This section defines "derelict site", and so forth. Is this an appropriate occasion for the Minister to give a short outline as to what the owner of a derelict site can do who wants to put the site in order and who does not want to delegate that duty to the local authority or does not want the local authority compulsorily to acquire it?
Committee on Finance. - Derelict Sites Bill, 1960—Committee and Final Stages.
Question proposed: "That Section 1 stand part of the Bill."
That does not seem to arise.
It must arise somewhere. This Bill deals with derelict sites. I will put it in order for you, Sir. Section 1 defines "derelict site". That gives rise to a situation which may result in the local authority acquiring the site or entering upon the site to carry out works. I envisage the circumstances of a citizen who does not want his site acquired, who does not want to allow a situation to mature which would authorise the local authority to enter upon his site to carry out works, who wants to carry out the works himself. Can the Minister tell us what assistance he is prepared to give to a person who wants to avoid the consequences of Section 1 of this Bill?
Section 3 would be more appropriate.
I should have thought Section 2.
I am talking of derelict sites. If the Minister says that he would prefer to discuss it on Section 2, that is all right.
I will discuss it now or on Section 2. If the Chair says that Section 2 is more appropriate, we can leave it until we come to Section 2.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 2.
Question proposed: "That Section 2 stand part of the Bill."
Perhaps the Minister will deal with the point now?
In answer to the Deputy, as to the help available to the private owner who wishes to clear up a derelict site and who does not want to have the local authority operating in a particular way, there will be grants available to the extent of 50 per cent. of the estimated cost of putting a site into acceptable condition, subject to a maximum grant of £100 and also subject to the condition that no grant is payable if the total estimated cost of the work is under £30; in other words, up to £100 grant, subject to the 50 per cent. condition and no grant, if the estimated cost of the work is under £30.
I am not quite clear. The Minister says "up to £100". Does that mean that if a person has to spend £200 on clearing his site, he can get £100?
Yes.
The maximum grant is £100?
That is right.
Even if it costs £300 or £250, £100 is the most he can get?
It would still be £100.
And if it is £180 for clearing the site, he is entitled to a grant of £90?
Yes, £90.
Will the Minister say if that applies to persons outside an urban area?
Yes — everywhere and anywhere.
I am not very happy about one point that arises in this connection. The House is quite clear that sites upon which there are old, dilapidated, ruined buildings are to be cleared and that that clearance will mean that the site will no longer be a derelict site. I can visualise the situation in which an owner has a site on which there are no buildings. The definition in line 26 is land "on which either there are no buildings..." The owner has some plans to deal with the site, to build there. As I understand the situation, if there are no buildings on that site and unless he builds and completes his building within one month, under subsection (1) of Section 2, he loses the site for building purposes.
That does not seem to me to be at all what was intended. It seems to me that there is some confusion, either in my mind or in the drafting, and I am quite prepared to admit that it could be in one or the other. It does seem to me that if a person has a site on which there are no buildings at the passing of this Act — and I think I am right in saying to the Minister that whatever is defined in this Bill is operative as at the passing of the Act— which is the subject of unpleasant trespass, which brings clause 2 of paragraph (a) of Section 1 into operation, that there is debris thereon or insanitary material, then that is automatically a derelict site. The owner has a genuine intention of which he can satisfy the local authority beyond question of erecting substantial buildings on it, but is perhaps waiting to get possession of an adjoining site so that the whole can be developed in the interests of good estate management, as the phrase goes in the Rent Restrictions Act and in the Landlord and Tenant Act, as one entity.
It seems to me that under the provisions of subsection (1) unless he completes his building within a month he has lost the site completely. I assume I am right in saying to the Minister that nobody ever intended that. What I think should be the position is that if there is a site of that sort which is going to be utilised for development and which, because of the manner of the drafting in connection with the phrase "derelict site" comes within the purview, then there should be something in Section 2 to provide that the rights of that person would be protected by, if you like, fencing off the site pending development. I would think that the joint operation of the two sections needs considerable clarification.
I think the Deputy is under a misapprehension in this regard when he thinks of such circumstances arising and suggests that the force of subsection (1) of Section 2 indicates that whatever remedial operations were required would have to be carried out, even if it came to building on the site, within a month. The effect of subsection (1) of Section 2 is that notice may be given to the owner of the site that the local authority would wish him to do something with the site and requesting from him an offer as to what he is prepared voluntarily to do with the assistance of the grants I have already mentioned here to-day. The notice inviting the owner to make this offer gives him not less than one month in which to make the offer as to what he intends to do.
Having received that offer the local authority may then consider whether the offer meets their requirements to abate the nuisance or to remedy whatever may be the cause of the dereliction of the site. If satisfied, they will then expect him, in accordance with his offer and possibly in accordance with further negotiation and stipulation by the local authority, to carry out the remedial works or whatever substantial works he may have proposed to carry out. However, there is no question that he will be required within a month to build houses on the site or any such thing. That is not the effect of the provision, as the Deputy fears.
Is the Minister satisfied that the phrase "within such period" is solely restricted to the offer and not to work?
Yes, quite satisfied.
I am not so happy but that is the Minister's responsibility. Deputies cannot be expected to be experts on every form of drafting but, if I were drafting that provision, I would have drafted it differently. It is the Minister's drafting and, if it is wrong, on the Minister's head be it.
I hope the Deputy is wrong in this case. I am quite satisfied and I cannot see the reason for the fears expressed by the Deputy in this respect.
Time will tell.
Quite.
Assuming the Minister's interpretation is correct, I am still worried about another point. If an owner makes an offer and the local authority decide they will not accept that offer, there is no specific right in the Bill of appeal against the local authority's refusal to accept the offer. The intention is, and I think the interpretation will be, that if the local authority do not accept the offer, then they move to Section 3 where there is an appeal against them. That might create disadvantage. When an owner makes an offer he has to wait, ad infinitum, without decision by the local authority as to whether they will accept the offer or not.
As far as I can follow the method, the only way he will know what the position is in regard to the offer is that the local authority will accept the offer or produce something under Section 3. I do not think it is fair that an owner should be left up in the air like that. Just as there is an obligation on the owner to make the offer within a period of a month, there should also be an obligation on the local authority within a similar time to say, one way or the other, whether they will accept the offer or adopt the procedure visualised in Section 3.
Again I do not know whether the point I wish to make is appropriate on this section. Has the Minister considered whether he should make this a function of the council or the county manager? The reason I raise this point is that there is no provision here which says that this function is the function of the members or of an official, in this case, the county manager. I would urge the Minister to consider seriously the addition of a section which would deem this function to be a function of the local authority.
As I said on the Second Reading, it may be that the manager will consult the local authority in relation to the deeming of a site to be derelict. We ought to face up to the question of local administration generally. We are getting into a pretty difficult position to this extent: we elect, say, on a corporation, 12, 15 or 24 members as the case may be. If it is to be a managerial function the manager decides that a site is derelict and that it should be repaired or demolished. I do not mean any disrespect to any particular manager but some of these managers come from other counties. They have not the same knowledge of local conditions, or the same interest in many cases, as the elected members, although I do not say they have a deliberate disinterest.
The Minister will probably tell me that before a manager declares a site derelict he will consult with his engineer, with this or that technician or with this or that professional man. I say that is not enough. He should consult with the local members of the council, those born and reared in the town and who have the feeling of the town. This obtains not alone in respect of derelict sites but in respect of many other matters in the Department of Local Government and in the Department of Health. Therefore, I urge the Minister, in respect of this piece of legislation, to make the function a reserved function to the council.
We often talk about the character of villages, towns and cities and of the general character of the countryside. There may be an occasion when a manager would deem a certain area to be derelict but which the local people would not want to see demolished. Under this measure, the manager has a right to say that the place should be demolished or should be put into a fit condition or should be changed to some degree.
It seems that we are getting away from the idea of local government. The stress is not on "local" any more. Without disrespect to any county or city manager, they have not and could not have the same interest in the areas for which they are responsible as the locally-elected members. In respect, therefore, of this piece of legislation and having regard to the power given to county and city managers, I urge the Minister to consider the insertion of a section making this a reserved function to the council members. Failing that, he should tell us he will advise the county and city managers that they should consult the local people before taking any serious step in respect of derelict sites. If he does that, I shall be reassured that the manager will not kick over the traces, so to speak, and that if a site is to be deemed derelict he will consult with the council. That being so, I do not think anybody can kick up a great fuss.
I want the Minister to clarify part of the section. Am I to understand that, where there are buildings which it is desirable to move, the local authority must, in the first instance, decide whether these buildings must go. When I asked the Minister about this earlier, I gathered the impression that either in this Bill or in some previous enactment a person carrying out the demolition of unsightly buildings in rural areas, in which I am interested, can apply for a grant and get it to cover the cost. Is that so?
The matter of grants is not contained in the Bill. They are merely an incentive towards achieving the end for which the Bill is designed but they are not part of the Bill. They could stand, if there were no new Bill at all.
In relation to a grant, as apart from the Bill, who decides whether the site is derelict?
The Minister — but the procedure would be that the owner would apply on a specified form and it would go through to the local authority. May I deal with the other point raised by the Deputy? The owner makes the application and it goes to the local authority. If the proposals contained in that application for a grant for the removal or improvement of a derelict site are accepted by the local authority, they will forward the application to the Department of Local Government. If the local authority rejects the application, the instructions in the outline of the grant scheme state: "If the local authority reject an application, they will state their reasons or suggest amendments of the proposals which would make them acceptable." That direction in the outline of the grant scheme brings under notice the weakness in the instructions or in the outline scheme. The relevant instruction is as follows: "If the proposals are acceptable"— that is, proposals in an application made on the prescribed form and submitted to the local authority for resubmission to the Department.
For a grant? Not under Section 2?
Not under Section 2. If the proposals are acceptable to the local authority, they will forward the application to the Department of Local Government and inform the applicant. If the local authority reject the application, they will state their reasons or suggest amendments of the proposals which would make them acceptable. There is, I think, a weakness there which has been shown up by what Deputy Sweetman has already raised, in that it does not state that in the case of rejection of the application by the local authority, they will state their reasons to the Minister. In other words, it is desirable that they would still send forward the application with the reasons for their rejection. It is intended that the Minister would be the deciding factor about the grants. We shall have to amend that section.
That particular paragraph, rather than the section.
Yes. The answer to Deputy Blowick is that the proposal is made on a specified form as outlined in the scheme rather than in the Bill. The Bill does not govern this scheme of grants. They more or less go together. The grants are to encourage the owners towards whom the Bill is directed to clear derelict sites but the scheme is not necessarily part of the Bill at all.
The Minister has not dealt with my point under Section 2.
I rose in answer to Deputy Blowick and was led into that reply to part of what Deputy Sweetman has raised. I have not dealt with the other matter at all. Possibly Deputy Blowick is not finished?
The Minister says there is a scheme of grants for the clearing of derelict sites. When the person makes application does the local authority decide whether or not it qualifies for a grant?
No. They are not the final deciders. They will send on the application with their comment — that is now the intention — as to whether or not they recommend the giving of a grant. They will indicate in respect of the works proposed to be done whether or not they are rejecting the proposals. While it is not quite as clear as we now feel it should be, we will take steps to ensure that, whether they propose to accept or reject an application, it will be sent to the Department with their comments.
Very good.
Now would the Minister deal with Section 2?
Getting back to Section 2, the point raised by the Deputy is that if an owner makes an offer, and I think when talking about an offer in this case he would have to make that offer subsequent to the request for such an offer by the local authority——
I think an offer under Section 2 can only be subsequent.
Very good. That being so, and being an unlikely happening, first of all we will realise that the local authorities felt that the site in question was a derelict site. Because of that belief, they ask the owner to make an offer as to what he is prepared to do to relieve or improve the appearance of the site. The Deputy's point is if the owner in answer to that request makes an offer whch is not acceptable to the local authorities or which they just do not accept——
They just do not answer. Local authorities are just like the Department of Local Government in that respect.
We shall let that pass.
The Minister is showing quite a remarkable degree of patience.
It is the early hour and the display of patience we have already observed this morning.
It shows what good example can do.
Assuming that what the Deputy suggests happens, and I think in the circumstances we should not take it that it is generally likely to happen——
Well, shall we put it that it could happen?
Very well. Supposing it does happen, what is the Deputy's point then? We must then leave Section 2 and revert to the application by the owner for a grant under the grants scheme, proposing in that application what he wishes or proposes to do. I take it that it would be likely in all cases to be similar to what he had already offered to the council but the council did not do anything about it. If they do not move, then undoubtedly he would have to apply in the ordinary way under the grants scheme, and, as a private individual or owner, submit his application to the local authorities. That application would be dealt with as I outlined in paragraph 9 of the Derelict Sites Grant Scheme. They would then submit that application to the Department, amend it, accept it, or recommend it for rejection. In any event, that would come to the Department and to the Minister who would then decide to allocate or not allocate a grant. Possibly he might even suggest that some amendment to the proposals might be necessary in order that a grant should be payable. By and large, that would be the answer so far as the operations of Section 2 of the Bill are concerned.
My difficulty is a more genuine difficulty than the Minister seems to visualise. I know places in County Kildare where there are — I will not say how many — some derelict sites and the local authority in relation to those sites have not made up their mind what they want to do about them, because they would be radically affected by the ultimate plans for the trunk road in that area. I can quite easily visualise in those circumstances the local authority, even a good one like the Kildare County Council, just parking it until such time as they came to a decision on the trunk road. That seems rather unfair, that a person is held in suspense——
Who owns the sites? Are they private sites under private ownership?
Yes. They are private sites. There is some doubt as to whether the trunk road is going to go north or south of the area. If it goes north, these sites will be available for building development; if it goes south they will not because the road will go through them. It seems to me to be unfair that the owner of those sites could be put in the position in which either he has got to go to the expense of incurring pretty substantial architect's or engineer's fees to see about development, until the county council have made up their minds about the road, or that he may be in danger of losing the site entirely under this Bill.
What I am worried about is that the situation may arise where an owner who could be served with a request under Section 2 would reply: "I propose to develop this land as a building site, if and when town planning permission is available for me. But I know the council cannot give me town planning permission until they have decided which way the by-pass road is going to go". That seems to me to create a situation in which the man is left like Mohammed's coffin. There should be an obligation on the council to come to finality. We all know once you get into the realm of town planning — I understand a new Bill in that regard is to come before the House next session — that local authorities, the Department of Local Government and whatever Minister for Local Government may be there at the time, may find the matter so involved that the easiest way out and sometimes, in fact, the only way out, is to do nothing.
I can visualise the case which the Deputy has in mind. Undoubtedly it does seem to present somewhat insuperable difficulties, but assuming that this is a site which, if cleared, could be used for rebuilding or for a building scheme, the first thing that that owner obviously must do in his own interests is to apply for this much-maligned town planning permission.
Supposing it is in an area where the Town Planning Act has not been adopted?
It is not for me to say, but there is quite an easy way out there. Assuming that it is in an area where it does operate and he applies for that permission, the council can either object or give permission. They may not just sit there and do nothing about it. Having given their decision, and we will take it because of their doubts it is an adverse decision, the owner then has the right of appeal within 30 days of getting this notice of refusal, the right of appeal to the Minister. In this case, apparently, it is a question of road construction that is at issue. In such case I do not think the difficulty is at all as insuperable as might be envisaged because the question of the road rests between the Department and the local authority concerned. That being so, and an appeal pending with the Department of Local Government, it follows that with their being pushed to give a decision on that appeal, they have at their disposal the necessary co-operation from the local authority. They can come down to the particular point and decide whether the road is going north or south and then, all other things being satisfactory, they can give a decision on the appeal, in so far as the building is concerned.
While I can see the weight of the hypothetical case, although it may appear very real, I do not think that the difficulty is as insuperable as would seem at first glance. I am not afraid—and I say this although I may be faced with the actual case — that it is one on which we could not reach a satisfactory conclusion without unduly long delay.
In special circumstances, the fear the Deputy has is that as a result of the operations of this Bill, and because of the line of the road, the owner of a piece of perhaps valuable land may become dispossessed. In those circumstances, and considering the Act, the grant scheme and the line of the road, plus the actual appeal under the town planning regulations, all of which are under the control of the same Department and the same Minister, I think the Deputy can take it quite definitely that this set of circumstances would not be allowed by one Minister to force a situation where an individual owner would become a substantial loser as a result of the various difficulties and the various processes that would have to be carried on under the various Acts. The one and the same Minister, in such a set of circumstances governed by different Acts, would not allow the owner to be deprived of what could be valuable land.
I would not be worried about what the Minister is saying except for the definition of derelict sites which says: "any land on which either there are no buildings," and so forth. That seems to mean that if you have a piece of virgin land on which somebody dumps a lorry load of refuse, then it is derelict.
Of course, if the owner undumps the lorry load of refuse, it would become other than a derelict site.
If, immediately after the dumping, the local authority started the operation of Section 2, the whole thing is in a chain. If there were a provision in the section about a specified period of time, my worry would disappear.
That is assuming the local authority acted with enormous speed which, I may say, we hope they will do in cases involving roads.
Or if they wanted to get a site very badly for some reason.
Even if they start the operation of the section very speedily, where does it ultimately get them— right through the question of coming to the Department on the proposition to acquire, the owner of the land having failed to take remedial measures such as removing what had originally caused the objection. Naturally, if the site were worth anything to the owner, it would be more than the cost of removing the load of refuse. Finally, the matter would have to come on appeal to the Minister.
Under subsection (2) of Section 8?
Under subsection (4) of Section 8 which deals with objections to compulsory acquisition. Deputy Corish raised the question of these derelict sites procedures and the giving of operational powers to county managers under this Bill. They objected very strenuously to that and said that these powers should be part of the reserved functions of the elected representatives. In his enthusiasm, Deputy Corish seems to forget that we are dealing here with derelict sites acquisition in the last analysis and that a site which is allowed to reach the stage, through the non-cooperation and non-action of the owner must be taken to be a site on which the owner does not put much value.
That being so—and whether it is so or not — by and large, we are dealing with derelict sites, which, in the great majority of cases, would be land that would not be of any great value ultimately. On the other hand, the powers vested in the managers for the acquisition of land for many other purposes under various other Acts deal with land that might be of very great value. Yet these powers have been vested in the managers for very many years and there have been no great complaints of any grave abuses being brought to the notice of the Department. County managers over the years have had the power to acquire land for housing, roads and for health and other local authority needs. These, presumably, are likely to be much more valuable sites than will be dealt with under the Derelict Sites Bill when it becomes law. Despite that, there has been no public clamour in this House or elsewhere that there were abuses of these powers which the managers have had for so long.
Now we have the suggestion that in dealing with derelict sites, the powers in respect of the acquisition of such pieces of land in specified circumstances should not be given to the county managers, but should be given, as a reserved function, to the elected representatives. Frankly, I cannot reconcile the two situations. While the over-all powers for the acquisition of land for various other purposes are still willingly left with the county managers, I certainly can see no reason whatsoever why the power to acquire, in the last analysis — and it will be the last analysis — should be objected to as being an extraordinary power to confer.
Subsection (4) of Section 2 states that the local authority may require the owner to carry out appropriate works on the land at his expense or to acquire the land, but subsection (1) refers to land on which there are no buildings. What appropriate work could the owner carry out on an open site on which there are no buildings as provided for under subsection (1)? Yet on failure to carry out such works, the local authority could acquire the site. Assuming there is a site upon which there are no buildings and the local authority require the owner to carry out appropriate works, what are the "appropriate" works?
Is the Deputy talking about the specified notice in line 50 of Section 3.
No, I am talking about subsection (4) of Section 2, lines 32 and 33.
Subsection (4) of Section 2 is related to Section 3. The "appropriate works" will be the works as requisitioned in the notice of requisition which, under Section 3, would have been served on the owner of the derelict site.
What are they?
They would be different in every case.
Could the Minister give me an example?
I am afraid I could not.
I have already given one — the removal of rubbish.
The whole purpose of the Bill comes under that. When the Deputy asks what are they, in every case where the Act would apply, the grant would apply; the requisition made on the owner in the case of the works that might be requisitioned to be done by the local authority, would have to specify what they were requiring him to do. The requirements would be to abate the nuisance of his site, to remove a dangerous wall on a site, to remove dumped rubbish from a site and so on.
These are obvious requirements but the definition of derelict sites says "any land on which there are no buildings." Let us take a flat site upon which there are no buildings, rubbish or anything.
It is not a derelict site.
It is.
Is it not the position that on a site with no buildings there may be one motor car, three broken buckets, one pig's head, two bed springs and a broken mattress? It is open, to the local authority to say that they require that these shall be removed or buried, otherwise the site must be regarded as derelict and they will enter upon it and bury these things or acquire the site for administration by the local authority. It is then open to the individual to clean off the mess and bury or remove it. It then ceases to be a derelict site.
That does not cover my point.
Those are the appropriate works.
I am going on the definition of "derelict site" which deals with land on which there are no buildings.
And paragraph 2.
Paragraph 2 says:
Which is likely to become injurious to health or to the amenities of the neighbourhood by reason of its objectionable or neglected condition or by reason of the deposit or collection thereon of debris, rubbish or insanitary material.
It has to be the second paragraph.
The land is qualified. It means land but it is qualified underneath.
So that land which is free of buildings or a nuisance is not a derelict site?
Absolutely correct.
I want to put the Minister a question. I am not at all sure that the Minister ought not to consider at some stage, after consultation with his colleague, the Minister for Agriculture, the question of a derelict Site which is infested with noxious weeds.
Hear, hear.
I find myself in this dilemma. One of the greatest offenders are local authorities.
Not as great as C.I.E.
When I was Minister for Agriculture one of my difficulties was, when a local authority developed a site, that they sometimes left a quarter of an acre or a couple of roods which were a derelict site and became a nest of buachalláns which proceeded to infest the whole surrounding neighbourhood. I prosecuted one or two local authorities under the Noxious Weeds Acts. I remember on one occasion stopping at a Garda barracks and asking the Guards to prosecute the county manager in persona. Where a piece of ground, having no buildings and, indeed, no rubbish on it, is suffered to become a bed of noxious weeds and no effective measures are taken to correct that situation, it is very difficult to have anything done if the owner is absent abroad in England or America. It may be very hard to establish that there is anybody who is a tenant of the site. In fact, very often there is not a tenant of the site.
In these circumstances, I think it would be worth considering whether, in consultation with the Minister for Agriculture, such a site might not be declared to be a derelict site and the local authorities have the power to go in and cut the weeds. The procedure available to the Minister for Agriculture to prosecute is usually sufficient, where the ownership occupancy of the land is clear or certain but if the land is in the hands of an absent owner or if the ownership is doubtful, damage is done by allowing the weeds to continue there. I would suggest to the Minister that he might consult the Minister for Agriculture adding that modification to the second paragraph of the definition of a derelict site "which is likely to become injurious to health or to the amenities of the neighbourhood by reason of its objectionable or neglected condition or by reason of the deposit or collection thereon of debris, rubbish or insanitary material." Possibly the words "neglected condition" might cover the matter I have in mind but it is something which I think the Minister might bear in mind and consult the Minister for Agriculture in regard to it.
I think the point raised by the Leader of the Opposition is one of the most pressing and general problems in certain townland areas. A small portion of the site may be left there as a kind of open space. It is under the authority of nobody. It may be left there in anticipation of the widening of a certain road junction ultimately. It may be left there because the owner cannot fit in a house and keep in line with the east-west and the north-south existing building lines. It is, therefore, left there. That is private property. The other, as Deputy Dillon indicated, is more or less public property because the site has been taken over by the Council and built on. Certain portions are left as open spaces. Afterwards, they become infested with weeds of every kind. People begin to dump refuse on them, and then the rats come. Nobody seems to have any authority to do anything about them. The Minister should include these places specifically so that it will be somebody's function to rid the community of such nuisance.
Could the River Liffey be considered a derelict site? When the tide is out, it is full of rubbish. Go down to Capel Street Bridge and there is a whiff from which you will get away as quickly as you can. Could the City Manager compel the Dublin Port and Docks Board to clean the river, or, if they refused, to have it done at their expense? If the canals, which are being closed, become full of rubbish and weeds, will they be considered derelict sites? Will the City Manager have the same powers with regard to them?
I should like to refer to Deputy Corish's remarks that local councils should have reserved powers. I do not agree with that because local representatives are subject to all sorts of influences and half the time never get any work done. Local councillors should have only advisory powers. We see what happens in the appointment of rate collectors — there is nothing but wangling. The manager, who has the responsibility, should be allowed to deal with these matters. However, in all cases, he should consult the members of the local authority. He should not be too high-handed because there may be cases of persons who are financially unable to do anything about a derelict site. While I recognise the importance of getting the work done, there should be some check provided in the form of consultation between the manager and the local representatives before any severe action is taken.
Reference was made to places where there are no buildings. Am I to take it that where buildings are occupied, you can have all the functions you like?
The Leader of the Opposition told us that a gap remained in this legislation. He referred to the case where the owner of a site is either unknown or cannot be got at— the case in which the site is not derelict within the definition of the Act, but yet is infested with weeds. He suggested that we should get agreement with the Minister for Agriculture to enable local authorities to acquire such sites. The loudest objection to the Bill on Second Stage was that lands infested with weeds could be acquired because of that reason alone. There was a real furore and it was said that was going beyond the bounds of reasonableness.
I admit a very genuine case can be made in many instances. There can be many objectionable sites about which no one is doing anything. But I do not think we could introduce a section into the Bill that would be acceptable to the Leader of the Opposition and would not give rise to the danger that such wider application could be badly abused. I am afraid we could not meet that case without realising the fears expressed on the Second Stage. I cannot say what we can do, but I shall go so far as to say that we are conscious of the fact that local authorities have a responsibility to clean up their own property. We have, in fact, specifically referred to that in the circular concerning derelict sites which went out on 7th of this month.
I shall read for the House the relevant lines:
I am to add that the Minister looks to local authorities to give a lead to the public in the matter of maintaining property in good condition. The clearance of existing derelict sites will have but limited effect if other property is permitted to become unsightly because of fly-posting or lack of painting and cleaning.
That shows that we recognise that it is not always the private property owner who is the greatest offender. But, besides private property owners and local authorities, there are other agencies, not private, who have not given a very good example. We are looking to local authorities who may have lagged in the past to give good example and to make a real effort in the future really to clean up their property. We also expect that all other public bodies, agencies and property owners, no matter who they are, will do likewise.
In regard to Deputy Sherwin's remark about occupied houses, I have already made it quite clear that occupied houses are not intended to come within the jurisdiction of this Bill. Occupied houses are dealt with under the Housing Acts, not under the derelict sites legislation, and will continue to be dealt with in that way. So far as the canals are concerned, I understand that C.I.E., although they may have ceased to operate them as waterways, are statutorily compelled to maintain them in a reasonable state. In other words, if they became obnoxious, they will come within the terms of the obligations C.I.E. have undertaken. However, should C.I.E. not live up to these obligations and should the canals become obnoxious and a danger to the community, this legislation would apply to them as it applies to other property throughout the country.
Would it apply to the Liffey?
As the Deputy said, it is one question when the tide is in but quite another when the tide is out.
It would depend on what time the notice was served.
The question is: when would the notice he operable?
You could get a camera and provide prima facie evidence.
I know it is possible that the Deputy's ingenuity could get around that. Should it ever happen that the Liffey or any other waterway became injurious to the health and amenities of the community, it could be dealt with under this legislation. There is no question about that.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 3.
Question proposed: "That Section 3 stand part of the Bill".
Is there no power under Section 3 for an owner to go to the court?
No.
I am informed by a Deputy that I mentioned that there was wangling going on in the case of ratepayers. I meant rate collectors.
I do not think anyone would wangle to become a ratepayer.
There is a significant difference.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 4 and 5 agreed to.
SECTION 6.
Question proposed: "That Section 6 stand part of the Bill".
What is the point of this section? Surely the power is already in other sections?
Not for acquisition. I may say that it is exactly similar to Section 20 of the 1940 Act.
Section 3 is purely power compulsorily to do the work and Section 6 is power compulsorily to acquire.
That is right.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 7 and 8 agreed to.
SECTION 9.
Question proposed: "That Section 9 stand part of the Bill."
In subsection (3) of Section 9, the vesting order is, in fact, an order divesting the owner of his property and vesting it in the local authority. In paragraph 8 of subsection (3), it should be stated that the order should be served by registered post. It is a most important document and the Minister knows that people sometimes do not pay very much attention to a notice sent by ordinary post. If a person gets a notice by registered post, it is a matter of very considerable importance. I think that the notice under this section should be registered.
Could I refer the Deputy to (c) of subsection (1) of Section 18?
That does not override subsection (3) of Section 9. It says there where there is a notice to be given, it can be given in this way. Section 4 is intended to cover the case where notice is to be given and there is no specified method mentioned in the section as to how it is to be given. Where it says in the particular section that the document is to be given in a particular way, that overrides the general provisions in Section 18.
Possibly I have taken the Deputy up wrongly but it seems that we are both wrong. It states in Section 9, subsection (3) (a) that the notice is to be posted on or near the lands of each owner. That means posted on or near the lands.
I beg your pardon.
We have had a lot of bother for nothing.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 10.
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 8, line 11, after "of the" to insert "purchase annuity, payment in lieu of rent or."
This amendment is a drafting amendment but it has been suggested to us by the Land Commission, who pointed out that only the words "annual sum" appear in line 11, Section 10, subsection (2). To cover the payments in question, the words "purchase annuity, payment in lieu of rent" which appear in lines 4 and 5 should be included. The Land Commission have pointed out that these words have a particular meaning in the Land Purchase Acts. It is their belief that the words "annual sum" are not in themselves sufficient to cover the expression as given in lines 4 and 5 and it is for that reason that we want to put in the additional words here. We are led to believe that they have a very special meaning in the Land Purchase Acts.
I agree with the Minister.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 8, line 14, to substitute "had" for "has".
This is purely a drafting amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That Section 10, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
The whole purpose of this section is to provide local authorities with a way of dealing with titled derelict sites where they do not know who the owner is. Unless there was some way of having a vesting order of this sort, they would find it very difficult to cope with the situation. There is a more or less similar power in one of the Housing Acts — I do not know which one it is — under which the acquisition price being fixed can be lodged in court, if title is not made. The title passes by means of a vesting declaration. The Minister has adopted a different procedure here to deal with the same point, the point being in either case that the title of the reputed owner of the site, be it housing or derelict, is not satisfactory.
The method is adopted, therefore, of the local authority making a vesting order in one case, lodging the compensation in court in a housing case, but in a derelict sites case, adopting the different procedure envisaged by Sections 10 and 11. I should like the Minister to explain to the House why it is that he did not adopt the procedure already there for him and, shall I say, hammered out over the years in relation to the Housing Act.
One of the immediate answers in that case — whether or not it would be regarded as a very satisfactory one — is that it is generally similar to Section 6 of the Act of 1940. In other words, it is the procedure which was in existence in the 1940 Derelict Sites Act and no good reason was seen as to why it should not be continued in this Bill rather than change the procedure.
Has the Minister any idea why it was adopted in 1940? Neither he nor I was in this place at that time.
That is quite true.
There must have been some reason for dropping the other system.
As the Deputy himself mentioned, one particular reason is that there may be no owner.
That could happen in a housing site also. I think I know the reason. I was trying to get it out of the Minister.
I think the Deputy will agree that it is not so likely to happen in the case of a housing site as in the case of derelict sites.
I think the reason was to deprive solicitors of their costs.
We would never dream of doing that in 1960, if it had not been done in 1940.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 11 to 18, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 19.
Question proposed: "That Section 19 stand part of the Bill."
How soon does the Minister hope to be able to make the regulations under Section 19?
I would say, in about a fortnight.
Would the Minister arrange to send me a copy of them when they are made in case I miss them during the Recess?
Certainly.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 20 to 24, inclusive, agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments.
Agreed to take remaining Stages today.
Bill received for final consideration.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass".
On the Fifth Stage, I want to direct the attention of the Minister to the fact that we have the gravest reservations in regard to the contents of Sections 5 and 8 where the appeal against certain decisions, either under Section 3 of the Bill or decisions in relation to the compulsory acquisition of derelict sites under Section 8, allow of no appeal to the courts.
It is extremely difficult for us in Dáil Éireann to bear in mind, as we should bear in mind, the impact of our legislation on individual citizens. The Minister was born and reared in the country, so he ought to understand this problem more fully than those who are not familiar with rural conditions would be expected to do. Questions of property in land in rural Ireland give rise to atavistic feelings. A person living in the city may attach considerable importance to the ownership of property but he does it more from a businesslike point of view and measures his loss by compulsory acquisition by the financial obligations which he believes that procedure involves.
A wholly different pattern of conduct obtains in rural Ireland. It is still true in rural Ireland that you can start a family feud that will carry on for generations from the trespass of a hen and that is largely because people have a deep sentimental affection, quite apart from economic considerations, for land they conceive to be their own.
In these circumstances, if a local authority is dealing with an elderly or a cantankerous person and they finally reach an impasse on the question of whether a site is derelict or not, if the person is an ardent supporter of the Fianna Fáil Party and we happen to be in office, far from bringing any consolation to his mind, his sense of grievance is deeply exaggerated if he brings his appeal against the decision of a local authority to acquire his site to a Fine Gael Minister for Local Government and the local authority is upheld by a political Minister, even though it is manifest to everybody that the Minister is acting in a perfectly detached and objective way. If the individual has the right to go to the court, however, in more than 80 per cent. of the cases, if he goes to a reliable solicitor, explains his case and instructs the solicitor to appeal to the court, the solicitor will be able to dissuade him and point out that on the merits he has not a leg to stand on, that if he goes to court, he will be turned down because the local authority is acting reasonably and he is acting unreasonably.
In the remaining 20 per cent. of the cases where the owner is of so cantankerous a disposition that he will not be advised even by his own solicitor, if he goes to court and gets a hearing and makes his case and the judge decides that the local authority is acting reasonably and that the site is truly derelict or that the circumstances justify compulsory acquisition of the site, it may leave a sense of indignation but the deep sense of bitter grievance that might be there rarely, if ever, survives following on a judicial decision.
I do most strongly urge upon the Minister that to leave it in the last analysis to the political head of a Department of State to determine whether a person's property should be compulsorily acquired is a thoroughly bad arrangement, not only on the practical, pragmatic grounds which I now outline to the House but on the broader general principle that the courts in our system of government are there to be interposed between the humblest and most insignificant citizen of the State and the full power and majesty of the Executive of the Government.
The court is the one arena where the humblest citizen can go in person, if he is not able to employ a solicitor or counsel, and place his affairs in its hands, knowing that under our Constitution the court is not only entitled but bound to treat the State and the individual on a basis of absolute equality. I am not suggesting to the House that simple people, down the country, work all that out in their own minds, but it is part of their life that they do feel that access to the court gives them effective protection against any ulterior influence that may be operated.
You will hear some people say— irresponsible people in my judgment —that the court is fixed, and so forth. Ninety-nine point nine per cent. of the people do not believe that; they believe that if they have access to the court they will get justice and that there is no power in the State capable of operating against our Judiciary. It is not peculiar to this country and I do not think we ought to delude ourselves that it is peculiar to our country — it is pretty general throughout the world —that the political head of the Department cannot be as objective in matters of this kind as it would appear to reasonable men he ought to be.
Where the question of compulsory acquisition of a person's land is involved, I put it strongly to the House that no matter who is in office— whether I, the Taoiseach or Deputy Corish is in office — no one of us, because we elect to engage in the public life of this country should be constituted by Act of this Parliament to be the court of appeal to which an aggrieved citizen has his only recourse. There ought to be set above us a higher authority, to wit, the Judiciary, who, if we, acting as the Executive of the people, as political heads of Government, challenge a citizen's fundamental right, will protect that right and compel us to justify under the terms of the legislation in this House what we propose to do, with the guarantee that if the humblest citizen of the State can demonstrate that we are acting capriciously or arbitrarily the court will be in a position to say: "The statute does not authorise you to do that and the Order you have made, in so far as it fails to conform to the statute under which you sought to act, is null and void."
I press this matter in regard to this Bill on its merits, but I press it also for an additional reason, that the temptation on all of us to secure expedition in the despatch of public business operates as a powerful drag on every executive to by-pass the courts. I agree, and I sympathise with people who are trying to get work done, that if they allow everybody access to the courts it is liable to beget a flood of obstructive and delaying litigation which makes the achievement of the ultimate objective far more difficult. On balance, however, I urge most strenuously that we should not concede in any legislation this principle that the citizen shall not have access to the courts. If we once do it in regard to derelict sites or in regard to any other matter we open a floodgate which the natural inclination of any Executive will press further and further open.
I do not think it is a satisfactory business, even in respect of the Town Planning Acts, that the ultimate authority is the political head of the Department. Amending legislation is urgently necessary in regard to town planning and we can discuss that whole problem when the revised legislation comes before us. The point I am trying to make is that in respect of legislation in relation to the Bill we are now considering, particularly where the acquisition of land is involved, people ought to have a right to go to the court.
Under Section 5 the appeal is in respect of the definition of a derelict site and the power of the local authority to require certain works to be carried out. If we wanted to be on absolutely firm ground it would be better to allow appeal to the courts in respect of the definition of a derelict site. The world changes and one has to change with it.
I would concede some ground in respect of Section 3, if I could establish an inflexible principle that where acquisition of land is involved the appeal would be to the courts. I would prefer that both in respect of Section 3 and Section 8 there should be an appeal to the courts but, whatever the ultimate decision is in respect of Section 3, I most strenuously urge on the Minister on behalf of our Party that in respect of Section 8, the courts should be restored and an appeal lie to them by anybody on whom the section operates.
I was surprised that on the Fifth Stage the Leader of the Opposition was allowed to go into the detailed principles of appeals by aggrieved parties generally, without specific reference to the Bill before the House. The contention of Deputy Dillon was that it is the fundamental right of our humblest citizen, if he feels aggrieved, to have redress and appeal to the Courts of Justice in this country. The Minister must bear in mind the suggestion that 20 per cent. of our citizens, if they are aggrieved, cannot be persuaded but that if they are not members of the Party of the political head of the Department to which the appeal would be made they would not get justice. That is the contention of the Minister. Deputy Dillon's suggestion is that the appeal would be to the court — to the district court.
To the circuit court. The district court does not deal with questions of title.
The suggestion by some of Deputy Dillon's colleagues and other members of this House in this debate was that there should be appeal to the district court. The Deputy has in mind the circuit court. Deputy Dillon's contention is that the political head of a Department should not have the power of deciding such issues. He went on a very broad principle. Surely Deputy Dillon recalls that when he was Minister for Agriculture he dealt with specific appeals which arose from certain regulations made by his Department? He dealt with them and adjudicated on them.
Such as?
I cannot cite them offhand. The Deputy will agree that as Minister for Agriculture there were certain powers vested in him some of which were the adjudication of appeals by aggrieved parties from regulations made by him as Minister for Agriculture?
Not at all.
I will give the Deputy full details on another occasion. In this instance, bearing still in mind Deputy Dillon's contention that the most humble of our citizens should have the right of recourse to the courts, I would point out that if the most humble of our citizens had recourse to the courts it could cost him a lot of money to engage solicitors and counsel to represent him. What we are talking about in the main in this instance is hardly worth a hat of craps.
"A hat of craps"?
That is an expression we use in the south to indicate that the value of what we are talking about is very limited. Surely the Deputy will agree from his experience as a former Minister of State that when a Minister is adjudicating on appeals — town planning appeals or appeals in relation to property, and so on — although he is the final arbiter, in the main he takes the considered advice of his officials? If an inspector from his Department is sent down the country to examine an appeal about a certain site and comes back and reports that these are the facts, in the main the Minister agrees.
The operative words are "in the main."
Deputy Dillon admitted that, in 99.9 cases out of 100, people will accept a decision of the courts but that only about 80 per cent. of the people might accept, without feeling a certain suspicion, the decision of the political head of a Department.
That is not what I said.
There is one point that Deputy Dillon missed in this specific instance before the House. The person who has the site is given ample time under the Bill to rectify the position and to turn the derelict site into a proper site. In other words, notice has to be served on him under the section. If the local authority allege that I have a derelict site, they have to take certain steps. One is to serve notice on me and to give me an opportunity to abate the alleged nuisance. If I accept that and abate the alleged nuisance, if I remove the pig's head, the two broken car springs and the burst mattress cited by Deputy Dillon, then the site ceases to be a derelict site. In other words, if I remedy the alleged nuisance, if I remove the cause or the alleged cause which in the opinion of the local authority is injurious to public health, then the site automatically ceases to be a derelict site.
If I am an owner of a derelict site it is in my own hands, without any appeal to the court, to abate that nuisance. Then I am under no compliment to anyone, either to the Minister or to the political head of the Department in question. Deputy Dillon is most solicitous now for the rights of our most humble citizen to appeal to the courts should he feel aggrieved. Not so many years ago the famous or infamous Greyhound Industry Bill was debated here for many long months. The present Tánaiste, Deputy MacEntee, and myself took a prominent part in that debate. For some peculiar reason, Deputy Major de Valera appeared on that Bill on one memorable occasion——
——not omitting Deputy Briscoe. The net result was that an ex-Fianna Fáil Teachta Dála got a good job. Is that not right? It shows you the strange consequences of your intervention.
Was it not a good appointment?
He is a decent kind of a chap but he is the last man in Ireland I would have made Chairman of the Greyhound Racing Board.
All this is extraneous matter.
No. It was very relevant to your operations.
I might say that the Chairman of Bord na gCon is doing a very good job.
What about the auditor?
At that time we appealed to the Minister for Agriculture to allow an aggrieved party——
Was the auditor of Bord na gCon not a Fianna Fáil Teachta Dála? You did a great job. Two Fianna Fáil Teachtaí Dála got jobs out of that operation.
At that time we pointed out that a party should have a right of appeal to the courts. For instance, a party might be warned off the tracks and might want to appeal. Deputy Dillon would not budge an inch. Now he takes up the time of the House by appealing to the Minister to respect the rights of the humblest of our citizens.
Those two humble citizens got good jobs on the Greyhound Racing Board.
Your nominee was disappointed. You had selected a man.
I had not a nominee. Whom would I appoint?
Mr. M.P. Murphy rose.
I stood up to speak before Deputy Murphy rose but due to the extraneous matters being discussed across the floor of the House, I could not get a hearing. Only afterwards and subsequent to that the Deputy wanted to rise.
My remarks on this measure will be brief. First of all, the power of the local authority is vested in the county manager and it is a peculiarity of our legislation that little or no confidence seems to be reposed in our elected representatives. This Bill is in keeping with the attitude which seems to be firmly held by members of the Government. We have Deputy O'Malley and Deputy Dillon mentioning the rights of people to go to the courts if they feel aggrieved. I propose to deal with that a little later on. In such a matter as this, my main objection is that this should not be a managerial function and that the functions of this measure should be vested in the local representatives, because I believe that with their local knowledge of sites which may come within the scope of this measure, they would be much more capable of adjudicating on these matters rather than the county manager who has to be guided by reports of subordinate officers.
It is indeed very surprising that the present Minister for Local Government lost confidence in the elected representatives of local authorities when he framed this measure and excluded them from any functions whatever attaching to it. It is all very fine for Deputy Dillon or Deputy O'Malley to speak about the rights of aggrieved parties to avail of the courts to rectify any grievance they may have. Every one of us knows the cost of court proceedings and that they are exorbitant. It is impossible for the average citizen who resorts to court proceedings, regarding derelict sites or any matter, to ascertain what the eventual cost will be. We know that lawyers are very costly people to consult and it is beyond the reach of many of our ordinary citizens to have anything to do with them. I do not see that it is much of a safeguard for the owners of derelict sites to tell them that if they feel aggrieved by the decision of the county manager they can go to the courts. These people may have a right to go to the courts but the cost of the proceedings will preclude them from doing that. The better way of dealing with the matter would have been for the Minister in the first instance to give the local representatives the right to adjudicate on these matters and the question of going to the courts for aggrieved parties would not then arise.
The two relevant points raised were by Deputy Dillon and Deputy Murphy. To Deputy Dillon I would say, as I said on this question when it was raised on the Second Stage, that what is now proposed in regard to appealing to the Minister is not inconsistent with other land acquisition procedure where valuable property is in question. In the main only property of a relatively small value, by virtue of its having being allowed to become derelict, will, in fact, come to be dealt with by acquisition. Acquisition is not the intention of the Bill at all; it is only an end product when everything else has failed. Only when efforts to get a voluntary offer or effort from the owner have failed, and when he has failed to obey a requisition as to what he should do to retain the property himself, will the Government avail of acquisition. In that event the owner will have had every opportunity to retain his property, and we would have given him a grant to help him put it into a proper state of repair. Then it must be obvious that the only remaining case for acquisition would be a site that is worthless. Yet we speak of the Minister holding the appellate functions in matters such as this and we are even told that the circuit court should be invoked.
As Deputy Murphy said, and as other Deputies said on the Second Stage, access to the courts is undoubtedly open to all and every citizen but at what price? But leaving that aside, the fact is that we deal with these and similar matters, under this similar procedure of appeal to the Minister, on far more important and far more valuable property than would ever be envisaged as falling under the terms of this Bill. In fact, we have even a better example. We have the example where appeal to the circuit court and to the Minister is optional to the aggrieved parties.
That is all right.
But the fact is where they have the option the appeal through the court is rare and in the main appeals are made to the Minister and are being made to the Minister. Only in property that is really valuable——
That is all right, as long as he has the alternative.
Under compulsory purchase orders objections to acquisition are made to the Minister and not to the court and if there is access to the courts it is purely on a matter of non-compliance with the Act, really a point of law.
Surely there is an appeal to the courts in certain circumstances under a compulsory purchase order?
Only on a point of law and non-compliance with the Act.
If it is alleged that the local authority is acting outside the ambit of the Act there is an appeal to the court?
Yes, that is non-compliance with the Act.
That is all that I am asking.
Where such an option has been available in the past and up to the present, the number of appeals to the court rather than to the Minister have been the rarest of the rare.
That is grand.
It merely indicates that something for which the Deputy has made a very strong case is not really a thing that has had any real appeal to the persons concerned even in important matters and in cases.
I say that it is only as an end product of the Bill that acquisition will arise. It can arise only after the owner, with the encouragement of grants of up to £100 or half the cost, has failed to do anything to put the site into proper or acceptable condition, where he has refused to take an offer from the local authority which would give him a year to bring the site into condition.
Having failed to do anything, on a requisition to do specified works, it is only then the question of compulsory acquisition of the site by the council will arise. Having had all those various facilities and offers made available to him, the site must be less than useless—it must be really a liability—if he is to allow the last procedure under this Bill to be operated against him.
It is on the question of appeal against these acquisitions that the Minister will have the say and if such a situation is to arise, 99 times out of 100, the site must be worthless in order that the appeal should be allowed to arise. This right of appeal, which is available under other legislation dealing with more valuable sites, is surely a suitable safeguard despite the fact that no matter which Minister is in power, his appointment is a political one. Our whole system here is a political Party system.
If that is so, we must grow up and realise that when Ministers are placed in the position of dealing with appeals on matters affecting the rights of the individual as against the claims of the local authority, I do not think there is anybody in the House who, finding himself in those circumstances, would not be on the side of the individual as against the body corporate.
In all cases, I can only say that anybody in public life, anybody in this House, reaching a Ministerial position and having to deal with appeals of that sort would be immediately sympathetic with the individual as against the public body. That is my feeling and, as I have already said, I cannot see the merit at all in Deputy Dillon's argument in the light of this operation and the manner in which the operation of the acquisition of derelict sites and subsequent appeals will arise.
In so far as Deputy M.P. Murphy is concerned, he seems to assume or presume that I have lost all confidence in the local bodies—the elected representatives—because I do not in this Bill give to the elected representatives the powers in relation to acquisition rather than to the county managers. That matter was discussed on the Second Stage, and from both sides of the House, when this suggestion was made, came condemnation of the idea as not being a good one and possibly an unworkable idea. It was thought that the idea might even be open to certain abuses which members from both sides outlined. That, however, is not my argument.
My argument as to why the county managers should have these powers is again that they have and have had powers over the past number of years under various other Acts. These powers have given them the right of acquisition of much more valuable sites than will be concerned under the operation of this Bill. County managers have had them since the beginning of the county managerial system 20 years ago. They have applied these powers in cases of acquisition of land for housing, for roads, for the health necessities of local communities and in most cases the sites were much more valuable than those contemplated for acquisition under this Bill. Not only have the managers exercised these powers in thousands of cases involving valuable properties, but in all those years there has not been any clamour here or publicly outside for an over-all change. Neither have there been instances of county managers abusing those powers and acting in a manner contrary to the spirit of the Acts which conferred the powers.
If there has been any such public clamour I am not aware of it. Not being aware of it, I must assume it has not arisen in those cases in which valuable sites were concerned. When we come down to acquisition, which will be the end product only of this Bill, why should the county managers also not have the powers? Why pick out one swallow and make a summer out of it, as Deputy M.P. Murphy is trying to do here? If and when a time arrives when it is believed the county managers should not have the power to operate these functions, the proper approach would be not to isolate the Derelict Sites Act but to take all the Acts which have given these powers to county managers together and decide to take all the powers under all the Acts away from county managers. That is the consistent approach, but Deputy M.P. Murphy is not being consistent.
Question put and agreed to.