ask a question? Why do these legal gentlemen suggest that in changing the law in the way they have advocated, the rapacious landlord should be left alone and only the local authority must comply?
The rapacious landlord is controlled by the Rent Acts.
Not in the notice to quit.
Oh, yes.
Not on a notice to quit.
Order!
I do not understand the point of the Deputy's question.
Has the district justice the same limited powers that the Deputy has suggested in a properly executed notice to quit by a private landlord?
He has not.
Only local authorities.
Only local authorities — they are specifically excluded from the Rent Acts.
By whom?
By legislation.
By the Rent Restriction Act of 1946.
By the Minister for Justice.
Yes.
That is where you should get your amendment then.
No. The Act specifically says it does not apply to local authorities' housing, and you have this extraordinary state of the law which Deputy Cowan wants changed.
I am not opposed to any reasonable protections against eviction, but I certainly do object to anyone suggesting that local authorities or managers have behaved in anything like the way it has been suggested they have behaved. I have been a member of a local body over a period of 30 years and I cannot recall a single instance of any harsh eviction except for forcible possession. There have been a few for non-payment of rent and my experience is not that the district justice did not refuse the conviction; they have done it. But where the local authority refused to carry out their duties, they have refused it.
Then they were acting contrary to the law.
It does not matter. The district justices are not fools any more than anybody else. In fact they have been sympathetic to the tenants. I do not mind about precautions being taken, but I do not think it is right to suggest that the local authorities or the managers have been in any way harsh on the tenants of labourers' cottages. They have not. The records will prove the contrary. I have seen cases recently where there was even forcible possession taken by tenants and the district justices adjourned the cases. They did not refuse the application, but they adjourned the case. The sympathy has always been, to my knowledge, in favour of the tenants.
I want to say that, notwithstanding the assurance given by Deputy Cowan that this amendment does not infringe in any shape or form on the Rent Restrictions Acts, I am of opinion that it is an astute approach to the rent restrictions code and does offer a protection that should be intended only for that code. I believe that, in dealing with local authority housing, there ought to be a different approach altogether. These tenants are not rack-rented tenants. They are subsidised tenants. Exceptional cases may occur. I think the case referred to by Deputy Cowan was an exceptional case of hardship. It is certainly not the rule with local authorities to deal in a harsh manner with their tenants. Many of the members of this House are members of local authorities, and I think all of them will agree that, generally speaking, local authorities are not inclined to be over-drastic in the use of their powers in regard to tenants or to evict them. The case that Deputy Cowan quoted was a hardship case. It was not by any means a typical case. There were some extraordinary circumstances in connection with it. I may tell the Deputy that I had the matter inquired into and that the eviction is not going to take place. It is a kind of thing that ought not to have happened. Some aggravating circumstances led up to the action that was taken.
I believe that local authorities would be restricted by the Deputy's amendment. They have certain functions to carry out, and have certain building programmes to get through. There is a question of transferring people into reserved houses. They have to get that done in a specific period. In my opinion, this is a matter that would arise more properly in connection with the Rent Restrictions Commission. I can tell the Deputy that I am having a representative who will attend before that commission. He can have the question raised there, and perhaps get some adjustment of it. The amendment, however, could not be accepted at this time.
On a point of order. I think it transpired, when Deputy Timoney was speaking, that, in fact, there is a section in the Mortgage Rent Restrictions Act which exempts local authorities from the provisions which would apply to ordinary private property owners.
As a matter of fact, I did not fully appreciate the full significance of the amendment. I think it is 90 per cent. with an amendment that was ruled out earlier.
No.
The Deputy may go ahead. I am not ruling him out.
Here is where the mistake was made. There is a rent restrictions code which clearly means what it says, that it is a code which prevents an unlawful increase of rent. Now, into that code, somebody imported sections dealing with evictions which have nothing to do with rent restrictions. They also imported a little section which said that "the Rent Acts will not apply to local authorities."
On a point of order. I submit that the Deputy is not entitled, on a proposal for legislation which is properly before the House, to discuss the provisions in an entirely different and separate code.
I understood that the Deputy was making an open remark about it. The point of order is well founded. The Deputy will get on to the section.
The Minister has dealt with it on this basis, that this is, to a large extent, a matter for the Rent Restrictions Act. What I am showing is that these Acts have nothing, properly, to do with these things, although somebody, at some time, imported into them a few sections which should not have gone in.
If they are in the Act they have to do with it.
This section deals simply with the question of eviction from corporation houses and has nothing to do with the Rent Acts, with the rents the tenants are paying, lawful rent or anything else. Clearly, Deputy Briscoe, when he started to reply to me, set out by assuming a knowledge that he certainly had not got.
Again, on a point of order, which I am putting on this basis. According to Deputy Cowan's own statement, it would not be possible to give effect to his amendment, if it were adopted by the House, without amending the Mortgage Rent Restrictions Acts. I am putting it to the Chair that the amendment is out of order and that we should not be wasting further time on it.
Amendment of the Rent Act is not necessary.
The Deputy informed the House that there are, in the Mortgage Rent Restrictions Acts, provisions which permit local authorities to issue notice to quit, and that these must be given summary effect by the court.
That is completely wrong.
If so, the Deputy misled me.
I was saying, in regard to Deputy Briscoe, when Deputy MacEntee tried to throw me off the trail, that he started and said to Deputy Timoney, when he was speaking: "Why did I introduce this amendment and not deal with the rapacious private landlord?" Now, the rapacious private landlord cannot put out a tenant unless he brings him to court and proves to the court that he ought to be put out. That is the law at the moment — that he has to prove to the court that he must be put out. Now, what we are trying to do is to give to the tenants of local authority houses — I am glad that Deputy Lynch is arriving now — the protection in regard to ejectment that an individual has who is the tenant of a rapacious, or otherwise, private landlord.
You are putting the corporation and the rapacious landlord on the same level.
Not at all.
That is what you say, that you want the same protection. You are trying to mend your hand.
No. I fully appreciate the point of view which Deputy O'Rourke has expressed. He agrees that it is right there should be protection, but in his experience he has never seen this Act improperly used against tenants. I accept that in regard to quite a number of counties, but unfortunately, we run up against cases where, in the City of Dublin alone, there are on a Friday morning probably 150 cases for ejectment on notice to quit. Now, most of these are in regard to the non-payment of rent. What really happens is that the district justice makes a decree. The man concerned goes and sees the housing committee. He pays the arrears of rent and the cost of the proceedings, and the ejectment does not take place. In actual fact, anything from 100 to 300 cases, of orders made to evict, take place every Friday in the City of Dublin. That will come as a great surprise to Deputy O'Rourke. A solicitor may go down and say to the district justice: "I object to this man being put out and I want to have the local authority give reasons." The representative of the local authority will say: "Sir, we are not bound to give any reasons, and we do not give any reason." I am only saying what happens that from 150 to 300 cases are dealt with in a forenoon.
Now what happens? We will say that Deputy Briscoe is the tenant of a corporation house, and that he owes three weeks' rent. The whole procedure that takes place in the District Court is this, and I want Deputies to appreciate it: Robert Briscoe's name is called out and an official gets up and says: "10/6/50. 18/6/50." Another person says: "17/6. 52/6," and the justice says: "Decree." That is the whole hearing of the case.
What fee do you get out of it?
As a matter of fact I would say to Deputy McGrath that no solicitor would take a fee for representing a corporation tenant because if he did it would be robbery, knowing that he could put up no defence for him. The particulars that are given are: the date of the notice to quit, the date of the demand for possession, the weekly rent payable, the arrears of rent due, and the date of eviction.
The Deputy has told us that already.
What I want the House to realise is that whether a person is a private tenant or the tenant of a corporation house, there are certain things on which the court will always find it reasonable to eject him. For instance, if he does not pay the rent, that is a reasonable case for ejectment in the case of any tenant, corporation or otherwise. If he is a nuisance and that is established by evidence——
He might be a reasonable nuisance.
If he is a nuisance, that has to be established by evidence in the case of a private tenant. In the case of corporation tenancy that does not have to be done. It might happen, as in the case I have mentioned already, that the caretaker asks the corporation to issue the notice to quit. He asked that on the 6th April and the notice to quit was issued on the 14th.
And no cause given?
No cause. I ask the Minister not to push off this amendment on the basis that it is a matter for the Rent Acts because it is not a matter for the Rent Acts. If it were a matter for the Rent Acts we would have to give the corporation tenants authority to come in and ask the court to have the rent fixed, and I do not think anybody will support that contention.
They would be fixed upwards perhaps.
I am not defending that. It is not a question of absentee landlords. It is a question of a new landlord that deals with tens of thousands of houses. I would have much preferred when I introduced this amendment that it would have gained a certain amount of support. I certainly am disappointed when I look back on the fights that were made for the protection of tenants to find Deputy Briscoe getting up in this House and leading the attack against something that is necessary to give protection to the tenants of local authority houses in Dublin and elsewhere.
Do not try to get away with that rubbish.
I have already told the Deputy that he should not interrupt.
Is it in order for the Deputy to try to misrepresent the motives that prompted Deputies to oppose this amendment? The Deputy may be a member of the Dublin Corporation some day and he will have to face his responsibilities.
I have attributed no motives to anybody.
Indeed you have.
I have already told the Deputy that he will have to cease interrupting. He does not seem to understand that.
I do not want to go into the matter at any greater length. I have put forward this case and I have advocated it for many years. I was delighted to get an opportunity on this Bill to put down this amendment and I still ask the Minister to accept it. It does not interfere with the rents. If there was a question, as Deputy Briscoe suggested, of somebody starting a no-rent campaign, they can all be put out. There is no protection in this for non-payment of rent, but at least there is this protection: that whenever a tenant is brought to court, the local authority should give some reason to the justice for requiring the eviction of that tenant. I want to assure Deputy O'Rourke and the Minister that every district justice in the country supports this amendment of the law, which would enable him to use his discretion in appropriate cases to see that a person is not evicted except on grounds and for reasons that to the district justice seem to be reasonable.
Is it Deputy Cowan's experience that there have been cases of people evicted for flimsy or no reasons?
I could give half-a-dozen reasons right off the reel to the Deputy.
Of cases?
Of cases.
That is an extraordinary statement of Deputy Cowan, and I must say that I am very sceptical as to the six cases he could bring forward in which decrees were granted. So far as I am aware, in the last two years there have been only 21 cases in the City of Dublin of tenants who have been evicted.
I have not spoken about two years.
Deputy Cowan must cease interrupting.
I do not know how many corporation tenants there are. I think there must be about 30,000. Of these 30,000 tenants, many of whom I am afraid are in arrear with their rents judging by the evidence which has transpired, some of whom may be disorderly and an intolerable nuisance to their neighbours, there were only 21 evicted. So far as the Deputy adduced evidence, he referred to only one case. What I am really concerned with is the true motive behind this amendment. I think it was revealed to the House, perhaps unwittingly, by the Deputy in introducing the amendment. He said that notwithstanding the fact that there is a saver for the rights of local authorities under the Rent Restrictions Act, in regard to recovery of their premises, solicitors sometimes go into court on behalf of people for whom they can do nothing and make a sort of show before the district justice and their clients in order to justify the fees which they subsequently collect.
On a point of order, I strongly resent——
That is not a point of order.
On a point of order, Deputy MacEntee has made a reflection on a profession of which I have the honour to be a member.
That is not a point of order.
I suggest that it is not in order to do that.
If it were disorderly to say hard words of any profession I am afraid that there would be a lot of Deputies expelled.
Deputy O'Higgins would be the first.
I heard no names mentioned.
I heard quite a few hard words about architects, engineers and quantity surveyors during prolonged debates in this House, and I did not see Deputy O'Higgins rise to protect them. I am not suggesting that Deputy O'Higgins would be guilty of the sort of conduct that Deputy Cowan alleges some members of his profession would be guilty of.
On a point of order. I said exactly the opposite.
That is not a point of order. The Deputy cannot rise without the permission of the Deputy in possession. A point of order is something the Chair can and should settle — I have not heard one for about a week.
I am not suggesting by any means that all the members or even a significant minority of the members of the legal profession, are tarred with the brush Deputy Cowan suggests some of them daub themselves with. I am not suggesting that they are tarred with Deputy Cowan's brush.
This is a dirty insinuation—tar insinuation.
I do not know what the dirty insinuation is to which Deputy Cowan refers. Deputies in this House who heard Deputy Cowan propose his amendment heard him say that some members of his profession — I am not saying the generality of them or a significant number: I do not know whether there are or not; he is the person who could disclose that to the House — who were stopped from making any plea by this method went into court on behalf of the unfortunate people who were retaining them——
Without fee.
The Deputy did not say that.
What has that to do with the merits of this amendment?
Except this: While I do know that many members of the legal profession do work for private individuals for which they receive no remuneration, purely out of humane considerations——
I would like this amendment to be taken seriously.
I do know that if this amendment were to be accepted by the House there would be a fruitful source of profitable litigation thrown open to the legal profession. We have been hearing a lot about the position of the unfortunate tenant under this tyrannical and rapacious landlord, the Dublin Corporation, but if this amendment were to be accepted by the House, there is not a single case in which the Dublin Corporation, or any other local authority, applied for an order for possession that a lawyer could not come into court and make representations there on behalf of his client and, presumably, charge a fee.
When a certain amendment was before the House — which the Minister refused to accept — which tried to give some protection to the man who has a house and garden and is going to be affected, we were told that we should trust the local authority. Then why should we not trust them now? It was Deputy Cowan who told the House when amendment No. 27 was before us——
Amendment No. 27 was an hour before the House and cannot be resumed.
I want to repeat the argument used then in order to induce the House to reject this amendment. The argument was: "Trust the local authorities; they will do justice." There is not any case in which the local authorities have not done justice, have not, in fact, been merciful far beyond the bounds of what is justice, to people who are subsidising these houses and not occupying them. There is no justification whatsoever for the proposal the Deputy has put before the House.
Is amendment No. 37a pressed?
Yes.
Amendment put and declared negatived.
FIRST SCHEDULE.
Mr. O'Sullivan
I move amendment No. 38:—
At the reference to the Small Dwellings Acquisition Act, 1899, to insert "Section 15" in the third column below the reference to sub-section (4) of Section 9.
This amendment if adopted would have the effect of speeding up applications under the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Acts. I believe that it would reduce the cost and it certainly would include a section of the community already precluded from the provisions of the Act.
I understand that the amendment is being agreed to. It might shorten the discussion.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 39 not moved.
I move amendment No. 40:—
At the reference to the Housing and Labourers Act, 1937, to insert "paragraph (c) of Section 4" in the third column above the reference to sub-section (3) of Section 5 and "The date of the passing of this Act" in the fourth column.
Amendment No. 40 and amendment No. 44 are necessary consequential amendments following the insertion of Section 12 of the Bill which deals generally with the question of the observance of conditions as to rates of wages and conditions of employment on all housing contracts. The provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 45 of the Housing (Amendment) Act, 1948, and paragraph (c) of Section 4 of the Housing and Labourers Act, 1937, are superseded by Section 12 of the Bill.
Amendment put and agreed to.
I move amendment No. 41:—
Before the reference to the Housing (Amendment) Act, 1948, to insert the following:—
|
“No. 2 of 1946. |
The Housing (Amendment) Act, 1946,. |
Sub-section (8) of section 3. |
The date of the passing of this Act.” |
Sub-section (2) of Section 27 of the Housing (Amendment) Act, 1948, imposes a limit of £345,000 as the aggregate amount of grants in respect of houses provided for occupation by persons of a particular class. The limitation on aggregate of grants, generally, imposed by Section 26 of the 1948 Act has been removed by the repeal of Section 26 as provided for in the schedule. The proposed repeal of sub-section (2) of Section 27 of the 1948 Act is a necessary and consequential further amendment. The suggested repeal of sub-section (8) of Section 3 of the Housing (Amendment) Act, 1946, which imposes a limitation of £100,000 on aggregate amount of grants to be paid in respect of extra rooms for persons suffering from tuberculosis is likewise necessary.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 42 not moved.
Amendment No. 43:—
At the reference to the Housing (Amendment) Act, 1948, immediately above the reference to Section 30, to insert "sub-section (2) of Section 27" in the third column, and "The date of the passing of this Act" in the fourth column —
in the name of the Minister for Local Government put and agreed to.
Amendment No. 44:—
At the reference to the Housing (Amendment) Act, 1948, immediately below the reference to Section 39, to insert "sub-section (1) of Section 45" in the third column and "The date of the passing of this Act" in the fourth column —
in the name of the Minister for Local Government put and agreed to.
First Schedule, as amended, put and agreed to.
SECOND SCHEDULE.
Question proposed: "That the Second Schedule be the Second Schedule to the Bill."
On the Second Schedule, I want to ask the Minister one question. There is, of course, provision in the Second Schedule by virtue of which there are different scales of grants where sewerage and piped water supplies are available. It is not possible to put down an amendment to the Schedule because it would mean an increase in the charge, but I want to make a suggestion to the Minister that he should make some provision by virtue of which if a person building a house installs the appropriate sanitary appliances for water and sewerage, and then perhaps some six to 12 months afterwards when the local authority puts in the appropriate mains, connects with those mains, the difference between the smaller grant and the larger grant can be paid. There are at the present time in County Kildare many people building houses who are not able to connect with water or sewerage because the water and sewerage schemes are only at the moment being put in by the local authority. The houses will be completed and the grants will be paid by the Department before the sewerage and water schemes are ready for connection. We understand that in these cases the people concerned will only qualify for the type of grant specified in the Second Schedule to this Bill and in the Second Schedule to the Act of 1948. I suggest to the Minister that he should try to ensure, where a person is building a house and puts in sanitary services in contemplation of what the local authority are going to do to make main supplies available, that when these main supplies are ultimately connected the difference between the two grants will be paid.
I can assure the Deputy that, in practice, where the water and sewerage scheme is eventually completed, it is possible to give the final instalment of the grant when the tenant makes the connection.
Notwithstanding that the initial authorisation may only apply to the limited grant?
Yes.
With regard to reconstruction grants, I know of a case where an applicant applied and there was a grant paid years ago. Then he applied again for a reconstruction grant. At first it was sanctioned and then it was refused. I wonder will he be eligible for a grant now. The job was done this year.
There can be a renewal of the application for a reconstruction grant.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments.
Question:—"That the Bill, as amended, be received for final consideration"— put and agreed to.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."
Mr. Brady
I wonder would I be in order in raising a question which I should have raised on Section 16 but I was called out of the House?
The Deputy can ask a question.
Mr. Brady
It is with reference to the compulsory acquisition of land. Power is given to acquire land for building, but there is one point which affects some building schemes and that is where the land is surrounded by other land and the difficulty is to get an entrance into the building scheme. The suggestion is that that should be extended to the road in order to make an entrance into the land for the purpose of building houses.
That point has been inquired into and all the relevant and necessary powers for the acquisition of land for building and access thereto are in the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.