Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 10 Jun 1964

Vol. 210 No. 7

Local Government (Sanitary Services) Bill, 1964—Second Stage.

Minister for Local Government (Mr. Blaney)

I move that the Bill be now read a Second Time.

The Bill has three objects. It proposes to give local authorities all the necessary powers for safeguarding life from the dangers of places such as water-filled quarries; secondly, it proposes a new and more effective procedure for dealing with dangerous buildings; and thirdly, it contains a general power to local authorities to enter into agreements with the Electricity Supply Board to abstract water from reservoirs provided by the Board.

Water-filled, unprotected quarries have been the occasion of frequent drowning tragedies, usually involving children. Sanitary authorities already have power to protect the public from dangers presented by open quarries which adjoin streets or public footpaths. They may require the owners to protect or enclose them or may, in default, carry out the works and recover the expenses from the owner. Local authorities, however, have no power to interfere in the case of quarries and other hazards not directly accessible from public roads but which are nevertheless dangerous to children and others who may gain access to them through private property. Section 2 of the Bill proposes to remedy this defect. This section, which refers to dangerous places wherever situated, will empower a sanitary authority to carry out whatever works are necessary to make such a dangerous place safe or at the request of an owner carry out such works and obtain a contribution from the owner towards the cost. Alternatively, where the owner carries out the work the sanitary authority may contribute towards the cost.

I have already authorised local authorities to take immediate action in regard to dangerous quarries in their areas in anticipation of this legislation. A circular letter was issued to all sanitary authorities last January, recommending that they should take immediate protective action in relation to quarries which are known to be dangerous; and that the owner's prior consent should be obtained on the understanding that the cost of protective works would be met in full from public funds. It was also indicated that State grants would be available to local authorities towards the cost of approved works up to a maximum of 50 per cent of the approved cost.

Dublin County Council took immediate action, in accordance with the circular letter, in relation to a number of water-filled quarries in the county, but the council encountered difficulties where the owners of some quarries would not permit entry on the premises unless the council undertook that the land would not subsequently be acquired by them. This the council were reluctant to do, as the filling-in works in question would be very costly, for instance in one case the proposed works would cost over £26,000. Section 2 will enable the council to enter on these lands and carry out the necessary protective works.

Sanitary authorities may undertake heavy expenditure as in the case I have just mentioned, in carrying out works under section 2. The land when reclaimed by draining and filling may be very suitable for development by the local authority for housing, recreational or other purposes. There is some doubt as to whether a sanitary authority's existing power to acquire land would apply in all such cases. The provisions of section 6 give a clear authority for acquisition.

Sections 7 to 15 set out the procedure to be followed in regard to the acquisition, development or disposal of land acquired under section 6. The procedure is substantially the same as that contained in sections 7 to 15 of the Derelict Sites Act, 1961, and which has been found generally satisfactory. Compulsory acquisition as under that Act will be effected by vesting order. Notice of intention to acquire land must be given to the owner and occupier who may object to the proposal within a month. Where objection is made and not withdrawn the land may not be acquired compulsorily without the Minister's consent.

There is one major departure from the procedure prescribed by the Derelict Sites Act. In that Act, consent may not be given where the Minister considers that the owner should be given an opportunity to rehabilitate the site. It is not proposed to carry this condition into the present Bill, in view of the element of danger to life and the consequent urgency in cases such as unprotected quarries, where the danger can only be removed permanently by costly works carried out by local authorities.

Section 3 provides for the implementation of the second objective of the Bill. It codifies and re-enacts, with some important amendments, the procedure in relation to dangerous structures which is operated by Dublin Corporation under various local Acts. The section also applies the new powers to all sanitary authorities in place of the limited powers hitherto available to them. The section covers dwellinghouses as well as other buildings and so will strengthen the powers of local authorities in dealing with unfit houses pending the enactment of new housing legislation.

Under section 3, a sanitary authority may give notice to the owner of a dangerous structure requiring him within a specified period to make such structure safe and to terminate or modify any use being made of it. Power is also given to prescribe detailed conditions as to the manner of demolition of the building. A fine of £100 is provided for failure to comply with such notice. Special powers are also given to the local authority to carry out such work as is necessary to make a structure safe in the interests of the safety of any person, without prior notice if necessary. The additional powers provided under the Section have been framed on the basis of requests received from Dublin Corporation and other urban authorities and are designed for more effective action than has been legally possible hitherto. One of the more important additions to the powers of local authorities generally is that they will now be enabled to prevent re-occupation of buildings which they have caused to be vacated.

Section 3 also strengthens the powers of the sanitary authority to recover costs and expenses from the owner and increases substantially fines for failure to comply with notices and empowers the district court to prohibit the repair or letting of the structure or the carrying out of any works on the site on which the structure stood until the local authority are paid the amount due in respect of works carried out by them.

The section will also give local authorities power to provide other living accommodation for the occupiers of dwellings who have had to leave the dwellings as a result of auction under the Section or to give grants to such persons to enable them to obtain other living accommodation.

The third main purpose of the Bill is set out in section 4. This section will give general authority for the making of agreements between the ESB and sanitary authorities of the kind authorised by the Liffey Reservoir Act, 1936, in relation to Poulaphouca Reservoir between the Board and Dublin Corporation. That agreement enabled the Corporation to take an agreed amount of water per day for the purposes of the Dublin Water Supply. The agreement contained provisions relating to the prevention of the pollution of the water in the reservoir; the level of water to be maintained in the reservoir; the point of abstraction and the rate of flow of water in the river downstream. The consent of the Minister for Local Government will be necessary to an agreement reached pursuant to section 4. With a view to safeguarding fishery interests, the section provides for consultation with the Minister for Lands before this consent is given.

The sanitary authority must give a month's public notice of the intention to make an agreement and will be required to specify particulars of the proposed agreement in the notice. Persons who have objections to the proposed agreements will then be in a position to put their case to the Minister who will bear such representations in mind before coming to a decision in any particular case. An agreement when sanctioned will have the same force as a proposal under the Water Supplies Act, 1942. It will give the sanitary authority a right to abstract water subject to claims for compensation from persons alleging damage by reason of the authorised abstraction.

Section 4 is designed specifically to meet a legal difficulty which has arisen in regard to the abstraction of water by Dublin County Council from the ESB reservoir at Leixlip. After protracted negotiations between the county council and the Board, agreement on terms was reached, but the Board was advised that they had no legal power to authorise the abstraction of water on such a scale from a reservoir provided by them and that such abstraction might be liable to be stopped by injunction. Section 4 will give the necessary statutory authority for the proposed agreement.

Sections 16 to 21 which follow the same general lines as the Derelict Sites Act, 1961, provide for general matters such as inspection of land, penalties for obstruction, giving of documents under the Act, negotiations, expenses of the Minister, etc.

Section 22 is the usual repeal section. It provides for the repeal of certain provisions dealing with dangerous buildings which will become redundant if the Bill becomes law.

Mr. Jones

The purpose of this Bill, as outlined by the Minister, is to give to health authorities the power to deal with dangerous quarries and hazards of the kind mentioned in the definition section. I should like at the outset to ask the Minister why it is that sanitary authorities are specifically mentioned here. One would think that, in regard to matters of this kind, the local authority would be the body to deal with them. We did have this combination before on the bringing into operation of the health authorities a couple of years back, whereby there was a unified health authority to deal with functions formerly discharged by the local authorities in regard to Dublin, Limerick, Cork and Waterford. Even at the present time, these health authorities, as we are very well aware, are still dependent on the services of officers of the local authority for the carrying out of the many functions for which the health authority is now responsible. I should like the Minister, when replying, to advert to this aspect and to explain why, on this occasion, he refers to sanitary authorities inasmuch as the local authorities in most areas deal with these matters at the moment.

In giving the local authorities power to compel owners to deal with dangerous buildings, etc., the Minister rightly mentions this is an extension of a power at present enjoyed by Dublin Corporation under a very old Act indeed. The part of the Bill dealing with quarries, quaysides and so on is long overdue. There have been far too many accidents with tragic loss of life, lives which should not have been lost. Following on these tragedies, the public have legitimately cried out against the lack of attention displayed by local authorities in their refusal to deal with these hazards. It is understandable that the public should be disturbed. Local authorities have always had the power to deal with these hazards. The Minister may say that fuller powers are being given under this Bill, but there were always sufficient powers in the hands of local authorities to deal with matters of this kind.

There is the Public Health (Amendment) Act of 1907, the relevant section of which provides:

With respect to the repairing or enclosing of dangerous places the following provisions shall have effect—

If, in any situation fronting, adjoining or abutting on any street or public footpath any building, wall, fence, space, structure or other thing, or any well, excavation, reservoir, pond, stream, dam or bank is, for want of sufficient repair, protection or enclosure, dangerous to persons lawfully using the street or footpath, the local authority may by notice in writing served upon the owner require him, within the period specified in the notice and hereinafter referred to in this section as the prescribed period, to repair, to remove, protect or enclose the same so as to prevent any danger therefrom.

This section was introduced in the Local Government (Sanitary Services) Act, 1948 and has been in force since. Therefore, all these authorities had this power to deal with that type of case. The Minister says there are fuller powers and perhaps when we come to deal with the Bill in Committee the Minister will be able to indicate the differences in the present Bill and say what defect there was in the previous legislation in regard to this matter.

The sections in this Bill are permissive. I want to suggest that the Bill should go much further and should make it mandatory on the authorities to do certain things within certain stated periods. The responsible authorities should carry out a survey of their own districts to ascertain where dangerous buildings are and in discovering where dangerous buildings or hazards exist for the public they ought to seek the co-operation, not alone of the public but of parents and of motorists who become aware of hazards in their journeys through the country.

We may take it as a rather sad commentary that instead of repeal legislation in regard to dilapidated buildings we have to have a further Bill to deal with the matter. Those who drafted the Bill must be aware of the many applications made by Dublin Corporation to the district court seeking the removal of buildings which are now described as dangerous but in this Bill when we come to deal with the people who are removed from these buildings the section says that the authority may, if they so think fit, house these people. That seems to indicate an extraordinary type of approach to the problem of a person who is removed from his or her room which has been home perhaps for a lifetime. Where is it intended to house these people? Is it intended that they should be housed near to the place from which they are being removed, where they are amongst their friends and relations?

Under the Dublin Corporation Act, 1890 there was a provision whereby people could be removed from buildings at that time and could be housed, as the term used in the Act was "in the workhouse", which was available to the poor. That Act of 1890 laid down very clearly and fully what could be done under the terms of that Act. Section 10, subsection (1) of that Act provided:

Where a structure has been certified by the surveyor to be a neglected structure or a dangerous structure within the meaning of this Act the lord mayor or justice may, by order under his hand, direct the inmates or any of them to be removed therefrom by a constable or other peace officer, and if they have no other abode he may require them to be received into the workhouse established for the reception of the poor of the place in which the structure is situate.

The section in this Bill seems to be a 1964 version of that section. It does not seem to be very far removed from it.

In a good many of these cases, where there is a question of paying the local authority for the removal of a dangerous building there is the question of the landlord contributing to the cost. There should have been in a Bill such as this a section providing for compensation by the landlord to the tenants who are being removed from the structure. At present, particularly in the city of Dublin and in the built-up areas of other cities, there is property occupied by tenements which, having regard to modern circumstances, provide valuable sites when they are cleared. The people who own these property sites have a very valuable asset when the buildings are removed. I want to ask the Minister whether there is not a danger that a landlord who owns such buildings would not be over-zealous in looking after them but would be left with a loophole whereby he might refer the building to the local authority for demolition as dangerous buildings and obtain possession of the site?

In the ordinary way, up to the present time, the rights of the tenants have been very carefully protected and a very elaborate and careful procedure was laid down whereby a tenant was entitled to judicial protection before he could be removed from what was his home. I want to ask the Minister are we giving in this Bill a power to the landlord and taking away from the tenant a valuable right and protection which he had?

Under the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1931, there was an implied condition that before a landlord let a premises the premises would be reasonably fit for human habitation. Section 31 of that Act provides:

In any contract entered into after the passing of this Act for letting for habitation a dwelling-house at a rent not exceeding—

(a) in the case of a house situate in the County Borough of Dublin or the Borough of Dún Laoghaire, thirty pounds per annum;

(b) in the case of a house situate elsewhere, twenty-five pounds per annum;

there shall, notwithstanding any stipulation to the contrary, be implied a condition that the house is at the commencement of the tenancy, and an undertaking that the house will be kept by the landlord during the tenancy, in all respects reasonably fit for human habitation ...

Not alone was there that obligation on the landlord but the local authority had an obligation imposed on them by that Act and what would be the present position if they had been discharging their functions and their duties properly as provided in that Act? It was provided in section 29:

It shall be the duty of every local authority to cause an inspection of their district to be made from time to time with a view of ascertaining whether any dwelling-house therein is unfit for human habitation, and for that purpose it shall be the duty of the local authority and every officer of the local authority, to comply with such regulations and to keep such records as the Minister may prescribe.

Surely it is clear that if a structure being used as a dwelling becomes dangerous it is unfit for human habitation? What has the local authority been doing in the meantime? Has the local authority been discharging the responsibility which was placed on it by that legislation or is this measure now an admission of the failure of the local authority to deal with this matter?

The section in the Bill dealing with reservoirs is a very necessary section. It can be said that it is a good thing that reservoirs are available.

Will the type of occurrence envisaged in section 3, subsection (2) (a) arise only occasionally? Or will this be used extensively—that tenants will be ejected from buildings on the opinion of an officer of the sanitary authority? Again, the difficulty I raised when opening on this matter arises here. Who is a competent authority to decide this? Normally at present the health inspectors in rural areas—and I presume they operate in Dublin also—have not got engineering qualifications. They look at the structure—and one need not look at some of them too long to know they are dangerous buildings. In writing into legislation a blanket provision such as this, are we not writing in that somebody may give an opinion which will be regarded as an expert opinion, although the person concerned is not qualified as an expert to give such an opinion?

The question of the local authority —in this case the sanitary authority— obtaining compensation for their efforts in regard to the removal of buildings is dealt with fully in the Bill. It is right that some of the landlords of dangerous property, who have become careless in regard to their obligations to their tenants, should have this money recovered from them, but is there any provision in the Bill for compensation to the person being removed from the building? As the Minister is aware, there is a section of Dublin where very small shopkeepers are being removed from these buildings. If these people were big enough, they would be compensated; but because they are little, they seem to be neglected. No provision is being made to compensate these people in any way for the loss of the livelihood they enjoyed in that area, although there is provision in regard to habitation. That is something of a weakness in a measure such as this and something to which the Minister should advert.

Under the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1931, and even under the Rent Restrictions Act, provision is made to safeguard the rights of tenants in these cases. Even where it was decided after judicial investigation that the tenant would have to leave the property and that possession should be given to the landlord, there was placed on the latter an obligation of providing, I think, three times the annual rent of the premises as compensation to the person so affected. I should like to see a section in this Bill which would equally recognise the rights of the people in these areas. I should hope that the Bill would not seem to encourage the landlord anxious to get rid of the obligation imposed on him by the Acts I have quoted of maintaining structures as human habitations in proper order, who, instead, allows them to fall into disrepair and then, by drawing the attention of the local authorities to them as being dangerous buildings, obtains possession of them in very simple fashion indeed.

In regard to the other sections dealing with compensation, the compensation is again to be assessed under the Acquisition of Land (Compensation) Act, 1909. We had the same thing under the Planning Act. At that time, and I repeat it today, I pointed out this could be a most unfair method of arriving at the compensation payable. The awards given on these occasions have often been proved to be wrong and unjust by as much as £2,000 or £3,000. The District Court, the Circuit Court and the High Court are used to dealing with this matter of the determination of valuation. I cannot understand why their services are not availed of to ensure that the rights of everybody are fully protected in this matter.

We recognise that this Bill is necessary in the circumstances of the housing situation as it has shown itself, particularly in the built-up areas, and in the large number of very unfortunate and tragic occurrences in quarries close to large built-up areas, on quaysides and at dangerous points on roads and deep points in rivers where drownings have occurred. We recognise it is necessary to reinforce the law on this matter. I want again to say to the Minister that many of these powers were available to the local authority up to this in the legislation which existed prior to the establishment of the State, and which was adopted at the time, and in the legislation passed since that time. However, it does not seem to have been acted on. There are a number of sections in the Bill which will require amendment and we will from this side of the House put down the necessary amendments to deal with that matter on Committee Stage.

Mr. S. Dunne

It is apparent that this Bill is before us as a result of the very justifiable indignation to which expression was given by people living in the suburban areas of Dublin earlier in the present year, during last year and indeed frequently over recent years, in regard to the existence of dangerous quarry holes which had become filled with water over the years. This applied to my constituency, particularly to the Walkinstown district. As Deputy Jones said, there have been many tragedies and indeed heartrending fatalities in which children have lost their lives because of the existence of these places. It is obvious that this Bill is primarily an effort to meet and remedy that situation. In so far as it is, we welcome it and consider it overdue. The previous speaker considered that existing legislation was sufficient to enable local authorities to deal with this problem without fresh legislation being introduced. All of us who have had experience of membership of local authorities have found that law advisers, like doctors, tend to differ greatly and the patients, in this case the ratepayers, the people resident in the local authority area, very often die as a result of this difference in the interpretation of statutes by law agents.

All of these men, it is to be assumed, are able men but they are men of very fixed opinions on what the law means and we have seen in many cases opposite interpretations of laws being given by law agents from different local authority areas. In County Dublin, it appears that the law agent took the view that existing legislation was not sufficient to enable the Dublin County Council to do what should be done, to move in where such quarries existed, have them filled in and made safe, and the result is that we have this Bill.

I am interested to know just what is meant by the definition of "dangerous place". Amongst the definitions, it is stated that "dangerous place" means an excavation, quarry, pit, well, reservoir, pond, stream, dam, bank, dump, shaft or land that, in the opinion of the sanitary authority in whose sanitary district it is situate, is or is likely to be dangerous to any person. For instance, I should like to know if this Bill envisages all the dangers that may be represented by a dump. By virtue of the rapid expansion of housing in the immediate post-war years, we have in the Dublin suburban areas large housing schemes—I am thinking of one in particular in the Walkinstown area —where thousands of houses have been built under the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Acts and very close to them are large dumps where a lot of the city and county refuse is disposed of.

I should like to know if such a dump is to be regarded as a dangerous place in so far as it does constitute, unquestionably, a threat to the health of everybody living within half a mile of it. These dumps are a public scandal because of their effluvia and the perpetual pall of smoke hanging over them. Naturally young children will gravitate in the direction of a dump because there is activity there and they will root about in it. The place in question is infested with rats. Would such a place be regarded, for the purpose of this Bill, as dangerous, and what steps will be taken to eliminate this sort of hazard to the people's health? It might well be that on Committee Stage, if it is possible to do so, we might try to have a section inserted to require local authorities to have these dumps situated at a considerable distance from housing schemes or built-up areas. It is essential, in my view, that this should be done because the existence of these eyesores can result in just as much danger as quarries.

I hope that when this Bill becomes law the local authorities will lose no time in putting it into effect. I know that my colleague, Deputy Burke, has been agitating to have these quarries attended to. In fact, I recall him stating at a meeting a year or two ago that if something was not done, he would go himself and drive in the stakes around a quarry. It was a very noble gesture. I do not see the stakes yet and I hope this Bill will eliminate the need for such action on the part of my distinguished colleague.

Mr. Ryan

It would take down his waist line.

Mr. P.J. Burke

We will pull our weight together.

Mr. S. Dunne

People of affected areas will be glad that this Bill is going through but I am anxious on their behalf to get an assurance that the Minister will recommend that the local authorities take immediate action. There have been problems arising from the fact that some landowners not only proved difficult and unreasonable but positively antagonistic to the public good, and when it was suggested that quarries should be filled in, they wanted them to be handed back to them to exploit them for building purposes. As mentioned in the Minister's brief, to fill in one such quarry would cost £26,000. This Bill apparently will give the local authority power to do the work and to acquire such property compulsorily and ensure that the public good will be the primary objective with which the local authority will be concerned and that no presents will be given to unreasonable people.

I do not know how far the Bill relates to the dangers created by canals but for many years it has seemed to me that something should be done about the canals, and certainly that canal which flows through Dublin, to make it safe for children. It is used for young people for bathing but it is an open invitation to danger, and it is something which should be examined by the local authority and by the Minister. There have been many cases of children, and even of adults, being drowned in the canal and it is something that must be examined and about which something must be done. Some protection must be provided so that when little children living in the areas adjacent to the canal go out, their parents will not be worried eternally about whether they will come back again or not.

Deputy Jones referred to tenants who are displaced by action of the local authority in condemning houses and requiring their demolition, and the need for compensation for such tenants is very obvious. There have been many cases, of which members of the local authority are aware, where tenants with families are being displaced by the present efforts of Dublin Corporation to secure the demolition of unfit houses and there are many people for whom no alternative accommodation is made available, or can be made available because of the shortage of houses or flats in the city. There should be some compensation for such people to enable them to set up a home again. It is very unjust that they should be given no alternative in many cases except to go to Griffith Barracks. The workhouse has been mentioned by a Deputy who spoke previously as being the place indicated in the Act of 1898. Griffith Barracks is not very much better than the workhouse was and the conditions of the people there are depressing for anybody who has had occasion to witness them. Families are divided and a most undesirable situation exists.

I do acknowledge it is primarily the responsibility of the Corporation to provide accommodation for these people. However, in the situation in which we now find ourselves, where it is obvious that the housing position in Dublin will not be normalised for several years at the rate building is going on, compensation of some kind should be provided to enable people to get accommodation other than that which is available in Griffith Barracks.

In some cases where families are displaced from dangerous buildings, they are offered the only accommodation which may be available at the time in areas to which, to say the least of it, they have not been used, certain built-up areas where they are not alone among strangers but among people with whom they may not have very much in common. In these cases compensation is something which might help.

In nearly all Bills which come to this House, there is something of a vague general nature such as is in section 4 of this Bill, relating to the protracted negotiations between Dublin county and the ESB. It is a sad commentary upon our semi-State bodies and our local authorities when they cannot reach agreement in matters which vitally affect the public interest without having the time of this House taken up with legislation to deal with them. These are bodies who should be as much concerned as this House is about expediting matters for the good of the public. While there may be technical difficulties, the Minister mentions protracted negotiations which would indicate to me an undesirable situation which should not have been allowed to continue and which should not in the end have been permitted to become a matter which would take up the time of Dáil Éireann.

We shall have the opportunity in Committee of examining and possibly improving this Bill by adding to it. The elimination of dangerous quarry holes brings to mind another important and related matter for which there is no specific provision in this Bill, and the dangers attendant upon bathing in the canals because of the dangerous condition of the canal banks also brings this matter to mind, that is, the need for swimming pools in Dublin city and county. That is something about which we have done nothing and, with the closing of the quarry holes, it is something to which we should give attention. It is not strictly in order on this Bill but I would ask the Minister to encourage local authorities to push ahead with the provision of these amenities. The only other comment I have to make on this Bill is that we are glad to see it at long last.

Mr. P.J. Burke

I am happy to have been in the House this afternoon when this Bill was introduced by the Minister for Local Government. For years we have been frustrated by the Law Agents of Dublin County Council, Dublin Corporation and others. We were told there was no power to deal with the quarries, although they were responsible for loss of life.

The Minister for Local Government took an active interest in this matter. He advised the local authority in Dublin county to try to deal with this problem in a reasonable way. Legal argument went on for a long time between the Law Agent of the Dublin County Council and the Minister's Department. Now the Minister has found it necessary to bring in this Bill which is long overdue.

This Bill will be a great asset to the people of my constituency and to other people throughout the country who may have the same problem. There was a very serious problem especially in the Walkinstown area of my constituency where there are five quarries. It was all right some years ago, but due to the prosperity of the nation, houses have been built right round the quarries and nobody could keep the children out of the quarries. As the previous Deputy stated, if we were dealing with reasonable people, it would not be necessary for the Minister to take up the time of the House with a Bill of this kind.

The Minister went more than ninety per cent of the way to have this matter settled amicably. We went out to see these quarry owners, seeking agreement to have the quarries filled in, indicating we could go to town on the cost and so on. We merely wanted to be allowed to fence them in. They refused to let us do anything. Now the Minister must introduce compulsory powers to deal with unreasonable people and to stop the loss of life.

In regard to one quarry in Walkinstown where a child was drowned, I went to see the owner with a view to getting permission for having the quarry fenced in. I used all the diplomacy of which I was capable, but in spite of all the plamás and diplomacy, he bluntly told me that the property was his and if there were more children drowned, it was the parents' fault. Now that the sworn inquiry has been held and the Minister is introducing this Bill, they will meet any of us. They want to know what compensation they will get; are we going to treat them reasonably. They made no effort. Even if they had fenced quarries themselves, it would have helped.

While I like to see everybody fairly treated, I have very little sympathy with a number of these people. I believe in trying diplomacy to the limit in dealing with these cases. When a child was very nearly drowned about two years ago, I went to a meeting and I said I would put down the stakes myself. I hoped the quarry-owner would take action against me to restrain me from doing so and so bring the matter before the public. Then we were told by Dublin County Council that we had no legal power. I haunted the Minister for Local Government. He received numerous deputations and I was on several of these, and I want to say that the officers of his Department who deal with quarries could not be more courteous or helpful. I cannot speak too highly of them.

I hope the House will not delay this Bill, which deals especially with quarries, pits, wells, reservoirs, ponds, streams or anything of that kind in a built-up area. One can say something for an area which is a mile or a half-mile from a built-up district when it is on private property, but when it is in the centre of a built-up area, we have to do something. I heartily congratulate the Minister on introducing the Bill now, even though he had some very important housing legislation to introduce. I had hoped that legislation would go through this term but, unfortunately, owing to pressure of legislation, it had to be postponed. The Minister introduced this Bill, as he promised, and it is one that will be welcomed by every fairminded citizen.

We have a problem in Dublin in regard to dangerous buildings which would not exist if the housing situation had been properly handled some 20 years ago. When one or two houses fell and a few tragedies occurred, everybody woke up. We had been leaving one or two people in old tenement houses. We had no power to compel them to go if they did not wish to do so. Dublin Corporation failed completely to deal with the position 20 years ago. Although I have been a member of the Corporation for four years, they failed down the years to provide houses for old couples, one-or two-room flats. For that reason, we have a problem now and the Minister again has come to our aid. I hope we shall succeed in overcoming this problem in the very near future. Dangerous buildings constitute one of our very big problems and anything that can be done to expedite the acquisition and demolition of them is long overdue.

In Church Street and North King street, I think, nine years ago, we began to acquire and pull down dangerous buildings. No progressive local authority would carry on like that. Then we had a place at Butterfield Avenue going on to Rathfarnham about which I have been asking questions. I think it was seven years ago that an effort was made to acquire property there and it is dilly-dallying since. We have a small road, a sort of prairie track, going out to 8,000 or 9,000 houses, a case where you have some crank or two holding up the community to ransom. I do not want to take away the democratic rights of any citizen. He has the right to appeal but he has no right, nor have any two or three people the right, to hold a whole community up to ransom as in the cases I have cited here. The road leading from the main street out to Butterfield——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Surely the question of roads does not arise in this Bill?

Mr. P.J. Burke

I am dealing with dangerous buildings, but I shall not delay the House. This Bill should get a quick passage through the House and I want to give a good example in that regard. On behalf of the people of County Dublin, I hope that on the day the legislation goes through, the Minister will attend a function in County Dublin which I shall try to organise to make up for all the abuse we have given him in the past. We shall try to show our appreciation of the wonderful gesture the Minister has made in this Bill.

Mr. Jones

You will bury the hatchet in the quarries.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

I shall be as brief as, or briefer than Deputy Burke. When one sees the Deputy exercising his powers of plámás on the Minister, one is tempted to inquire in what constituency the Minister resides. I take it, having regard to the remark Deputy Burke made about the mishandling of the housing situation about 20 years ago, that the Tánaiste does not live in Deputy Burke's constituency. If my memory serves me aright, the Tánaiste presided over the fortunes of the Department of Local Government about that time which gave rise to Deputy Burke's complaint.

I think the House generally will approve the principles set out in the Bill and referred to by the Minister in his opening remarks. The only comment that can be made in regard to the question of dangerous quarries and matters of that kind now being dealt with by the Bill is that it seems a pity that if the doubt existed, as apparently it did, about the powers of the local authority to deal with this matter for many years past when the necessity for action was there, decisive legislation to clear up the point is only now being introduced.

I appreciate that from the Minister's point of view and that of his officials, it was probably necessary to do a great deal of research work first, before the size of the problem was apparent to them and, secondly, to discover precisely what legislative measures were needed to remedy it. It is a problem that has existed for a very long time and my only regret is that it was not dealt with much sooner.

Section 4 of the Bill deals with the abstraction of water by sanitary authorities from ESB reservoirs. I should like to put a case to the Minister. It seems to me it is not covered by the Bill and I am not entirely confident that this Bill is the right Bill to cover it but I should like to bring it to the Minister's attention. Perhaps it would be convenient for him to consider extending the powers slightly to enable him to have some say in agreements between local sanitary authorities and Dublin Corporation in relation to the Vartry water supply.

I asked a question of the Minister yesterday in connection with the Windgates area between Greystones and Bray where a severe water supply problem exists. It is a twofold problem. A number of houses there have no water supply and those on the existing supply have an inadequate supply. If those who have no supply operate a group scheme, it appears that the only source of water is the existing supply, which is already inadequate. This is a problem that could be solved very easily by the Vartry supply if Dublin Corporation were prepared to give it. It would not require any great extension. It is due to Dublin Corporation to say that they have responded generously to applications made for the supply up to the present. They have agreed to supply Kilquade, Three Trout Bridge, Redford and Kilcoole. I understand they are not anxious for any other extension.

The Minister might consider adopting the same scheme as he is adopting in this Bill in relation to the Poulaphouca reservoir. In present circumstances where adequate sources of supply are becoming more and more essential, he should be in a position, if an application is made by a sanitary authority, at least to arrange with the owners of the source of supply that an agreement could be entered into. If that were done in relation to the Windgates area, the problem would be solved quite inexpensively.

Another matter to which I wish to draw the Minister's attention is a local one in connection with the Valleymount and Ballyknockan districts in County Wicklow. The Minister has referred to legislation which enabled that area to be flooded and he is probably not unaware of the fact that moves have been made, not directly to his Department, but to the Department of Transport and Power and to Dublin Corporation, to allow the question of compensation for residents in that area to be re-opened. It seems to me that this Bill is one under which the Minister could consider that question.

I do not want to transgress the rules of order but this is an appeal I should like to make to the Minister. Having considered the Bill, it seems to me that any amendment on Committee Stage, except by the Minister, would probably be ruled out of order because it would impose a charge. It seems to me that the only opportunity of making this plea to the Minister is on the Second Stage, in the hope that he will bring in the amendment.

A vast area of land was flooded to provide this reservoir and something like 58 families were evacuated. They did get compensation, but what was overlooked, and I think honestly overlooked, was the effect that this flooding, this creation of an artificial lake, would have on the surrounding areas and, in particular, on the parish of Valleymount and the Ballyknockan district. The church and parochial house, the schools and shopping centre have all been cut off from the surrounding area and the distance which people have to travel has been trebled. The result has been disastrous for the district and the Department of Transport and Power, when a deputation met them, conceded the point I am now making and they did give a token sum in order to assist the amenities of the area, but Dublin Corporation are not in a position to do anything by way of providing compensation for their activities. They are precluded by legislation from doing anything.

If the Minister would be good enough to inscribe in this Bill a short enabling section to enable the question of compensation to be reopened, he would be doing a very good day's work for that part of the country which has been very hard hit by legislation passed by this House.

Mr. Sherwin

This Bill interests me more than most Deputies because it deals largely with the city of Dublin. However, I am a little handicapped in dealing with it because I have not got my spectacles and I do not know what is in the Bill or the explanatory memorandum. I will have to pick it up from what I hear but when we come to the Committee Stage, I will know what is in the sections. There is one point on which I wish to get information from the Minister, and it is vital: will he tell me if he is providing in this Bill power to local authorities to go in and spend money on a dwelling that can be saved? Up to now local authorities have not had that power.

I am aware that local authorities have had power to compel the owners of quarries either to fill them in or to put fences around them but I am also aware that they had no power to compel the owner of a quarry to do that where the quarry was situated away from the main road. This Bill gives the local authorities power to control all quarries and sources of danger. Deputy Jones did not appear to be certain of that but I am well aware that local authorities up to now, had this power only where a quarry was near a main road or in a built-up area. This Bill gives power to take action in the case of all quarries, irrespective of whether they are near a main road or half a mile away.

In relation to dangerous buildings, for the past eight years I have been agitating on the Dublin Housing Committee. I have brought dangerous building inspectors there many times and questioned them. I have asked if some of these structures which were being demolished could not be saved because this wholesale demolition of dwellings was causing a crisis we could not meet. Irrespective of whether or not we have some place to put the people, we have to put the people out as the law stands, once the inspector decides the building is dangerous. It is not the sanitary inspector who makes application for a closing order. All he makes is an order declaring the building unfit, but an unfit building is not a dangerous building. Before any house fell, there were 600 unfit dwellings occupied in this city. When people are removed from an unfit dwelling, the rooms cannot be reoccupied. The dwelling is not demolished. When it is a question of the demolition of a dwelling and removal by a police order, the application is made by the dangerous buildings inspector. I understand he is a qualified person. There are two entirely different categories involved.

Our problem was that a dangerous buildings inspector would enter a tenement and, although it was only partly dangerous, he could bring the owner to court and demand that the danger be corrected within a certain time. If the danger were not corrected, he applied for a demolition order, either in respect of the whole premises or part of it. If the local authority could go in and spend a couple of hundred pounds on these premises, they could very often be rendered fit for habitation for another five, ten, 15 or 20 years. Invariably the owner says he has no money to repair. The whole house may not be worth £100 and he could not spend £200 or £300 repairing it. Repairing property is an expensive business and we are asking landlords to spend money on some houses that are over a hundred years old. The landlord knows it would be money down the drain.

From the point of view of the local authority, however, it would be money well spent because it would save these houses for a few more years and give us some relief. It is relief we are looking for. If a chimney stack is a danger, surely the local authority could repair it. If we had power to do that, the whole situation would be changed because hundreds of tenements which will be cleared and demolished within the next year or two would be saved for a further period. Only the worst need be demolished. The wholesale eviction of people would cease. If we avail of the provisions of this Bill, the position will go back to normal inside six months. The information I had was that we would be evicting people and demolishing houses for the next two years. It is some satisfaction now to know we can go in and thereby ease the situation.

A couple of people have been making politics out of this business of housing and so on. It was not that the Dublin Corporation did not build enough houses——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy may not proceed on that line on this Bill. The matter does not arise.

Mr. Sherwin

I am dealing with dangerous buildings.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

So long as the Deputy keeps to dangerous buildings, he is in order, but he may not widen the debate by discussing the housing position in Dublin.

Mr. Sherwin

All I want to say is that it was because there were not enough small dwellings—one room and two room flats—provided that we had this crisis. No family has been evicted without an offer of a dwelling since last June.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy is embarking on a debate on housing, which does not arise. We are dealing with derelict sites and dangerous buildings.

Mr. Sherwin

Before you came in, Sir, a few speakers had travelled along that line. This provision enabling local authorities to go in and spend money will change the whole situation.

I should like to say now that I think it most unfair that people should have been thrown out of their dwelling without some sort of disturbance money being paid. When a local authority removes people from an area wanted for road widening or building purposes, they always pay compensation. If a shopkeeper has to leave a street because of a road widening or a CPO scheme, he gets compensation to the extent of the full value of his property or business. Private tenants likewise get disturbance money—£10, £15 or £20, as the case may be. Those removed from dangerous buildings get nothing; 71 small shopkeepers closed up during the past 12 months got no compensation of any kind. Not only were they thrown out but they lost their business. Under the law they are not entitled to any compensation. I think that is a shocking state of affairs. I had a letter from a woman this morning who lost her shop; she got no alternative accommodation because there were only two people involved. Her rates were paid up to date. Now that is very hard luck on her. Some compensation should be paid, something in the form of disturbance money. If flood or earthquake hits, there is a great hullabaloo and legislation is rushed through so that the people can be helped. Everybody gets something. A good illustration of that is the flooding in the North Strand. This is an emergency and I think small shopkeepers and others should get some form of disturbance money.

Mr. Ryan

I was very pleased to hear the Minister for Housing without portfolio, Deputy P. J. Burke, speaking earlier this afternoon about the problem of these unfortunate people in dangerous houses because I had quite thought he had gone off to another sphere altogether. I saw yesterday evening that he was reported as saying that he and his colleagues in the Government were very conscious of the housing problems. He burst into this flight of fancy when opening a housing scheme in which the individual houses cost £7,975. They are houses for those who have made it, who are successful. It is quite obvious that the Government demonstrate by their lack of activity in relation to ordinary houses, and dangerous buildings in particular, that they have quite forgotten those who have not made it and who have not been successful.

Mr. P.J. Burke

That is due to the prosperity of the nation under Fianna Fáil.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Order.

Mr. Ryan

The Deputy and his colleagues in the Government are interested obviously only in those who can afford houses costing £7,975. These are the people whose interests are engaging the constant attention of the Government.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy might now come to the Bill, which deals with derelict sites.

Mr. P.J. Burke

I dealt with housing generally.

Mr. Ryan

We are dealing with this panic measure because the Fianna Fáil Party, in particular, and the Dublin Corporation have been culpably negligent in the case of thousands of poor unfortunate people in this city and throughout the country, people who are unable to pay fancy prices to the building barons, the building barons who are apparently well disposed towards the members of the Government.

This Bill has been necessitated because of the fact that for 15 years— not just eight years, to which Deputy Sherwin has given testimony, but for 15 years—the Dublin Corporation did nothing about dangerous buildings. The Dublin Corporation were condemned by the special inquiry established by the Minister for Local Government last year in relation to what we are told was an accidental collapse but, I say, an inevitable collapse, of houses in Bolton Street and Fenian Street. In the course of that inquiry, although it was not within his terms of reference, the inspector could not avoid the condemnation that for 15 years the Dublin Corporation had failed to discharge their statutory obligations to inspect the city and to keep a list of dangerous and potentially dangerous dwellings. It was because of that we have our district courts crowded out with dangerous building inspectors and the whole process of the law being abused and ill-used by a Corporation who, because of these tragedies, had wakened up to their fundamental moral responsibility.

Mr. P.J. Burke

Why do you not say that outside the House—"ill-used"?

Mr. Ryan

We have said it outside the House and will repeat it elsewhere.

Mr. P.J. Burke

The Deputy takes advantage of the privileges of this House when he wants to attack someone.

Mr. Ryan

We will repeat that anywhere the Deputy wants. If the Deputy will listen to me, instead of being discourteous to the House by writing letters, he will find out that this has been repeated by me and by others time and again during the past year and little or no notice has been taken of it.

Mr. Timmons

The Deputy is always making wild statements.

Mr. P.J. Burke

The Deputy does not attend the Housing Committee meetings. All he can do is roar.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Will Deputy Burke please cease interrupting?

Mr. P.J. Burke

I am very sorry.

Mr. Ryan

Dublin Corporation failed to take any remedial action where cases of dangerous buildings were brought to their notice, something in respect of which Deputy Sherwin has again and again given evidence here and elsewhere. He gave sworn testimony before the special inquiry the Minister set up and the evidence in the course of that inquiry was that three months before the houses collapsed in Fenian Street, killing two children, a crack of an inch wide or thereabouts was seen at the top of a house going several inches down and then growing day after day after that and nothing was done about it in the hope that all would be well, that no collapse would take place. Four people had to die before any serious attention was given to the problem of dangerous buildings.

Times out of number, several councillors of Dublin Corporation—and these must include Deputy Burke if the Deputy is doing his duty—must have received complaints from people that they were living in dangerous buildings. If his reputation is to be a deserved one, as I believe it is, Deputy Burke must have conveyed these representations to the Dublin Corporation and must have experienced as several councillors, including myself, experienced, an indifference on the part of the Corporation and receipt of the official reply that people could not be rehoused as the house in which they lived was not condemned.

It was not condemned officially in accordance with the 1890 Act and because it had not been condemned under an Act implemented and enacted under the Queen's Most Excellent Majesty with the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons, then it could not be regarded by Dublin Corporation as being a case in urgent need of rehousing, and so we now have a problem in which over the past year one thousand families have been evicted from dangerous buildings, in which it is forecast that another four thousand will be evicted, and over the next five years another five thousand will be evicted, all because for 15 years the problem was neglected. If that is not a condemnation of the powers that be, I do not know what is.

This Act of 1890 could have been better used all over the years and this piece of legislation is being introduced to bolster up a pretence and a piece of propaganda that has been engaged in for the past year that the powers Dublin Corporation had were not sufficient. Let me deal with that. If the 1890 Act was sufficient for the past year to deal with one thousand families in dangerous buildings, it was equally efficient to deal with it over the past 15 years, and if it had been implemented with reason and not with panic over all the years, then we would not have the situation we now have.

Deputy Sherwin here asked the question whether or not the Bill could be used so as to allow Dublin Corporation to go in and do some work on a particular building so as to enable that building to be used in future. Of course, the Bill allows that and the Act of 1890 allowed that also and it was all too seldom used. That is the manner in which the Act has been abused and I stand over that here and anywhere else. The Act of 1890 did not stop the Corporation or anybody else from removing the cause of danger in any house without requiring the whole house to be demolished. It was perfectly permissible to serve notice under the 1890 Act and to bring the matter into court relating to any portion of a house and requiring that that portion of the house be put right, but that has not been done, or was hardly ever done, over the past year. What has been done is to use and abuse this Act so as to demolish complete structures, even where the whole structure is not dangerous.

Mr. P.J. Burke

I will use my influence to make Deputy Ryan legal adviser to the Dublin Corporation.

Mr. Ryan

Again and again we have had cases of Dublin Corporation dangerous buildings inspectors giving evidence in court that only particular portions of a building were dangerous, such as the upper storeys, the back wall or the front wall, the gable wall, or something of that kind, but not the whole structure.

On every occasion these cases come before the court, Dublin Corporation insist upon getting an order condemning the complete structure but those orders read that there was an obligation on the owner or in default, on the occupier or in default of both of those, then on the Dublin Corporation, to remove the danger to the satisfaction of the Dublin Corporation but what has been happening is that the Dublin Corporation have been allowing neglectful landlords who fail to preserve their property to use these orders to remove all people from those buildings and to demolish the whole building without paying compensation to anybody, throwing on to the local authority an obligation which the landlord should have fulfilled of providing proper living accommodation for those living in it and throwing out on to the streets, without payment of compensation, the unfortunate small hucksters, small shopkeepers, who made a decent, honest and honourable living in those buildings for many years.

I am not entirely satisfied that a right of compensation for these people does not arise, even under the 1890 Act, but what I am particularly conscious of is that although several people in Dublin, including most respected clergymen, have drawn the attention of public representatives to the fact that compensation has not been paid to the vast majority of small shopkeepers, of whom Deputy Sherwin has admitted there are 71 within the past year, although we ought as a Christian Parliament to be introducing legislation to provide them with compensation in case there is any doubt about it, instead, we are removing away from all notion of compensation the very people who have suffered without any compensation whatever over the past year.

In the 1890 Act, which this Bill seeks to replace, in section 7 it is provided:

Nothing in this section shall affect any premises not used or intended to be used for human habitation except so much as shall form the frontage line of any street or compel the owner or occupier thereof to rebuild the same so long as the same are securely fenced in so as not to be prejudicial to the inhabitants therein or of the neighbourhood.

The effect of that saving clause is that if the courts are aware the shop is being used for human habitation, a dangerous building order requiring its demolition and removal cannot now be made. The effect is that a landlord who wants to re-develop a property and who may be able to get all the private inhabitants out is forced to pay compensation to the shopkeeper, so long as the shop is not demolished. It has been held by the courts that the landlord must serve notice to quit, and if the shop is in existence at the time of the service of this notice, a right of compensation automatically arises. The 1890 Act and orders made under it are being handed to unscrupulous owners of buildings, who have frightened shopkeepers out of their properties. Many of these have gone without realising they had a right to stop the order being made in respect of their shops.

In the case of a substantial number, if not the majority, of these dangerous buildings over the past year, as far as I am aware the Corporation would have been perfectly satisfied to have had only the upper storeys removed, leaving the shop portion there. That was not done. The evidence in more than one case has been that there was no danger in the shop portion on the ground floor. Perhaps in the long run it is better municipal development to demolish the old structure and have a clean site to be developed. That is all right, but there are certain moral obligations on us as a society not to permit legislation of this House to destroy the rights of private property, particularly where those are the rights of relatively poor people who have spent many years serving their neighbours in small shops in the tenement districts of Dublin.

We will certainly have to table some serious amendments to this Bill and see to it in relation to those shops that they are still saved from the full effect of the proposed legislation. We must make clear that compensation must be paid to these shopkeepers and paid by the person who should pay it—the owner of the property who had been receiving rent from the shopkeeper and had not been properly maintaining the building.

Deputy Jones referred to a provision under the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1931, which says that it shall be an implied condition that a house at commencement of a tenancy will be kept by the landlord during the tenancy in all respects reasonably fit for human habitation. It seems to me we should be providing that landlords of all properties should have an obligation imposed on them to maintain their property. If a landlord is of opinion that a property cannot be maintained in a safe condition in future years, then he should not be permitted to let it.

Mr. P.J. Burke

Why does the Deputy not attend the housing meetings and make his contribution?

Mr. Ryan

I will make my contributions anywhere I like. I do not believe in talking for hours every week to the unsympathetic councillors and officials of Dublin Corporation, whose views are clearly spelled out in this legislation, which the Minister told us was being introduced at the request of Dublin Corporation. Deputy Burke knows my views too well and so do the members of Dublin Corporation.

Mr. P.J. Burke

Why not attend the meetings?

Mr. Ryan

I will serve the people of Dublin anywhere I like and anywhere they require me, without explanation or apology to Deputy Burke, who may carry on all the plámásing he likes anywhere he likes without my trying to interrupt him.

Mr. P.J. Burke

I work for the people.

Mr. Ryan

The Dublin Corporation Housing Department and the Dangerous Buildings Section are only too well aware of the significance of the submissions I am making here today. They have heard them from me times out of number and it does not require me to waste my time in a manner I could not possibly justify to the Man above Who made me by attending hot air meetings which are only an excuse and an alibi for inactivity and neglect over the years. If the Minister feels Dublin Corporation are to blame for the present housing difficulties—and he has said so more than once—I invite him here and now to remove the alibi and the excuses and abolish Dublin Corporation, if it means that the people of Dublin will have better housing and we will have a more effective organisation for running the houses afterwards.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy should relate his remarks to the Bill.

Mr. Ryan

I agree that the alibis and excuses people are trying to make for bringing in panic legislation are not justified. The members of the Housing Committee can have another special emergency meeting if they want to consider my contribution. It will not disturb me. If justice is done, it is more important.

We come to another problem—to find out why we have difficulty in relation to dangerous buildings. The 1890 Act imposes on Dublin Corporation certain obligations in relation to dangerous buildings. In large measure, they have failed to discharge these obligations. Again and again, when the Dangerous Buildings Section were asked to specify what work they wanted or what particular portions of the house were dangerous, they failed to be specific. Instead of encouraging and assisting the owners and occupiers to put the house right, the Corporation left things too late until the building had become so dilapidated that there was no alternative but to apply for a court order for demolition.

Another reason why we have the present crisis is that Dublin Corporation are not even now taking a reasonable course, that is, the course of shoring up many of the buildings alleged to be dangerous. I know it would be unsightly to have our city festooned with buildings being shored up, many of which would protrude out on to the street and adjoining properties. If anything could be done to provide temporary accommodation for some of these unfortunate people, it would be desirable to do it, no matter how unsightly the building might be in the meantime. This might allow us to catch up on the housing lag allowed to develop. In the meantime, I cannot see why, even under existing legislation, steps could not be taken to shore up these buildings and prevent a bad situation getting any worse.

One section of the new Bill is useful if the Corporation would use it. As I said, I believe existing legislation would have permitted them to take like action but now it is being spelled out to put it beyond doubt that the Corporation may require the owner to repair, or in default, may themselves repair, any part of a structure. As I said earlier, there are often cases where only portion of a building is dangerous but at the moment even a defective chimney-breast is sufficient to condemn the whole building. I see that the Minister is providing in the future that orders made by the Dublin Corporation may refer to part of the structure and I hope that provision will be properly used and that we will not have the situation in which a blanket order is made requiring the demolition of the whole structure to the satisfaction of the Corporation, and the Corporation failing to explain what would meet their satisfaction and thereby allowing unscrupulous landlords to demolish the whole building.

I notice that we are to have two definitions of ownership, if we pass this Bill as drafted. Section 6 of the Dublin Corporation Act, 1890 provides that in the provisions relating to neglected or dangerous structures or party structures, the term owner means the person in possession or in receipt of the whole of or any part of the rents or profits and so on. Under the Bill, we are proposing that an—

"owner" means any person (other than a mortgagee not in possession) who is for the time being entitled to sell or otherwise dispose of the fee simple of the land in relation to which the said word is used or any term of years for the time being subsisting in respect of the land of which the unexpired residue exceeds one year.

At present the Corporation can serve notice on any person in receipt of the profits; under the new Bill this will not be adequate notice and instead of simplifying the Corporation's difficulty, or expediting action which can be taken in the case of a genuine dangerous building, we are imposing an obligation on the Corporation to serve only the owner. The fact that they serve notice on the person receiving the rents or profits is not sufficient but there are many places owned by absentee landlords or by those who do not want their identities as landlords known.

I notice in section 15 power is given to the Corporation to compel certain persons, including those in receipt of the rents and profits, to give such information as they may have to the Corporation but there are plenty of escape clauses, and I understand in relation to one case that came to my notice that the person in receipt of the rents did not know on whose behalf he was collecting them. If we pass this Bill as drafted, then in such a case there is no action which the Dublin Corporation can take. If the owner cannot be found, if the Corporation are unable to establish ownership, no action can be taken by the Corporation. That seems to me to be a most undesirable situation to permit.

Under the 1890 Act, as Deputy Jones pointed out, there was a provision that the Lord Mayor or the Justice could require that people evicted from housing accommodation would be received into the local workhouse. That section applied today means that there is an obligation on the health authority to receive people into the temporary night shelter in Griffith Barracks, but instead of continuing that provision, grossly inadequate as it is, it is being repealed in toto, so that in future there will be no obligation on the Dublin Health Authority to provide even a night shelter for homeless people evicted from dangerous buildings. Instead, a section is being put in which does not need to be written in, that is, that the local authority may if it thinks fit provide housing accommodation for people being evicted from dangerous buildings.

At the moment Dublin Corporation where they see fit is providing housing accommodation for people being evicted from dangerous buildings but where they do not see fit, as they have not seen fit in about 400 cases since this alleged emergency began last June, at least there is an obligation on the Dublin Health Authority to provide shelter for women and children. Husbands, however, are expected to sleep elsewhere, in a ditch or somewhere like that, wherever they can find a place to lie down. At least there is some semblance of a recognition that society has an obligation to these unfortunate people, but now apparently we are to take a step which is really a backward step and remove any obligation on the local health authority or the local assistance board even to provide night shelter for these unfortunate people. That seems to me to be an unpardonable step to take.

I do not pretend to be an expert on all aspects of local government law. Somebody has described this as a jungle and as I move in more civilised circles than a jungle, some of the time I am not sure why we impose an obligation on a local sanitary authority instead of a local authority, and I should also be glad if the Minister would explain how a sanitary authority is involved in the question of dangerous buildings. The Minister in his statement said that section 3 of the Bill covers dwellinghouses as well as other buildings. Why he put it in the way he did, I do not know. Existing legislation covers dwellinghouses and therefore it is not news to say that it covers dwellinghouses. Existing legislation provides exemption in relation to business dwellings and I should like to know what good reason the Minister has for not providing some exemption in relation to business premises or else spelling out that compensation should be paid.

It seems to me that as many landlords will avail of every opportunity to avoid their responsibility for paying compensation, the obligation to pay the compensation should rest on the Dubin Corporation, if at their behest a building is being evacuated and demolished, and that thereafter the Corporation would have the right to recover the compensation paid from the owner. In most cases the Corporation will have no difficulty in recovering the compensation because many, if not most, of the sites which carry dangerous buildings would be valuable sites if they were completely cleared and in many cases they would be more valuable than if they had derelict buildings on them. It would seem desirable that where small shopkeepers have won certain rights by reason of their long stay, compensation should be paid.

The section dealing with quarries and other dangerous places is to be welcomed. I understand the reason for it is to provide local authorities with power to deal with dangerous places which are not adjoining public roadways or places of public access. Up to now the legal excuse has been that people were trespassing in crossing private property where there was a quarry or an excavation away from the public road, but as unfortunate children suffered in most cases, it was undesirable that we should permit owners of these dangerous places to use the ass of the law, as it were, to ride away from their own responsibilities.

It strikes me, however, the Minister is not going far enough. I can see endless arguments in certain places as to what constitutes a dump. The extent to which a place would be used for the deposit of rubbish might determine whether or not it was a dump. One problem which arises in Dublin and, I am sure, elsewhere and of which the Minister must be aware, is the location of places surrounding cities and towns for depositing old motorcar bodies. If ever there was a dangerous place, a place where old motorcars are deposited is certainly an invitation to danger for children. There have been several accidents with children suffering serious disfigurement or the amputation of limbs as a result of playing around old motorcars.

In some cases there may only be one or two cars, say, on the side of the road or on some piece of ground adjoining the side of the road. If the local authority endeavour to remove these structures from ground adjoining a road, they may well be faced with a notice and with an effort to stop them because it was not a dump within the meaning of the Act. The Minister should try to spell out more clearly the kind of place he has in mind so that any place in which dangerous rubbish, including motorcars, is deposited will be regarded as a dump.

Again in Dublin city there are many private laneways, laneways which give access to the rear of houses and which have not been taken in charge by Dublin Corporation because they are not regarded as being of general public utility but simply of private utility. In some cases, these laneways may lead to as many as 50 or more houses. Many of the laneways have become most objectionable depositories of domestic and other rubbish and, as Deputy Dunne has mentioned, are often infested by vermin of many types. It is desirable that some provision should be inserted in the definition section which will allow Dublin Corporation or any other local authority to clear up such objectionable places.

There are also many cases in which some private gardens, particularly gardens where the boundary walls or fences are broken down, are being used as dumps either by the inhabitants or the adjoining occupiers. I am doubtful if the definition, as broad as the Minister has tried to make it, will cover private gardens in cities. It may well be it does but it is not clear enough.

There is reference to reservoirs, ponds and streams but there is no reference to a canal. There are many cases, certainly in Dublin, where the canal is used as a dump more than any pond or stream. It is desirable that the Minister would include a provision in this Bill to permit the local authority to take action in relation to a canal, if that should be necessary, because I do not think CIE, who are custodians of the Grand Canal in Dublin, are taking adequate steps to prevent the canal being a danger.

Passing along by the canal yesterday between Rialto and James's Harbour, I counted, as I was passing within the speed limit of 30 miles per hour, some four derelict cars parked either in the canal or on the bank and several children from the adjoining Dublin Corporation flats were passing in and out of them. The Bill as drafted would not allow the Dublin Corporation to take action to clear away these derelict cars from that or any other stretch of the Grand Canal, but if somebody happened to turf these cars half a mile down the road into the Camac stream, apparently Dublin Corporation would have the power to remove them. It seems unnecessary and undesirable not to include canals in this general definition section and I should hope the Minister would have second thoughts on the matter during the debate on this Bill.

Before I conclude, there are a few sections of the Bill to which I would ask the Minister to give consideration. I have already mentioned the difficulty which may face him in relation to ownership of dangerous buildings because he is restricting the definition of ownership, or perhaps it is that section 6 of the 1890 Act will still apply in relation to dangerous structures. If so, that is satisfactory enough in relation to dangerous structures, but he requires that the sanitary authority in relation to a dangerous place shall serve notice on the owner. The difficulty may arise in relation to some of these dangerous sites or dangerous places that the owner may not be easily ascertainable Section 2 (3) reads:—

Whenever a sanitary authority give a notice under this section to any person, the authority shall, within seven days after giving the notice to the person, post a copy of the notice at or near the place to which it relates.

I should like the Minister to provide that where the ownership of the property cannot be ascertained by reasonable inquiry, to use his own phraseology from section 3, that notice shall be deemed to have been given by the insertion of a notice in the newspapers circulating in the locality or by posting it at or near the place to which it relates.

Many of the problems faced by the local authorities arise by reason of the difficulty in ascertaining owners; sometimes indeed owners possibly are uncertain as to whether or not they own the property. In order to avoid any further undue delay in regard to the problem of dangerous places, I suggest a section such as that should be put in. If the question of compensation arises and the owner is unknown, there is ample machinery to allow payment of a suitable amount into court or into some other fund which would be reserved until ownership has been established.

In section 3, I notice that Dublin Corporation are apparently endeavouring to run away from the obligation which now lies on them to serve notice on occupiers in relation to dangerous buildings. I can see difficulties in serving notice on owners when they are not known, but I cannot see any undue difficulty in serving a notice in relation to dangerous buildings on occupiers. The people are either there or they are not, and I should be very suspicious about the way in which the section would be used if a local authority could give as an excuse that they made reasonable inquiries but were unable to ascertain the occupiers. There again, rather than allow the local authority to avoid responsibility by such an escape clause, it ought to be provided that where the name of the occupier was in doubt a notice be affixed to the premises in question or to any part of the premises.

Section 3 (1) (a) gives belated recognition to the fact that it is possible to divide a building into parts, stating what parts are dangerous and what parts are not. It is satisfactory to have this division of buildings spelled out in this Bill. In relation to section 3 (3) which requires that Dublin Corporation may specify that the works should be commenced forthwith and that they should also be carried out in accordance with such conditions, if any, specified in the notice, that will work satisfactorily only if Dublin Corporation are a little more co-operative than they have been in the past and take the trouble to specify in detail what works they need done, and not leave owners, occupiers and others in doubt day after day about what needs to be done. What has arisen in the past is that the work has been done and has been found not to be to the satisfaction of Dublin Corporation and it has to be done again. If they would only give written, detailed notice of what was required in the first instance, many of the difficulties would not have arisen.

Section 3, subsection 10, will have to impose mandatory obligations on the local authority to provide living accommodation. I think it will also have to provide for compensation to be paid where living accommodation is not offered. That compensation clause must also include compensation for owners of businesses who themselves have not been in default.

Section 5 says that the decision of the district court under this section shall be final and unappealable. That is most undesirable. What we are providing is that Dublin Corporation may serve notice without testing its validity or fairness. They can serve a notice requiring things to be done. If a person is aggrieved by the notice, he may move to have it set aside in the district court. I am aware of the manner in which district courts work and of the burden of business imposed on them at any time. I am acutely aware of the particular burden and stress of business in relation to dangerous buildings imposed on them at present in the present atmosphere of crisis and alarm. I am not entirely satisfied that you will get an absolutely objective verdict in such an atmosphere.

I do not think it desirable that we should say that matters should not be appealable from the district court. I can certainly see that it might be desirable to impose limits on the time in which an appeal can be taken and that we might say it should be taken within seven days, but I think we should not allow the matter to be determined beyond yea or nea in the district courts. That is no reflection on these courts or on the capacity of the justices trying to reach a fair verdict but we must be realistic about this, and we should not make it possible for a situation to arise in which the atmosphere of crisis and alarm makes an objective verdict difficult to get, particularly where there is a conflict of expert evidence.

If you have a dangerous building inspector from Dublin Corporation who may not be a qualified engineer or architect giving evidence and on the other side, a qualified engineer or architect and the justice finds in favour of the unqualified person, I think it not unreasonable to say there should be another tribunal to review the matter. Therefore, I think it not unreasonable to suggest the Minister should take another look at this section.

Section 15 does not go far enough. It does not allow the serving of notice on persons in receipt of rents or profits in substitution for the owner. On that account I think the Minister should amend it.

The section dealing with the abstraction of water from ESB reservoirs does not call for comment, except to say that it is a great tribute to the Fine Gael Party that we have so many such reservoirs arising out of the electrification scheme, because if other people had had their way, there would not be so many places for the benefit of the water or electricity consumers. We are only too glad to see the great national asset that has been built up by dams and reservoirs being used by the people in a way that might not have been contemplated at the time the Electricity Act was going through.

Mr. Timmons

I want to say a word in relation to the contribution by Deputy Ryan. I had not intended to intervene but it is only right that I should say something regarding the attack that he has again made on the Corporation of Dublin. He has suggested that the Corporation neglected the Dublin housing problem for 15 years. I have been a member of the Corporation for longer than that period and I know that a section was specially set up there, known as the Dangerous Buildings Section. It was staffed by responsible officers and every request made not alone from sanitary inspectors in various areas but by public representatives was always investigated and appropriate action taken where necessary.

I resent this sniping, from the protection of the House, against those who cannot defend themselves. Deputy Ryan sniped at his own colleagues some time ago in Dublin Corporation and it is typical of him that he should indulge in these tactics. I do not think it a very responsible way of dealing with public matters. An inquiry was set up by the Minister for Local Government following the unfortunate occurrence 12 months ago and that inquiry took several days to examine the issues. I attended and heard evidence there. I was struck by the honest, forthright manner in which Corporation officials tendered their evidence. The inquiry justified their whole administration. Deputy Ryan is a member of the Corporation but he did not offer to give evidence. He has been a member of the House for a number of years prior to this but he did not offer to give evidence and charge the Corporation with neglecting their duties. Indeed, he was strangely silent about housing matters. I suppose this was because of his knowledge that a number of years ago when his Party formed the Government, they went out of office in a bewildering situation where housing was concerned.

Mr. Ryan

1,500 houses per year; 270 houses under your regime. That is a big difference.

Mr. Timmons

The housing programme then had to fold up for lack of proper administrative and financial provisions by the Government the Deputy supported. He has attacked people and sniped from protected and privileged places at people who cannot defend themselves. The Corporation have had a very persistent problem in dealing with the whole city. The evidence today shows that most of the structures that were condemned as unfit or in dangerous condition are scheduled or earmarked for re-development. At the time the Corporation had no option but to attack the dangerous buildings problem as they did. The steps they have taken will ensure that no more dangerous structures will be permitted to stand in the city. It is not correct to say that Corporation officials go into court and seek complete demolition of houses and premises. I know from my own experience and observation that they do not insist on complete demolition. In Parnell Street and other streets around the centre of the city that are mostly affected by dangerous buildings operations, you find numerous shops still doing business while the rest of the premises have been removed.

Mr. Ryan

But the orders permit full demolition. That is the point. The landlords have used them.

Mr. Timmons

The Deputy is making false and exaggerated statements here and elsewhere.

Mr. Ryan

I know the law and Deputy Timmons does not.

Mr. Timmons

I regard this measure as being helpful to local authorities and particularly to Dublin Corporation with regard to dangerous buildings. The Minister says he regards section 3 as giving power to the local authorities pending the new Housing Bill and it is to be welcomed for that reason, but I think he might have made provision for the small traders who are put out of business overnight, due to their premises being found unsafe. If it is not possible to make provision for compensation in this measure, I hope he will make some such provision in the new housing legislation.

I also welcome the provision regarding quarries. There has been a series of tragedies to many citizens down through the years, not only in outlying areas but also in built-up areas. The Bill gives power to local authorities to take control of the private interests involved.

Mr. Treacy

I realise that the time for this debate is limited and I will not detain the House any longer than is necessary. We welcome this Bill for the reason that it proposes to give local authorities the necessary power to safeguard the lives of people from the dangers of such places as are specified in it. At the same time, I am concerned as to whether local authorities will avail of the Bill or whether they may feel they have not enough money to implement its very desirable provisions. We have all heard from time to time of the tragedies, the loss of life involved in these cases, quarries, ponds, reservoirs, streams and dumps all over the country. We are perturbed about the unsightly and dangerous buildings in our cities and towns. These are a heritage that have come down to us and many parties and personalities must take responsibility for them.

It was disconcerting to me to learn that once the resources of a quarry have been worked out, the quarry does not seem to be the responsibility of anybody. In this respect local authorities would seem, in the main, to be the people who utilise these quarries, sand pits and gravel pits. It is to the discredit of these authorities that so many of these places are left in such a dangerous condition. It seems to me that having utilised the resources of these places, the local authorities were satisfied to honour their agreements with the owners and pull out without making such places safe.

In this Bill vast powers are being conferred on local authorities to ensure that the ordinary citizen shall comply with the law but I want to pose the question to the Minister: what steps is he taking under this Bill to ensure that the local authorities themselves will honour their obligations and discharge their responsibilities in respect of the many things which are objected to and which we seek to remedy. I contend that local authorities have themselves been guilty of dereliction of duty in regard to the manner in which they left these places. We all know that county councils have left quarries open and dangerous to the lives of the sheep and cattle of the farmer on whose lands the quarry is situated and also to human life.

With regard to the dangerous buildings and sites referred to in the measure, I am also concerned that again the local authorities are, in the main, responsible for the condition of these buildings. We have in our towns and cities many State and local authority buildings which are in a dilapidated condition. In most of our bigger towns and cities, we have old derelict barracks handed down from the British regime which are now in a dangerous state. These buildings would seem to be in the ownership of certain State Departments, Defence, Finance or Local Government, as the case may be, and these Departments seem to be doing nothing to renovate or demolish these old and unsightly buildings.

General MacEoin

Public monuments

Mr. Treacy

We have many ancient buildings and monuments in our country and again the Board of Works or whichever body is responsible appears to be unwilling to take them over. Many of them are in a state of disrepair and decay and are dangerous to people going near them, especially children, with their tendency to climb. Before we prescribe what the general public should do with regard to their property, it behoves this House to say to these State Departments that they should have a look at their property and satisfy themselves that they have no dangerous quarries, dumps, reservoirs, streams or buildings. Then perhaps we would be giving a good example to owners of private property.

The permission to be sought by the ESB under this Bill is another welcome provision. Talking about the ESB, I would appeal to the Minister to do what he can to ensure that overhead transmission lines cease to be spreadeagled over the country. These cables should be underground. They are so unsightly they should be eliminated altogether from the landscape.

I appreciate the difficulty of dealing with condemned dwellings. One has to be virtually standing on the door-step when the last piece of furniture goes out in order to board up the building to prevent another tenant or a squatter going in. Squatting is quite a common practice. I appeal to the Minister to have a look at the legislation in regard to that and do what he can to assist local authorities in gaining possession of these condemned houses out of which they are rehousing people. A more expeditious way of coping with the situation is required.

Local authorities in many cases have not as yet carried out the housing survey, an obligation placed upon them by the Minister some years ago. Many local authorities are themselves responsible for the shocking state of affairs in relation to condemned buildings and derelict sites. They have been dealing with this problem in a haphazard manner, despite the admonitions of the Department of Local Government. The position now is that there is a rotten core of derelict buildings and sites with tragic loss of life on occasions. Had the Minister had the responsibility, I am sure he would long ago have rectified this sorry situation.

Local authorities should have been assisted before now to carry out repairs. They have power under section 19 of the Housing Act but this was a cumbersome piece of legislation and very little availed of. Problems of maintenance arose and most local authorities abandoned altogether the idea of invoking section 19 where landlords failed to keep houses in a habitable condition. The repair grants have been helpful in preserving many houses. Indeed, in the absence of these grants, I shudder to think what the situation might be.

Another problem is that created by the removal of people out to the perimeter of cities and towns, leaving derelict sites in the heart of these towns and cities. Business people complain bitterly about the loss of revenue. Main streets and other streets have been allowed to fall into decay with unsightly buildings and derelict spaces a chronic eyesore. The Minister must take cognisance of this quite serious problem.

I trust local authorities will implement this measure as quickly as possible. Pretty strict provisions make it possible to bring private citizens to book. Local authorities must also be held responsible. Where we make demands on people in regard to houses or quarries, or anything else, strict justice demands that compensation should be paid. I have been perturbed hearing about so many people dispossessed of their property and their business without any compensation being paid. That is a callous and patently unfair attitude. People who are deprived of a means of livelihood should be compensated for that loss. I and my Party welcome this Bill. If it results in the saving of even one life, it will have been well worthwhile.

Mr. Clinton

It may be said that this Bill has certain shortcomings and defects, but, at the same time, it is only fair to say that it is a Bill that should be welcomed in so far as it is designed to remove the more serious dangers and hazards which exist and have existed for quite a number of years. There are certain things I do not quite understand. The Bill refers to the "authority" and to the "sanitary authority". I do not know what is meant. In County Dublin, is the county council the sanitary authority? The health inspectors are under the health authority. Sewerage and water are under the county council. I am at a loss to know who is really responsible under this Bill. I assume it is the county council because in every effort we made to remove the dangers, within the existing law, it was the county council which acted. I assume that, while it is the sanitary authority that is specified in this Bill, it is the county council that is meant.

In that regard, I should like the Minister to specify whether or not "the authority" means the members of the authority or the manager, in relation to the actions that must be taken and the decisions which must be made under this Bill because I think that is fairly important. Very often the members of a local authority have a local knowledge regarding the dangers which may exist in a particular area that certainly is much more intimate than the knowledge the manager or his officials can have. If the power lies in their hands, action will be taken. They are the people who have to face the ratepayers and in such cases are prepared to face them.

For years, there has been an extraordinary danger in County Dublin in regard to which I pressed the Minister some considerable time ago to introduce legislation to deal with it. I refer to the danger involved in quarries, rivers and canals. Incidentally, canals are not mentioned in the Bill. Another Deputy has drawn attention to that matter. My personal opinion is that town planning legislation with retrospective application would be more appropriate for dealing with these hazards. I see no reason why this should not be made a planning responsibility because most of the dangers which exist at the present time are a result of the fact that the town planning authority permitted the development of communities around these dangerous places and while these places were not at all dangerous when they were part of the countryside they have now become serious hazards and we have had no power to deal with them. It was considered that there was sufficient power under the Derelict Sites Act, which has proved to be completely erroneous.

It was not to be expected that we would come up against people so unreasonable as to prevent the local authority from going in and filling, at enormous expense, quarries that have claimed the lives of a number of children. It was inconceivable to me as a human being but it is quite obvious that there are extraordinary people in the world and that exceptional measures are needed when we meet such people in order to safeguard society.

The existing law, as I know it, gave power only to fence adequately a quarry that bounded the roadside. It was very difficult to know exactly where the application of that law began and ended because a quarry might be only a very short distance from the road while it could be said that it did not adjoin the road.

If a community is allowed to develop in an area it is an impossibility to keep children from crossing fields and getting into dangerous places. I am very pleased that this Bill seems to give fairly adequate powers to the local authority.

However, the Bill falls short in this respect, that, as I read it, it does not give the local authority power to move in as an emergency measure and fence off the dangerous place. A child may be lost in a quarry today. The local authority should be empowered on that day or the following day without notice, without recourse to the law, to walk in and fence adequately such a hazard, at least at their own expense.

I regret that it is a defect in the Bill that canals are not mentioned. Neither are seaside cliffs mentioned. A number of lives have been lost over seaside cliffs in the Dublin region and these should be included among the hazards covered in the Bill.

Dumps are mentioned where they constitute a hazard. It is very difficult to define where a dump may be a dangerous place. What is meant in that respect? Is it a danger to health? Is it a danger to life and limb? Somebody referred to objects such as old cars, tins, bottles and all the rest that may be in a dump. Is that the type of danger that is envisaged or is it a health danger? I have in mind a dump in a private developer's area which has given Dublin County Council considerable trouble for a number of years and with which we appear to have inadequate power to deal. It is difficult to get a county medical officer to go out and to say that there is a real danger to health involved when everybody is convinced that it is a rat infested dump in which there are old motor cars and tins containing paint and other material. All this material is allowed to mount up until the dump is a positive nuisance and an eyesore. Then, when all the pressure is brought to bear, the developer, feeling that he must move at that stage, makes some effort to clean it up but not a genuine effort; the dumping is allowed to continue and the hazard remains.

I should like matters of that sort to be cleared up in the Bill. I should like to see danger defined. It is all right to put a phrase into the Bill but it is extremely difficult to get the officers of the local authority to say definitely and categorically, in the knowledge that they have the law behind them, that a danger exists and they have the power to insist that it is removed.

That is probably all I have to say in relation to quarries and rivers and that type of danger. Adequate protection should be provided. I am concerned about the fact that the authority can move in and do this work and decide the amount of contribution they will require from the owner of the property. That is a serious provision. How is that to be calculated? There should be some specification about this because in many cases the owners of dangerous quarries might have become the owners through accident rather than design. As Deputy Treacy has said, if one were to go back far enough, one might find that it was the local authorities who used the materials from these quarries to build houses and roads in the past and have been responsible for their existence. It is not quite fair to leave it to the authority to decide the contribution to be made by the owner.

Again, who is the authority? Is it to be left to the manager to decide what will be expected as a fair contribution from the owner of the property or can the owner say to the local authority: "If you want that much money from me, I consider that the game is not worth the candle and you can have the lot"? If that is the position, fair enough, that is all right, and the property owner is sufficiently safeguarded in this respect but I think it could result in a great deal of confusion and perhaps in hardship if there were an unreasonable approach to this question.

Dangerous buildings do not concern me very much as a local representative, but I have heard the concern expressed in relation to the total demolition of certain houses. I am entirely in favour of total demolition. I would hate to see the top taken off a house and the shop portion left. That could not be regarded as the proper way of using expensive city sites. But, having said that, I say there should be no attempt to remove a small shopkeeper until adequate alternative accommodation is provided for him and until he is generously compensated. This is the cause of very great hardship and upset to many families in Dublin at present. The same applies in the case of dwellings which have to be vacated because they are dangerous. I know families who have been in dwellings for the best part of their lives, where it broke their hearts to have to break up the home. They are removed, and I am afraid there is an effort being made to remove them without having reasonable accommodation to offer them. That is deplorable.

Deputy Ryan deplored the fact that this legislation appears to remove from health authorities the obligation of providing night shelter accommodation for those removed from dangerous buildings. I have a very definite view about this. I think it is completely wrong that a health authority, which has no housing function whatever and has no means of providing houses, should be obliged to provide night shelter accommodation on behalf of the housing authority that has failed in its obligations to its own people. It is altogether wrong to throw the onus from the housing authority to the health authority, and then comment adversely on the adequacy of the temporary accommodation provided in such circumstances. In that instance the health authority is being turned into a housing authority. If temporary night shelter accommodation is needed, and it is not a question of sickness or the normal type of vagrant but merely a question of the occupants of these houses being thrown out on the street, it is an obligation which rightly belongs to the housing authority and should be left with it.

This is a piece of legislation long overdue. I have been disappointed for a long time that no adequate powers were sought to deal with these dangers and remove them. It is unfortunate that we must first have a serious accident history before this type of legislation is introduced. In so far as it deals with the dangers constituted by canals, quarries, dumps, seaside cliffs and so on, I should like to see it passed through the Oireachtas with all possible speed.

General MacEoin

Deputy Clinton is a bit optimistic if he thinks this Bill will measure up to all his requirements. All the important sections are permissive only; they are not mandatory at all. Sections 2, 3, and 4 begin by saying the sanitary authority "may". Deputy Treacy rightly asked if this Bill will be adopted by local authorities. Whom do we mean by local authorities: the county manager or the elected representatives? Will this Bill be a reserved function of the county manager? The Minister has not told us exactly where this power will lie.

The local authority or the sanitary authority may serve notice. Does that mean they can select various properties and ignore others in the same council area? We know that the Corporations in Dublin, Limerick and Cork are very substantial landlords themselves. I know well that all their property is not as fit as it might be. Are they going to take action against themselves? This Bill does not say any such thing. It says they may if they think fit.

On the question of dangerous quarries, everybody agrees that protection for youngsters is absolutely essential. It is a terrible outrage that houses should be allowed to exist in such a condition that they fell down and caused the deaths of innocent people. Again, we are not told if they were the property of landlords and, if so, what action was taken. The whole question is bristling with difficulty. Can we not admit that the dereliction of many houses in Dublin was due to the fact that the landlords were looked on as public enemy No. 1? Any man who was a landlord was regarded almost as being a public enemy. When Deputy Ryan referred to rents and profits, he could have stopped at the word "rents" because the profits were not of a very substantial nature in a great number of cases.

Therefore, I am not at all happy about the whole situation, nor do I consider that this Bill will meet the requirements of the various authorities or of the people. I am also disturbed about the question of compensation. It does appear that a dangerous building may be declared derelict or it may be declared necessary for street widening purposes and then compensation is paid, but if the local authority sees fit, it may declare the building although it is required for street widening, to be a dangerous building and say that it must come down and then no compensation will be paid. I want to know where we are going to go with this type of administration.

I know of a person who came to this city from the country, a person who rendered valuable service to the country in 1920-21 and who then opposed the new State when it was established and has a service certificate for 1922, 1923 and 1924 as well as for the years from 1917, 1918, 1919 and 1920. This person, a lady, bought a house which the Corporation took over and agreed to pay £800 compensation but then the lady got a bill for £1,100 for demolition and she owed the Corporation £300 instead of having a house. I do not know how that type of equity can be justified. I hold no brief for this person but I was shocked to learn that a person can legitimately own property today and then find the next day that instead of having property worth £800—that was the Corporation's figure which I do not accept as reasonable—he owes the Corporation £300. That seems to be unreasonable on the face of it and I cannot understand it. The Minister is aware of the case and I am mentioning it because of the dangers that are apparently inherent in administration such as this.

When Deputy Treacy was speaking I interjected the words "public monuments". I do not want to develop that point but there are Departments such as the Board of Works, Defence and others who have dangerous buildings. Apparently they can have these unsightly buildings as long as they want to and I suppose the best we can do is have them as monuments. I will leave it at that. In my opinion, this Bill will not serve the purpose for which it is alleged it is intended. The Government can say: "We have done something about this; we have passed this Bill", and then the inference is that everything will be all right. I hope it will but I am not too happy about it.

Mr. Blaney

We have had a wide variety of views on this Bill, ranging from those who really welcome it and think it will do more than I expect it to do down to the extreme view of the last speaker who thinks it will not do very much at all. I shall deal first with the points raised by Deputy Jones. He wanted to know why the sanitary authority is named rather than the local authority. The primary reason, without going into any other reason, is that the sanitary authority is used to keep in line with the Public Health (Sanitary Services) Acts of which this Bill is really an extension. In that context I would refer the House to Section 23 of this Bill which indicates that this is really an extension of existing laws running over a number of years and is not and should not be regarded as an entity in itself.

Deputy Jones also referred to the Public Health Act, 1907 and other speakers also mentioned matters related to this as well. Some speakers held that the 1907 Act and other Acts were capable of doing all that is proposed to be done here and asked why did we need this Bill at all. The first and really worthwhile difference is that in dealing with dangerous places, power existed only in so far as they were dangerous places along the public way or abutting on the public way. Dangerous buildings inside private property could not be dealt with, as we found out very recently in very definite terms.

So far as the terms of this Bill are concerned, there is that material difference, that it sets out to remedy a situation which we know exists in so far as dangerous places on private property are concerned which were not covered by existing law, whether the 1907 Health Act or any other law. If the introductory remarks I made are adverted to, it will be even clearer what is intended in this Bill additional to what exists at the moment.

Deputy Jones also expressed the fear, which was almost taken up by a chorus of others, that the proposed power in this Bill may be availed of by landlords to get rid of their tenants. That, to my mind, immediately brings into play the belief that there would be connivance between the local authority and these unscrupulous landlords, that the landlord would deliberately allow his property to become run down and then approach his local authority who, willy-nilly, would condemn the property so that he could clear the tenants out and then exploit as he wished what might be a very valuable and well-located site. I do not go along with that type of reasoning.

If we are to have any regard for the local authority, any regard for them as reasonable people—and surely we must have in view of all the powers vested in them—we cannot reasonably take this view that they will deliberately let themselves be used by unscrupulous people who would wish to use the provisions of this Bill to suit their own purposes. That is something we should not countenance.

However, that is certainly not my outlook and if it were, I would not propose to give these powers to any local authority but would proceed forthwith to abolish, one by one, all local authorities. There may be reasons why in certain cases members of local authorities may not be all we would wish them to be but no group of people in any walk of life is perfect in this or any other country. There might not be much in them as individuals but collectively a local authority has, I believe, great worth and a capacity to get to the centre of its problems in a way that can surprise one.

Mr. Jones

I did not intend to convey that impression. I regret that, but the occasion may be used by an individual to allow his property to become——

Mr. Blaney

In other words, if something happens of which he can avail, he will take advantage. He will do that anyway. We cannot possibly legislate for the wide boys. There is an odd one who will get away with it but, generally speaking, they do not get away with it for very long.

Deputy Jones also mentioned section 29 and other sections of the 1931 Housing Act. These sections are not being interfered with and we are not taking away any powers in this Bill that existed under that Act. Therefore, the Deputy need not worry that anything is being done in this Bill to weaken the resolve of local authorities to get rid of slums. It is not the intention there should be any lessening of effort on the part of local authorities to wipe out the last slum, of which unfortunately there are far too many both in the large and small towns throughout the country.

Deputy Dunne was anxious to know what the definition of a dangerous place was and whether "a dump", as we commonly call it, which may be a danger to health comes within the powers proposed in this measure. Dangers to health do not come within this enactment. Rather should they be dealt with under the existing legislation in the general public health code. It could well be that a dump might be a physical danger. If that is so, there is no reason why the provisions of this Bill should not be applied to it. If a dangerous quarry can be fenced off, a dump which can be said to be a physical danger can also be fenced off.

What we should remember about dumps is that 99 times out of 100 they are located in particular places for the convenience of the public, and are usually in the ownership of the local authority, who, as has been said here earlier, should be very diligent about ensuring that their property, under this enactment or any other enactment, is dealt with in an exemplary way and that they should not seek to have private persons do in respect of their property what the local authority is not prepared to do in respect of public property. That is something to which I fully subscribe and where it can be pointed out to me that a local authority is not doing its duty. I should certainly take issue with it immediately on this or any other matter within its jurisdiction.

Deputy Dunne and others mentioned the canal and inquired whether or not it could be dealt with under this enactment as a dangerous place. If any part of the canal were considered to be a danger, there is no reason why it should not be protected, certainly its most dangerous parts where a number of lives have been lost one year after another. The fact that it happens to be the canal does not prevent the Dublin Corporation or any other local authority from dealing with it in the same way as they would deal with my property or that of any other Deputy. In so far as it is dangerous to life and limb, it can be dealt with, the most dangerous parts of it, particularly, can be dealt with under this enactment. However, whether the whole length of the canal could be so regarded and fenced off on both sides for its entire length is a different matter altogether and one about which we should like to hear a little more.

Deputy Sherwin was anxious to know whether or not any of the proposed powers in this measure would enable the sanitary authority to require the owner to carry out works to prevent a building from being in a dangerous condition or being a dangerous structure. This may be done and if the owner does not comply, the local sanitary authority may, on application to the court, be authorised to do these works. The Deputy mentioned "habitable condition". While "habitable" has not been used in the context of the measure before us, it is only fair to say that where a dwelling is regarded as dangerous, and suitable action is taken to leave it in a non-dangerous condition, then I take it it could be regarded as habitable, more so than it was before the repair was carried out.

Deputy Ryan referred to the procedure in regard to finding the owner, stating that in some cases it would be difficult, if not impossible, to find him. I would be with him there but for the fact that under section 18, subsection (1) (b), I think we deal with it fairly satisfactorily. There is also subsection (2) of that section which provides that notice may be served by affixing to the dangerous structure a notice. Where an owner cannot be ascertained by reasonable inquiry, the notice may be given by posting it at or near the place or structure.

Deputy Treacy mentioned the problem of re-occupation of condemned houses. That is a problem to which a solution is proposed in this Bill by which the local authority generally will be enabled to prevent re-occupation. That is something which was long needed, and I should like to see it in operation, because I believe that if we had this power vested in local authorities over the years, we would not have reached the point recently of having so many people in so many extremely bad buildings which were dangerous to the point of falling down. It is probably true that if the history of all our dangerous buildings were examined so far as their function as dwellings is concerned, in the great majority of cases, it would be found that subsidies have been paid for the clearance of those same buildings in some year or another in the past 20 or 30 years. But in one way or another tenants have crept back into them and are now creating the problem which has arisen because of their present condition.

Deputy MacEoin mentioned particularly the lack of obligation on the local authority to do anything in respect of their own property under this Bill. I feel they will do what is necessary themselves, but if they are loth to do it and at the same time, require others to do it, I should be glad to be made aware of such local authorities so that we might investigate the complaint further.

Deputy Clinton thought that owners of dangerous quarries and such places should not be left, as it were, to the mercy of the local county manager to determine on his own the amount of contribution that might be demanded from an owner in respect of any work carried out on his property. I do not think that fear will have much reality or that there is any great danger of widespread abuse through managers making undue demands on quarry-owners, particularly as each manager usually has a number of local elected representatives who have no inhibitions about letting him know what they think of his decisions and of himself. If back-scratching in local authorities has succeeded to the point where managers can do what they want to do without criticism then we would certainly need to change the whole local administration code. I do not believe back-scratching has become such a national pastime with our local authorities and certainly if it did, or appeared to be reaching that point, I as Minister would be very quick to take action to ensure that would no longer be an occupation that was attractive either to officials or elected members.

Several members mentioned small shopkeepers and I have an amendment which will probably go down in the rough form in which I have it. I have been in consultation with a number of local authorities, particularly Dublin Corporation, to get their views on it, with the result that I have not had it in time to insert it in the Bill, but in all probability, I shall have it down for Committee Stage. If the House are prepared to give me the Committee Stage today, I shall be prepared to undertake to have the section to which the amendment relates recommitted on Report Stage.

I am aware of the problem created by these people. I see it clearly and I should like to ensure that something could be done for them. One thing that I think is overlooked to a large extent, is that where there has been an evacuation of population, as often happens—because if you have one house falling down, it is probable that the whole street is in somewhat the same condition—taking down the building to the ground floor and leaving the shop might seem to be in most cases quite satisfactory, but if you have taken away all the people under this or some other enactment, you have removed from that area the source of livelihood for the shopkeeper, even though you have left him the shop.

The amendment sought by Deputies and which I shall probably produce takes cognisance only of shopkeepers who have been removed entirely and I am still rather puzzled as to what the situation should be in regard to the shopkeeper who is left in the first storey of his premises, which is safe enough, but everybody else is gone. It will not do him much good, even if he is left in possession of the last storey. That is a problem on which members of the House might have some helpful suggestions to make and it is as much of a problem as is the removal of the premises in which the small shop exists.

Deputy Ryan, among other things, mentioned panic legislation. I would not agree with him. I agree this is legislation that was needed for some time but that does not put it into the panic category, nor do I agree that it should be put there. Deputy Ryan was also concerned about the 1931 Housing Act and I gathered from what he said he feared we may be tampering with some of the powers contained therein. That is not the case.

Mr. Ryan

I was suggesting we might incorporate in this Bill the legal presumption that a house is in tenantable condition or that there is an obligation on the landlord to keep it in that way.

Mr. Blaney

What we do or do not do here does not take away from the obligations of the landlord under the law that already exists, particularly as we are not attempting to remove any part of that legislation.

Mr. Ryan

There will be a big question for decision elsewhere.

Mr. Blaney

If there are views on this held by members who have had particular experience, particularly legal people who have been dealing with such matters over the years, I should be glad to hear from them, not necessarily in this debate but privately or otherwise, so that I might remedy any defects that may now exist under the new Housing Bill. There is still time to do that without upsetting it in any way and I invite members who may hold views on that aspect of the matter to let me have these views as soon as convenient to them.

Deputy O'Higgins raised a matter rather far removed from the immediate terms of this Bill but it was so smoothly brought in that I do not think anyone could have ruled it out of order. It was the question of re-opening the matter of the compensation paid by the ESB to the families removed from the valley at Valleymount now covered by water. He said that while the people who were removed did get compensation, there were many asides overlooked and that people who formerly could walk across the valley now have to go around to get to the Churches and schools and are so put to extra inconvenience and cost.

I have heard something about this but I think it is being pursued with another Department at the moment so there is nothing I wish to say about it, except that the suggestion that I should consider extending section 4 to cover this and other such matters is one that I am not inclined to accept.

Deputy Dunne says that law advisers differ greatly in their interpretations. If they did not do that, there would not be so many of them. They do give different interpretations and nobody knows that better than the lawyers who are members of this House. One of our difficulties is that the legal advisers who seem to be the exception in certain interpretations would appear to recur all the time. If any of them happens to take an exceptional interpretation from one Act, you will find the same people making exceptions of themselves in interpretations of other measures also.

All I can say about this is that the legal advisers of local authorities are there to interpret the law. They are employed by the local authorities and surely they should have regard to the wishes of the local authorities and to the spirit of the law they are interpreting. They should first and foremost have allegiance to the local authority, and instead of standing up and pointing out the pitfalls in the way of doing certain things, they should set about finding out the way in which these things can be done. They should do that instead of standing up at the council meetings and saying: "You cannot do this".

That is the reason why the various differences arise that give so much trouble to our local authorities and put them out of line with each other so that while ten of them will do a thing in a certain way without any upheaval, the legal adviser of the eleventh body will tell them that they cannot do it in that way. If they spent themselves a little bit more in the direction of those who employ them, a great lot of the difficulties caused by different interpretations would disappear. I hope this will be so and I merely put it on record as my own view as to how some of these difficulties might be got over without breaking the law.

That is about all I have to say on the Bill except that in so far as the small shopkeepers are concerned, we have an amendment which we are bringing forward on a later stage. In case I might have any change of mind about that, it would be as well for me to indicate to Deputies that it would be well for them to put something in. At the moment my intention is that an amendment in that regard should be brought to the House and that it will deal, as far as is reasonable, with the cases of these people.

The three matters dealt with in the Bill are fairly urgent. They are all necessary and have been sought, desired and asked for by members of this House and of local authorities. If there are any parts of the Bill that are not clear and if members think they could be improved by amendments, I will be glad to hear from them. So far as I am concerned, this Bill has been gone through carefully and we are satisfied that the three main points we wish to cover are covered in it. I hope the House will deal with the Bill as expeditiously as possible.

Question put and agreed to.

Committee Stage ordered for Wednesday, 17th June, 1964.