Before we proceed with this section, I should like to have a matter clarified by the Chair. I understand that amendment No. 64 to section 55, in the names of members of the Labour Party, was being moved by Deputy Cluskey and, for some extraordinary reason, the Leas-Cheann Comhairle did not allow him to move it. I should be glad if you, Sir, would let me know what was the basis for that ruling or what exactly did the Leas-Cheann Comhairle intend.
Housing Bill, 1965: Committee Stage (Resumed).
Question again proposed: "That section 55 stand part of the Bill."
Amendments Nos. 60 to 64 were not moved.
There may be a misunderstanding. I arrived here only a few minutes after these two amendments came up and I was under the impression that they had been discussed with other amendments. I gather from Deputy Tully that such is not the case. Deputy Cluskey may have been somewhat misled—not deliberately, of course—by the Chair's reference to the effect that they had been discussed with other amendments, but that, if he wanted to refer to them, he could do so on the section. It was, however, the genuine intention of Deputy Cluskey to move them.
I have no doubt the Leas-Cheann Comhairle acted in accordance with the procedure and in accordance with what happened.
May I say that, when Deputy Cluskey sought to move the amendments, the Leas-Cheann Comhairle said to him: "The Deputy may discuss this amendment on the section." Those were, I think, his exact words.
Amendments Nos. 58 and 62 were discussed together.
That is where the difficulty occurs. The ruling now is that amendments Nos. 64, 65 and 66——
He said 58 and 62, as far as I remember.
I am advised that when the Leas-Cheann Comhairle called No. 64, nobody moved it.
That is not right. Deputy Cluskey rose.
It is a misunderstanding.
This is where the error occurred. No. 62 was discussed with a previous amendment and I asked the Leas-Cheann Comhairle if it would be in order to talk on it when we reached the end, even though it had not been adverted to during the discussion. The Leas-Cheann Comhairle said that was so. I went to my lunch and I asked Deputy Cluskey to look after that amendment and the others, if they came on. Apparently there was a misunderstanding on the part of the Leas-Cheann Comhairle about this, because Deputy Cluskey stood to move the amendment and was told he could not do so. That is extraordinary.
I am advised that when amendment No. 64 was called nobody stood to move it.
If Deputy Clinton were here, he could corroborate what we are saying.
Surely it is on record.
This is something we should not let go. An amendment was put down and a Member of the House said he stood to move the amendment and was refused permission to do so. I do not know who said otherwise but he says he rose and members present know that he rose. The leader of the Labour Party is also present and he also said he saw it happen. In the circumstances it would not be right to have this matter ruled out.
I am advised nobody moved the amendment.
amendment and the Leas-Cheann
I rose to move the Comhairle told me that I could speak on the section.
That is quite right. The Deputy may speak on the section.
I agree, but the impression created was that I was not in order in moving the amendment.
My advice is that nobody asked to move the amendment.
That is wrong. It can be checked. It is not so far back.
We are still on the section.
As we are still on the section, can we not go back to the amendment by agreement and stop all the argument? As long as we have not passed the section, we are entitled to do it. I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary does not want to take advantage of the situation.
It was a genuine mistake.
We are on the same section. There is no difficulty in going back.
The best way out would be to move the amendment on Report.
My recollection is that Deputy Cluskey did offer to move the amendment. I have not been here all the morning and I know some of the amendments were discussed with other sections, but I know that he did offer to move the amendment and the Leas-Cheann Comhairle said there was no necessity for him to do so. If we could get back to the amendment by agreement, I think it would be the best way out.
I suggest the Deputy put in the amendment on the Report Stage. It will avoid an awkward situation.
Surely there is no awkward situation if we are still on the section? If we have not passed the section to which this is an amendment and the House unanimously agrees that the amendment should be taken now, I do not see what awkwardness there is.
There is still an awkwardness.
I cannot see it.
Suppose the Deputy moving the amendment wishes to have a vote on the amendment, if he is only allowed to discuss it on the section, he can only have a vote on the section.
I have suggested the Deputy move it on Report Stage.
Nos. 58 and 62?
Nos. 58 and 62 were taken together. I was in the Chair at the time.
That is correct.
They were related.
Deputy Cluskey remained here without lunch for the purpose of moving the amendment in question and stood up to move it. I cannot see how, in these circumstances, it can be ruled that it is not in order. If somebody makes a mistake, surely we should be able to alter that? We have not moved from the section.
Every Deputy present in the House admits the fact that I stood to move the amendment and was told by the Chair I was not in order.
I am still advised that Deputy Cluskey rose to discuss No. 62 and the Leas-Cheann Comhairle told him that No. 62 had been disposed of with No. 58.
Deputy Clinton is present now.
There is no use in producing evidence of this kind.
We are only appealing to reasonableness. May I, through the Chair, ask Deputy Clinton whether Deputy Cluskey was advised he could not move No. 64 but could take it up on the section?
I think Deputy Cluskey was confused. He was told he could speak on the section in regard to this amendment or all of the amendments, but it was not indicated to him that the amendment would be ruled out of order because he did not move it.
When I rose to move the amendment, I was told I could speak on the section as well, but it was implied that I was not in order in moving the amendment.
Nobody will be injured if my suggestion is adopted, to move the amendment on Report Stage.
The only objection I have to that procedure is that what is suggested in this amendment will have a vital effect on other sections of the Bill and we shall have to ask you to agree to the recommittal of quite a number of other sections, if the matter is dealt with in this way. We are still on the section and I would ask one ruling from the Chair: if a section is being discussed and a member of the House stands up to discuss the amendment, is it not normally taken, as soon as he stands up to discuss the amendment, that he is moving the amendment? He does not have to move it formally.
And he did not say: "I withdraw it."
No. He did not withdraw it.
Why not allow the amendment to be moved now?
I am not anxious to establish a precedent. A precedent is a very dangerous thing to establish.
When I came in, a member of the Fine Gael Party was speaking on this section. According to the records, I was the first person from this Party to speak on the section. Therefore, was I not moving this amendment and how can anybody say I was not?
The motion before the House is "That section 55 stand part of the Bill." I cannot go back on that.
If it is possible to correct this in some way, I would appeal to you to do it because I know Deputy Cluskey was confused, and he was confused by the Chair, not deliberately, I am sure.
Deputies must understand I am not doubting what they say, but I have been advised in a certain direction, that certain action has been taken. I am not anxious to establish a precedent that could appear at a most awkward time.
Surely it is most unfair that I should be penalised and my Party's amendment be thrown overboard because we bowed to the Chair's ruling.
That is how I am advised as to what happened to Deputy Cluskey. I am advised he did not move the amendment.
Members of the Government Party, members of the Fine Gael Party and members of the Labour Party were present.
Am I to take it the Chair is taking information from people other than Members of the House and saying that Members are not telling the truth?
I have made myself clear on that. I am not saying Deputies are not telling the truth but I have been given advice by those who are officially present.
We are officially present.
There is one thing I do not understand and perhaps the Chair might explain this to me.
We are now discussing section 55. I was here the whole morning while the discussion was going on, except for a short period when I went to lunch, and during that period, only one amendment was dealt with. When I came back the discussion was still going on and how can it be said that there was nobody to move the amendment?
I did not say nobody moved the amendment. Nobody did move it.
Deputy Cluskey stood up——
I was ruled out of order.
I am told that when amendment No. 62 was disposed of, he was told he could not speak on that, that it had been already disposed of and that he did not offer at all.
Is it not clear that the Leas-Cheann Comhairle thought he was dealing with No. 62 when it was No. 64?
As soon as the Leas-Cheann Comhairle said "No. 64", he immediately said "withdrawn", and at that stage Deputy Cluskey rose to speak on amendment No. 64 and the Leas-Cheann Comhairle intervened to say: "You cannot do it; you can talk on the section."
How can an amendment be withdrawn if it is not moved?
I am advised it is not withdrawn.
The Leas-Cheann Comhairle said "withdrawn".
"Not moved" is the term; it is quite a different thing.
I actually stood and spoke on it. It is in the Dáil records.
I will have to put the question "That section 55 stand part of the Bill."
The only thing we can do is ask to have this recommitted.
I suggested that to the Deputy.
Yes, but it means that it will be very awkward. It is most unfair that this sort of ruling should be given and that the time of the House should be wasted because somebody made a mistake and there is no machinery to correct it without going all round the world.
I do not know to whom that comment is directed but it is not my duty to create precedents which are undesirable.
Surely it is the Chair's responsibility to see that justice is done and it has been quite clearly indicated that I stood to move the amendment and got, not deliberately, an incorrect ruling.
It is my responsibility to see that Standing Orders are carried out.
This is something that will have to be dealt with because it is obviously making a farce of this House if a member's amendment cannot be dealt with. If it were a ministerial amendment, I am quite sure the Minister——
I think that remark should not be made.
——the Minister would be the very person who would agree——
No slur should be cast on the Chair.
No slur is being cast on the Chair. No matter who makes a mistake, he should be made rectify it. As far as the section is concerned, we believe quite a number of things have been left out of it and in order to make it workable, some of the things which we suggested should be included. One of the things is in regard to the question of staff. We believe there is no possibility of carrying out the terms of legislation if the local authority, or the manager, who is in fact the local authority, is allowed to say that he has not got the necessary staff to do the job. If he puts two men to do a job which requires ten men, the job will not be done and the terms of the legislation will have to be shelved until the manager gets staff. This can be remedied by including this amendment which unfortunately has now been ruled out of order.
Question put and agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
I move amendment No. 65:
Before section 56, to insert a new section as follows:
(1) A housing authority may, by resolution, decide to provide such and so many houses (or building sites) as may be specified in the resolution, in any area or within a specified time and the manager of a housing authority shall give effect to any resolution passed under this section.
(2) If it appears to the manager of a housing authority that the number of houses (or building sites) proposed to be provided pursuant to a resolution passed under this section, in any area, is insufficient, he shall make due provision for such additional houses and shall inform the members of the housing authority accordingly.
It may seem rather peculiar that subsection (2) has been inserted in this amendment. It asks the county manager to do something if the members of the local authority have not decided to do it, but we believe that if the right to prepare a housing scheme is placed on the shoulders of the elected representatives, then the necessary number of houses will be proposed, and we believe that the way to have this done is to include this in the Bill. If we do not do it that way, the county manager may decide to build a much smaller number than necessary. It is the same with building sites. When acquiring sites, it is often extremely difficult to persuade the county manager that the number of sites which the local authority members believe are required are in fact required. We are asking that the authority to decide to acquire the sites should be given to the elected members of the local authority.
As I said earlier today, the members of the local authority are the people who have to strike the rate and they are the people on whom responsibility for financing a scheme will fall and not the county manager. For that reason, it is only right that they should have the necessary power to ask that that be done. It should be done within an area and within a specified time because very often we find county managers saying: "Right; we are prepared to do something about housing", but unless there is a time laid down, the county managers can say: "Well, we are doing something about it and we will have a report for the next meeting", and that becomes the next meeting and the next meeting and so on, and so the months pass. In such cases we usually accuse the Department of Local Government of instructing the county manager to stall.
If the members of the local authority can insist on a scheme being carried out within a specified time, we believe this position will be solved and the Minister will not be attacked as often as he is at local authority level. We also believe that if, as occasionally happens, the manager of a housing authority has not made provision for sufficient houses, and if for any reason he decides to increase the number, then before doing anything about it he should notify the local authority members and tell them the position. Have I to move amendment No. 66 now?
I should like to support this amendment. My experience as a public representative over the past ten years has been that the estimate by the manager of the housing needs in the various areas has always shown itself to be completely inadequate. Where that estimate was taken out of the hands of the manager and where the Department decided that even his estimate was wrong, their own estimate was totally wrong and in every case in which we come to allocate houses, we find we have about half enough houses for the applicants seeking them.
We should not be afraid to place this responsibility on the elected representatives. They have to meet the people. If they do not know what the housing needs are in a particular area, they should; and if they are in contact with the people, they are more likely to know than anybody else, managers or the Department. As Deputy Tully says, if they do something foolish they have to meet the rate-payers and explain it. The more responsibility you give the elected representatives, the more healthy will be local government because the representatives will take an interest in what is being done and will do it responsibly. They will select their priorities as it should be done.
This underestimation of housing has involved local authorities in considerable extra costs because whereas they could have covered housing needs in one bite, it sometimes takes three bites to meet the needs. We are not asking for something to which we are not entitled when we say public representatives should be given this power and authority and that it should be written into legislation because a public official will always exercise excessive caution and decide to have a smaller number rather than too large a number.
I take it that amendments Nos. 65, 68 and 69 are being taken together? They seem to be related.
This is what caused the confusion before.
I do not think it was that alone. If the Deputy mentions one amendment and discusses it with other amendments, the other amendments after No. 65 may be divided on, if the Deputy wishes.
Except that we cannot talk about them on the section on which they arise. They arise on different sections.
Amendments Nos. 65, 68 and 69 seem to be related.
But they are on different sections.
I know; but the subject matter of the amendments may be discussed.
I would not agree that Nos. 65 and 68 have any relation.
If the Deputy disagrees, that is all right. Then we may take Nos. 65 and 69 together.
No, but Nos. 68 and 69 together.
Very well.
Which amendment are we on?
No. 65 only.
I cannot say to any great extent that I have not sympathy with the views expressed by the two Deputies who spoke to this amendment but I suggest that I want some time to consider not only section 56 but I might say section 55 to see whether or not we might be able generally, or to some degree, to meet the points of view expressed. It may well be that it could be determined by amending section 55 rather than by amending section 56. It could be either or both but I should like to have some more time. We had actually been working on this before we reached it, my advisers and I, and we have not got to a clear determination ourselves. That is why I am suggesting that while it is being considered, this is all I can say, but I have sympathy with the views expressed; otherwise, it would not be considered. We are considering it now; we have been doing so for some time but we are not in a position in which I could say yes or no at this stage. I shall give it further consideration but that is not to be taken as meaning that I shall ultimately agree to it. That is the unfortunate thing about the amendment at the moment. I am looking at its impact in relation to section 56. Having looked at it, it may well be that the same intention, to some extent at any rate, can be achieved more readily by amending section 55. I cannot promise anything at this stage.
We shall facilitate the Minister. If he is prepared to give consideration to it, we are willing to withdraw it. Nobody can accuse the Minister of rushing the House with this Bill. Perhaps in future it would be a good idea when we hear of a Bill to send amendments to the Minister in advance.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I should say in fairness to myself that the manner in which the amendments were received left much to be desired in regard to the time we got them. They have been coming in in such a way that there was one occasion when, if we had reached certain amendments, we did not have them at the time and nobody knew they were on the way.
That was last week and you have had a week in the meantime. The Minister spoke about section 56. Is it suggested that he is also prepared to look at amendment No. 66 since we are withdrawing amendment No. 65?
I am considering amending section 56 and will continue that consideration to a conclusion.
I move amendment No. 66:
In page 38, between lines 42 and 43, to add a new subsection as follows:
"(3) In this section, `temporary dwelling' includes a caravan."
I was under the impression the Minister was also prepared to consider amendment No. 66 which simply says that a temporary dwelling includes a caravan. That does not need spelling out because I think you have a section about caravans. While it may take a long time under system building or what-have-you to erect the necessary number of dwellings, an urgent necessity may arise to provide some type of temporary dwellings and we suggest a caravan is the ideal way. If the Minister is prepared to consider it and see if he can do something further about it, I am prepared to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment No. 66 to section 56?
Yes.
The inclusion of the word or saying that this includes a caravan is completely and absolutely unnecessary. It is included as the section stands which is read as meaning caravans and other such forms of temporary dwellings.
Is the Minister sure that every local authority accepts that ruling?
Do not ask me to go further than saying what I accept myself. Even at that it is difficult at times to know what one is accepting but, to ask me to stand over what local authorities accept, particularly if this is dictated by the advice of their legal advisers, is just not reasonable.
The Minister has excluded certain caravans——
But I have not excluded them as temporary dwellings for the purposes of this section.
The Minister assured the House——
I take it that amendment No. 66 is actually moved?
Yes. There must be something wrong with the acoustics of this House. I said I was moving No. 66 five minutes ago.
Section 56 says:
A housing authority may erect, acquire, purchase, convert or reconstruct, lease or otherwise provide dwellings (including houses, flats, maisonettes and hostels) and such dwellings may be temporary or permanent.
If the Minister considered it necessary to specify the things which are specified, why did he not include caravans there? Nobody would have any doubt that he meant a house. Otherwise, the section should not be there. It refers to flats, maisonettes and hostels. Why should the word "carvan" not be included or why should the Minister say that it is meant to be there, that we are bound to hold that it is there, whereas he has specified flats and every type of dwelling except a carvan? Perhaps the Minister would enlighten me on that point?
It we cared to, we could knock out all the words in brackets, if that would relieve the Deputy's mind.
It would be much better.
The only difference is that it gives no seal of approval in this case to caravans which are only second best so far as dwellings are concerned. This could be said to be one of the reasons why carvans are not specifically mentioned but I am saying that they are in fact included and that the amendment is not necessary and that in so far as interpretation is concerned, no matter what we do here, it can be challenged in the courts and interpreted ultimately, if necessary, by the Supreme Court. Nobody in this House can with certainty give an interpretation of proposed legislation that he knows will be accepted by everybody. In fact, he cannot always give it in the certainty that it is correct. To the best of my ability and on the best advice available to me, I give it that this does include caravans but as to what persons in various local authorities may say, I cannot account for them. Nobody else can.
The Minister can remedy it by putting in the word "caravan". If he does not do that, the officials and members of a local authority may very reasonably say that the Minister when framing the section included everything except a caravan. The Minister must realise that somebody has slipped up and the only remedy is to include the word "caravan". The Minister has referred to the interpretation of the Act. Unfortunately— I hate to mention this again—we have had the experience of the Town Planning Act. It has been accepted that a certain thing is meant by the Act. Many of us have grave doubts. The result is that when others got the job of interpreting it, it was interpreted as we interpreted it, not as the Minister interpreted it.
It was the bad example you set.
Possibly, I do not intend to do it again. The way to avoid doing it is to ensure that the word is included in the Bill. If this section stands, I am quite sure that most county managers will say that caravans are specifically excluded because the other types of dwelling are specifically included. That would be a perfectly reasonable comment to make. I am quite sure that the courts would interpret the section as it is worded. That being so and particularly in view of the fact that the Minister so far has excluded caravans—what he told us the other day may eventually alter the position——
Excluded them from what?
Everything.
No; that is not what I told the House.
The Minister said he intended to include them for grants.
I said I had already made a decision including them for subsidy.
Yes.
And that I had already made the decision, not that I was going to.
That you had already made it, but nobody knew about it until you mentioned it in the House.
I said that you were hearing it for the first time but the decision was already made.
Up to the time this decision was made by the Minister, the local authorities assumed that caravans were excluded. Is it not reasonable that we should ask him to ensure that it does not happen again?
Why should they have assumed it?
They did. The Minister is well aware that until he made the statement the other day, his Department also assumed that it was so. The Minister may shake his head but it is true that his senior officials gave as the ruling that caravans were not entitled to subsidy.
It depends on the standard of the caravan and it still does, just as a house depends on its standard for subsidy.
The caravans were first-class caravans costing a lot more than the Minister or I would be prepared to pay for one.
You can say that again.
The caravans were being used by local authorities to house people who were badly in need of housing. The Minister's officials said that caravans are not entitled to subsidy. The Minister has changed that and I thank him for it. It was a good idea.
I did not have to change the wording of any law to do it.
The Minister did not have to change the law but because of the fact that he has specifically mentioned all other types of dwellings in the section——
I have not.
Maybe the Minister will tell me what others could be included?
Tents and houseboats are two others you might include.
They are items that nobody would dream of considering in relation to subsidy.
Houseboats are a luxury, not a necessity.
Tents could not be called a luxury.
What about caravans?
The ones the tinkers use on the road—some of them are pretty good—and the ones that local authorities are buying to substitute for houses not yet built—these are the two types. The Minister knows as well as I that there is no reason, except cussedness, why caravans should be excluded.
If the Deputy wants to be cussed, I can match that at any time.
I would not accuse the Minister of that.
Would you include caravans under "maisonettes"?
No.
We did.
That is what could be called dodging the issue.
That is how you solve a problem.
Do not ask me to condone it.
The Minister must appreciate that this amendment was not put down just for fun. It was put down because the Deputy has experienced difficulty in his local authority. We have all experienced the same difficulty. The manager or his law agent will say that it is not written into the Act. I have protested on numerous occasions. I said that the Minister was on record as having said something. The answer I got was that what the Minister said is not law. If it is not written into the Act, the law agent and the county manager, who were not present when it was said, are concerned only with what is in the Act. If it is not there, they will take it as being excluded. They will say that it is significant that all the other things are mentioned and this is not. They will act accordingly and will refuse to acknowledge that a caravan should be included.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Question proposed: "That section 56 stand part of the Bill".
I just want to make an inquiry. Subsection (2) says:
A housing authority may, in connection with dwellings provided, to be provided or which in the opinion of the authority will in the future require to be provided under this Act, provide and, if they think fit, maintain in good order and repair roads, shops, playgrounds, places of recreation, parks, allotments, open spaces, sites for places of worship, factories, schools, offices and other buildings or land and such other works or services, as will, in the opinion of the authority, serve a beneficial purpose either in connection with the requirements of the persons for whom the dwellings are provided or in connection with the requirements of those persons and of other persons.
Does this include health centres and libraries? These two are not mentioned in the list, which is a fairly complete one. I do not know why these items have been left out. I am very pleased that the other things are included but I do not want to have communities built and no space for public services which should be located in the centre of them. Local authorities should have the right and power to reserve an area of ground to accommodate a health centre and a library.
The purpose of the section is to cover that difficulty and the obvious mistakes of the past when houses were provided and no great planning went into the thought of the future as far as community needs and centres were concerned. This subsection is intended to cover everything and anything which may be considered by a local authority so that they may take these things into account in their planning and make provision for them. It is intended that they should take into account all these things in their composite plan and they may provide centres for these things which it is their obligation to provide but for which they might not plan. The whole idea is that we should try to avoid the erection of groups of houses in which no proper provision has been made for buildings that are a necessary part of a neighbourhood community and a necessary service to the houses so provided. As matters stand, quite a number of good housing estates are far short of these things and this subsection is intended to embrace anything that is useful and necessary and that goes to the makeup of neighbourhood facilities.
I think the Minister is attempting, in this subsection, to do something that needs to be done but I think the mistake is being made that by listing a certain number of things, he is highlighting a number of things not included in that list. If we do not include a certain number of things, people outside will quickly spot the ones that are missing. I am prepared to agree that the Minister is now making an approach to the problem I have in mind.
There is one other matter which the Minister may like to look at. A situation arose recently in Slane, County Meath, where a housing site was acquired and built on. Some space was left over and the local authority decided that it would take a further 12 houses. The matter went to the Department for sanction, and it ended up with the Department deciding that all they would allow to be built on that space were four houses, and that trees and open spaces would take up the remainder. Now, Slane is a village in the open plain with plenty of open space around it. Why should the Department decide that a proposal that had been agreed to 12 months before should not be accepted by them now? They have decided that only four houses will be built and that the remainder of the space will be devoted to fancy walks and trees.
This section may be misused by people in the manner in which the Department has misused the section at the present time so the Minister would want to be very careful about it. The provision of open spaces in built-up areas is essential but to say that in the country districts people who need houses cannot get them because there must be open spaces between them is going too far. That aspect of the matter is one which will have to be dealt with.
I think the Minister will agree that there is known to the common law the doctrine of exclusion. If a statute purports to set out a list of permitted things, the courts will hold that inasmuch as there is such a list and a specific purpose is not listed, then the Oireachtas intended to exclude it. For that reason, some words might be added to the section designed to obviate the doctrine of exclusion in this context.
I think Deputy Dillon has put the point clearly. The fact that we give a list of particular matters may automatically exclude matters equally as important. Does the Minister see any objection to including these two well-known public services, libraries and health services, in his list? We require these two services in every built-up area.
Would the Minister consider adding the words "Or such other public purpose as the Minister may approve"?
The fact is that the whole second half of subsection (2) is saying just that, except that it is not being left to the discretion of the Minister. It is being left to the opinion and decision of the local authority and ultimately, the discretion of the Minister. It is this omnibus second part of the subsection that we can rely on to cover all the things which, in the opinion of a local authority, will provide a beneficial purpose. It may well be that local authorities cannot now visualise things that will be possible in the future. This Act will be in operation for years and there are things in the times ahead for which none of us would now think it proper to provide. There may be some things, now regarded as being out of our reach, that in future years could be provided for.
The second part of subsection (2) gives us that out: no matter how long the proposed law here lasts and no matter how times or circumstances may change, the local authority's opinion as of that time will be the operative factor and will be up with the times, no matter what the time is. The suggestion that we have not provided a sufficient list is shortsighted because no matter what list we provided, we would omit certain things which might not be even foreseen now. It is better to have the subsection as it is because the last paragraph gives umbrella coverage. It highlights the obvious list and gives umbrella coverage thereafter.
I think the subsection adequately covers the point.
I had hoped it would.
Can we take it that if an area of land is not available for purchase by a local authority, they can proceed to a compulsory purchase order for the acquisition of that land?
Yes.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 57.
I move amendment No. 67:
In page 38, line 48, to delete "housing" and insert "building".
This, as is quite obvious, is a drafting amendment. The purpose is to substitute the word "building" for the word "housing" to ensure consistency as between one part of the section and another. It means that and nothing more.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 57, as amended, agreed to.
Amendment No. 69.
We have not dealt with amendment No. 68.
Amendment No. 68.
Amendment No. 68.
I suggest something like that happened before and it caused a schemozzle.
I assure the Deputy it did not.
NEW SECTION.
I move amendment No. 68:
Before section 58, to insert a new section as follows:
"A housing authority may, by resolution, direct a county manager to acquire, on behalf of the authority, from time to time, a minimum number of building sites in such urban and non-municipal town areas as may be specified in the resolution and the manager shall comply with such direction."
The reason for this is again very obvious and does not need very much explanation. It requests the Minister to include in the Bill permission for elected members of a local authority to require a county manager to do certain things, if they pass a resolution to that effect. What they may require him to do is to acquire on behalf of the authority from time to time a minimum number of building sites in such urban and non-municipal areas as may be specified in the resolution.
The main reason for this is that at the present time, again because of the Planning Act, an extraordinary situation is building up in towns throughout the country. The manager and planning officers keep telling people, who are not farmers, who apply for permission to build in the country district, if they are on a main or arterial road, that they cannot build because the building would be a traffic hazard. If the applicant goes elsewhere, he is told he cannot build there because water and sewerage facilities are not available. If the person asks what he should do, he is told he should go into a town or village where both water and sewerage are available. When the person goes into the town or village to attempt to purchase a site, he finds that all the sites within the towns and villages have been acquired during the past few months by a few clever individuals who knew what was coming along and who have been studying the law or, better still, the local interpretation of the law, and have acquired all the sites and are now selling them at colossal profit.
The local authorities should be able to acquire sites not just for their own needs and not just now but well in advance of needs so as to ensure that this sort of thing cannot continue to happen. The purpose of the amendment does not require very much more explanation from me.
For what purpose would they acquire the sites?
Either for their own housing needs or for passing on to private individuals. Otherwise, we will have speculators continuing to get hold of practically all the building sites in towns and villages and this will make it impossible for private persons to acquire sites to provide themselves with houses. The only way to prevent this is to allow the local authorities to acquire this land and have it available, both for their own building purposes and as a pool to make available to applicants who want to build houses.
There is a good deal to be said for the amendment. For some time local authorities have known that they are empowered to acquire sites for private building purposes and then to let them or sell them to individuals who want to build their own houses, but the thing is not working as it stands. It is not working because the first thing the manager insists on is a list of names and addresses of people who now wish to build their own houses and to be supplied with serviced sites. There may be four or five or a dozen or 15. The authority then set out to examine the position of those people — their incomes, their residences and all the other inquiries that must be made— and the provision of sites is held up for several months. Perhaps suitable sites were available at the outset but in the meantime some speculator has come on the horizon and deprives a person who wants to build a house as cheaply as possible of a site.
Deputy Tully is right when he says we should be able to anticipate this. We should have an area of land for future needs. Regularly we come across this thing in certain areas and if this facility were available, it is amazing the way people would come forward looking for sites. If they do not know the sites are there, if they think that consideration of their application for a site will take two years, they will be inclined to decide to buy the houses. If the need has to be proved in advance and if all the applicants must be proved to be eligible people, we will get nowhere.
It is a long time since I suggested to local authorities that they should provide these private sites for people who wish to build their own houses on serviced sites or on sites which they are prepared to service out of their own pockets. What Deputy Clinton said has occurred is not according to the law. If the manager gets the names of people who wish to avail of fully serviced sites provided by the council, there is no law which compels him to find out what means these people have, where they come from, and to carry out all this individual investigation. Certainly, it is not of our making; in fact, the reverse is the case. I believe all this will tend, as Deputy Clinton said, to make the process of providing sites—
It would kill the whole idea.
It could do that. It could mean that an interminable time would elapse until the investigation was completed. This is not of our making. It must be some interpretation by the manager and his advisers. He does not have to do it. I do not think he should do it if he is to attain what we have been advocating for so long, that fully serviced private sites should be made available by the local authority.
The amendment seeks to deal with the matter in such a way that the manager can be obliged by resolution of the council to do these things. As the situation now stands, the manager has the power to do them. We have asked managers and councils to do them. Some have been doing something about it; some have done very little; and some have done nothing at all. I do not say it has always been the fault of the managers only. There may be a certain reluctance on the part of councils to go along with their managers on these matters. Likewise, the reverse is also true. Taking it all round, the power is there. It has been operated in cases where there has been co-operation between the manager and his council.
It is also true that managers may be required under the present law to do this sort of thing. The amendment suggests we should make it the law that in every case the local authority should be able to tell the manager what to do; but, with the powers already there, is there much point in this? The only time a manager would refuse to do this would be when it was physically impossible because the sites were not available or services had not been provided. In that event the council could pass a section 4 resolution, but it would be turned down when it came to the Minister. On the other hand, if the only reason for his inaction was merely a reluctance to get on with the job, there is no reason why the section 4 resolution would not be upheld by the Minister. But is there a need for putting this in in all cases when section 4 specifically covers it?
The Minister has made the strongest argument in favour of the amendment. He told us he has been advising local authorities to do this for some time. I am aware of that.
The necessity for this amendment is proved by the Minister's statement that some managers and local authorities have done nothing, some have done a little and some have done quite a lot. The Minister suggests as a solution that the roundabout procedure of section 4 should be employed to do something he himself considers should be done. Is it not the obvious thing to give the power to the local authorities? If the local authorities have the power to pass a resolution compelling the managers to do this, is that not the way to have it done?
The present situation is that local authority members may say all they like but the manager will or will not, according to his own view, attempt to acquire land. I know in my own area of one or two cases where land has been acquired and made available; but I am quite sure, if the elected representatives had the authority, a lot of land would be sought and many other schemes started. Travelling around the country, I am aware of a number of counties where no effort has been made by county managers to do this. In fact, any suggestion made by councillors to have it done has been resisted. We should not have to invoke section 4, and have all the delay and wrangling that involves, before it can be done.
If the Minister is really serious about having sites made available to people to build houses, he should give the authority to the elected representatives to instruct the manager to acquire sites. If the Minister really believes in it, he can do it. If he does not, the best thing he can do is to leave the law as it stands and very little will be done about the provision of these sites.
There is one reason for pinpointing this case as one where section 4 clearly applies and for querying the wisdom of replacing that by this amendment. I did say that, although I had been advocating this for some years, the experience has been that while some people have done quite a bit, others, through the fault of the manager, have not done a great deal. I also said there were some cases where the council members themselves were not blameless and were not going along with their managers in doing these things.
What is the situation, if we accept the amendment and give the power to the elected members? Compare the two situations. At present, the manager has the onus of doing it. If he does not do so, he can be compelled by the council under a section 4 resolution, which is upheld if right is on the side of the council. If we give the initiative to the council, there are some councils which will fall down on the job and the manager has no section 4 that he can invoke. The Minister need not be aware of what is going on and, even if he were, he has no power, short of removing the council from office, a thing he would never do in his own interests. From the overall point of view then, which of the two positions is safer? We are really now thinking in terms of the minority because it is generally the minority which is at fault. Which of the two situations is the more likely to be insoluble: the present one with the section 4 power there, or the council getting the power, the manager being helpless and the Minister without knowledge?
One of the things county managers enjoy is the situation in which there is a need for housing and the local representatives are being pestered by those who require houses, putting on pressure, as they are legitimately entitled to do. The county manager is as solid as a rock. Nobody can touch him. He is appointed by the Minister.
No, no.
He is appointed by the Appointments Commission. We will go into this some other day.
And he is employed by the council and can be removed only at their request.
He is as safe as a house. He does not have to offer himself for election. At the moment councils which are not interested in providing sites are perfectly safe because they can say to those who do not know any better that this is a managerial function and they can do nothing about it. If, however, the onus is put on the elected representatives to provide the sites, the boot will be on the other foot. The Minister need have no doubt about that. The Minister was a county councillor and he knows what the situation is. If people know you can do something legally for them, which you will not do, something to which they are entitled, they will very soon make their voices and, better still, their votes felt. The only way in which to deal with this matter is to put the onus on the elected representatives. There will be no difficulty with those who are anxious to help. In the case of those who are not anxious to help, and who blame the county manager, it will not be very long before they will have to do their job, if they want to remain in public life. I suggest the Minister should look at it from that angle.
I am looking at it from several angles. It is not unknown for councillors in their motions to their councils to exaggerate the need for both houses and sites. I am not accusing Deputy Tully of this—I should not dream of doing so—but Deputy Tully knows instances in which there are really only 20 tenants entitled to houses. Thirty more may be talking about houses but, if you gave them houses, they would probably run away from them. Now it can be very pleasant to propose building 50 houses, a few over the number likely to apply. Councillors can do that quite easily. They will not get 50 because they know each case will be investigated as to need and that need will be established at less than the number they are proposing. But why lose out? Only 20 are justified and ultimately only 20 will be built. Only 20 will be tenanted. There are then 30 allegedly aggrieved people and the councillor who put forward the resolution to build 50 houses is everybody's friend. He tried to get the houses and it is not his fault that they were not built. He had no regard in his calculations as to whether or not 50 houses were justified and he had no regard to the responsibilities of his council. That sort of thing does go on. I know Deputy Tully not only does not participate in that kind of thing but he would not know anything about it. However, it happens in other counties.
The two previous sections I mentioned, sections 55 and 56, also have a bearing, and a very definite bearing, on this, because one has to have regard in one's building programme to the private house building potential in the area and also to the provision of services, to say nothing of the provision of sites. Private building can take on part of the load. That may enter into consideration. I do not throw this out in an effort to get by the amendment or seek to have it withdrawn on any spurious ground.
Does the Minister suggest we should withdraw it and ask to have it recommitted on Report Stage?
A nod is as good as a wink to the Deputy.
The only thing is then we might as well adjourn the debate until Report Stage, the way we are going now. There are three sections, mark you.
If I were not ultra-reasonable, this could not possibly be said. All this is related.
I made that point. In dealing with it in a certain way, we were, in fact, incurring the risk of having to ask for other sections to be recommitted. If the House is prepared to agree, I have no objection to that.
While that is true, I think the Deputy must agree that ultimately it will rest on some one or other of these on the next Stage. A decision will have to be taken on only one. By and large, you will get what we are hoping for and what we want to provide or else you will not. We will be as it were, shelving things, having discussed them fully.
I quite agree.
The discussion will be very useful to me in my further consideration of the matter.
If the Minister introduces amendments on Report Stage which meet our views, we will not have to do anything.
With the interrelationship that exists, it may be that we will not have to reintroduce, discuss, or take decisions separately. A decision on some one may imply a decision the whole way through.
If the House is agreeable to recommittal, if necessary, then I am prepared to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
NEW SECTION.
I move amendment No. 69:
Before section 58, between lines 52 and 53, to insert a new section as follows:
"(1) Whenever in any urban area or in any non-municipal town area (or in any rural housing district defined by the housing authority) the authority has no land suitable for the purposes of sections 56 and 57 of this Act it shall be the duty of the authority to acquire land as soon as possible.
(2) Within one month of the passing of this Act (and thereafter in the months of May and November in each year) the manager of a housing authority shall, in respect of each urban area, non-municipal town area and each rural housing district, report the following particulars to the authority:
(a) the area of land and site capacity,
(b) the number of applicants for houses and sites, and
(c) the number of houses provided by the authority in which more than one family resides."
This, again, is a section which is selfexplanatory. The object should be plain to everybody. We believe it should be possible to have land made available, and if it is not on hands, the necessary action should be taken to ensure it is on hands to carry out what is laid down in the section. I do not want to delay the House by going any further into this question but I should like to hear the Minister's views on it.
Is there any necessity for the amendment? Is it not the position today that local authorities can acquire land?
Do they?
Yes. Here again one must speak from one's own experience. My experience is that we have agreement between the local authority and the manager to acquire land and to give sites to individuals. In my own constituency, there are urban councils that are actually giving development sites to people on application to enable them to build their own houses.
This amendment is related to the previous amendment and if the previous amendment had been allowed, there would be no necessity for this. It is purely a question as to whether or not the manager will do the job he is empowered to do. It has been the experience of many elected representatives that the job is not being adequately done at the moment and that sufficient land is not being bought up in advance. Due to the short-sightedness of managers and, perhaps, Ministers for Local Government over the years, new housing sites are costing an enormous figure. If land is purchased in advance, it is not a liability because it pays for itself in the normal way if it is only being let for a number of years until it is required by the authority. Unless there is some provision which enables the public representatives to take an effective hand in this, it simply will not be done in many cases, and we have no power at the present time to compel the manager to do it. If we are to get on with the provision of sites, both for private building and local authority building, we must give that power to the local representatives. The Minister said he will reconsider the previous amendment, and if he allows that amendment, there is no necessity for this. As he has not said clearly he will accept the previous amendment, it is necessary to push this one.
Previous sections give local authorities the power to erect houses. They cannot provide houses unless they have the land. The natural follow-up is to get the land. If the manager agrees to have houses built, he has to provide the land.
The Parliamentary Secretary has oversimplified the whole thing. I am delighted to hear him saying that everybody who wants a site in County Wicklow can go to the local authority and get it.
I did not say "everybody", I said local authorities within the county.
In every county there may be a local authority that has one or two sites for the building of a dozen or 20 houses, one or two in the whole area. We all know of that. What we want to provide is that where houses are required, the onus should be on every local authority to provide sites, not merely where there happens to be a bit of land available and the local authority get it by accident.
Future needs.
Yes, future needs. At the present time there is not a town in the country where there would not be 20 or 30 people anxious to build their own houses, if sites were available. If these sites are not available, the houses cannot be built and there is no point in talking about one town or one local authority who do this sort of thing. We want to put the onus on all local authorities to do it. If that is done, the thing will run smoothly from there on. I live in Laytown, and in Laytown, there are a number of housing sites. The local authority are building houses on half the sites and they have arranged to give about 20 sites to a local building society who are going to build houses. This is the second time in a period of four or five years that this has happened, but where else in County Meath will we find a similar situation? There are people very anxious to build houses but they cannot get sites.
I referred on the previous amendment to the situation where the "key" boys with the money are buying up, not alone all the sites in a serviced area but, if they can find out the proposed extension of water and sewerage schemes, ordinary grazing land even outside the area where they think the services are going, in the hope that they will be able to turn it into building sites, the only sites on which it will be permissible to build and, by doing that, collect a very big return on what they invest. The question being discussed all over the country is that of ribbon building. We hear many people talking about how undesirable it is to allow ribbon building to continue, that if it is allowed to continue, it will go from one town to another, connecting built-up areas, and so on. Is it not the ideal thing to give the local authority all the power it needs to acquire land adjacent to existing developed areas so that ribbon building can be stopped and the areas behind the existing houses developed?
Let us bring about some sort of order and let us ensure once and for all that the speculator who is stepping in to pick up easy money will get his fingers burnt. Unless we do what is suggested in this and the previous amendments, a number of get-rich-quick boys will be very rich as a result of the Planning Act and this Bill, and the people who want houses will have to do without them or pay fabulous prices for sites. I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary is as much aware of this as I am. Maybe he does not travel through the country as much as I do but I am sure that from his travels and the information he gets in his Department, he is aware of what is happening. This could be nipped in the bud by amending this section.
I think Deputy Tully is advocating a lack of co-operation between the local authority members and the manager.
I do not have to advocate it; it is already there.
Surely every county council in the country has a long-term plan for housing——
They should have.
——and if they have not, it is our business as public representatives to demand that an immediate long-term programme be prepared by the manager. Until such time as a council can say that they asked for a long-term plan to be prepared by the manager and that he refused, I do not think there is any point in asking the Minister. This comes down to the members of the local authorities. It is for them to insist that managers immediately prepare a long-term programme for the building of houses. Until that is done, there is no point in asking the Minister why this or that is not done. It is in the Bill. We in Cork have recently acquired ground on the boundary extension for long-term planning. As Deputy Tully has said, ground at the moment is a very sound investment.
Deputy Wyse misunderstands the amendment. He wants what we want, only he does not want to give us the power. He says that in Cork it is being done but it is being done because the manager is co-operating.
That is right.
The manager has gone ahead with the plans and acquired this land, but if this co-operation does not exist in certain counties, and we know it does not, then it would be wise to give the elected representatives the power to acquire these very necessary sites. We can never decide we are going to proceed with the housing programme unless we have land. Land acquisition is the big problem at all times. It is a waste of time making an assessment of housing needs and preparing a building programme, unless we have this land in reserve.
We know that at present an overall plan is being prepared for every county and we know the direction in which population and development are going, and we should now be able reasonably to anticipate housing needs over a period of years ahead. This acquisition of land should cover ten or 20 years ahead and if it does not, then the building programme cannot go ahead, rapidly or according to an arranged programme. In addition, the cost of houses is going to rocket because the cost of sites is going to rocket because of speculative builders. As Deputy Tully said, they are going to move in in every area likely to become a development area and take advantage of that fact at the right time.
My experience of local authority housing leads me to consider that this is a very important amendment. Half the problem we have in regard to inadequate housing is due to under-building, if I may use that phrase for want of a better one to describe the situation. How is need determined now in accordance with the Act? I cannot talk about the theory but I can talk about the practice. First of all, a councillor proposes that so many houses be built in his area. The figure suggested is then scrutinised by the manager, by his officials and the engineers who will look at the site from the point of view of engineering suitability and apply the most rigorous tests. You would nearly need to have absolute perfection in house sitting to satisfy them. In addition, the county medical officer of health must be satisfied. It often puzzles me what function he has, especially in regard to rural houses. Perhaps he might be remotely concerned with the question of sanitation or the nearness of a water supply.
He is an auxiliary brake.
Yes, another one of these retro-rockets, if the word "rocket" is applicable to local authorities, particularly some of the local authorities I know. All this has the effect of further and further reducing the application of all the rules and regulations about condemned houses, unfit houses, the size of families, the difficulty of housing sub-tenants and of reducing to the barest minimum the number of houses built. I found in the past that invariably the number of houses built in the heel of the hunt was nothing like what was needed to meet the demand.
The Minister says that some councils or some members of councils will exaggerate. I do not think it is possible to exaggerate in this context. When a proposal is first made at local authority level to acquire land for building, a number of applicants are listed by the county council as being in need of houses and all these agencies I have mentioned—the officials, the medical section, the manager himself, the Department and all the rest—come in to reduce the number of sites acquired and eventually, the number of houses built.
The time that elapses between the proposal to acquire land and the eventual physical occupation of a house covers on average a period of not less than two years and in some cases much longer. You may find a family which at the beginning would not have been deemed to have been in urgent need of rehousing, although very often if they are living as sub-tenants in an over-crowded local authority house or cottage, they are in much greater need of rehousing than people who may have a larger family and are living in a house which is in a bad condition. In my experience, the greatest sufferers in this matter are the sub-tenants, the families who are compelled to live on another person's floor. These people suffer more anguish and misery than people who have to live in a hole in the ground because at least the hole in the ground is their own and at least there is only one woman in the house. In Dublin, because of the shortage of houses, you have an impossible situation because in many cases you have more than one woman in the house and this leads to all kinds of unpleasant developments, enmities, hatreds and the inability of people to live in close proximity to one another. Consequently nerves become frayed and all sorts of complications arise.
What I want to say in connection with this amendment is that we should seize on this opportunity in regard to housing legislation because we may not see another such Bill for a long time—indeed, who knows, we may never see another—and we should make it as perfect an instrument as we can—of course there will always be flaws—to ensure that these restraints which now operate to cut housing down to a minimum should be done away with. We will never reach the position in which we have too many houses; that will never arise. It is this preoccupation, which I suppose the civil servants, of necessity, must have with rules and regulations, which has created many of our difficulties in the past. Let us get rid of them now. It is all very fine for the officials, the Department and others concerned, who have not got to mix with the people and who do not feel their pain as public representatives do, to make these regulations which restrict and confine. We should, and the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary also should fashion the Bill so as to put the power of determinating the acquisition of sites in the hands of the elected representatives.
(South Tipperary): The Parliamentary Secretary is fortunate in his constituency in that he is able to get a fair number of serviced sites made available but I cannot say that in my constituency we have been equally successful. I have unsuccessfully tried in one area. There always seems to be a difference of opinion between the official side and the more forward-looking public representatives. We may appreciate the desirability of having in reserve serviced lands and lands which are potentially serviceable, with a view to getting applicants subsequently but the official attitude is that they must have applicants in reserve, and a considerable number of them. Until that situation is reached, they are reluctant to make any effort to provide services for sites. In a particular area which I have in mind, I tried to get a site serviced. Three people had come to me saying that they were very anxious to step in but were precluded from doing so because sites locally were so expensive. If they had to buy a single site and service it, it would be prohibitive in cost, but they pointed out that they would gladly go ahead if they had a local authority serviced site. The local authority, after investigation—I do not know how complete that investigation is—decided there was not sufficient local demand. I could not go out canvassing local demand in such a situation but I am convinced that, had sites been procured and developed, there would have been local demand when they were put on the market. People will not offer themselves for sites they cannot see and which are not ready to inspect, but if a suitable local site is got and serviced, I believe you can sell it to the public.
There is a complete lack of commercial approach on the part of the executive of local authorities in this respect. Very few of them are forward-looking and will say: "Possibly there is not enough demand now but if we can produce serviced sites, we may have five or six people looking for them." They are all reluctant to produce a serviced site, unless a big number come forward. There is much to be said for this amendment and our approach should be to have land in reserve, with a view to getting applicants later and we should not follow too closely the official view point of having applicants in reserve before making a move to provide a serviced site.
I take it that what the Labour Party are seeking is that they should have the right to pass a resolution in a local authority telling the manager to buy 40, 50 or 60 acres, or whatever amount they decide. We realise that if we are to get on with the housing programme, we must have the land to do it and we have already dealt here with the assessment of housing needs and the programme to meet them. Naturally, one cannot have a programme unless one provides the site; otherwise, the whole thing would be a farce.
The big trouble, as I see it, is that members of local authorities may decide to pinpoint a particular piece of land which they think should be acquired for development, for local authority or private housing. It is only reasonable to expect that the site should be acceptable to the officials and suitable for the purpose intended. One must go back to the officials; one cannot get away from them. I do not want to be misunderstood in relation to County Wicklow. It is not true that everyone in Wicklow who wants a site can get it, but there are local authorities in the county who are providing sites and it is the same manager who is concerned, so that the principle is accepted at local authority and official level. I wanted to make clear that it is not a question of getting a serviced site in any part of County Wicklow. Some local authorities have got this facility, and I believe that if the others were prepared to push it, they would get it also, but unfortunately things may be allowed to drift. If we pass a resolution to acquire 50 acres and if it is allowed to drift, it need not be implemented. If we accept the principle that we are planning to provide houses for our people and decide that so many houses are to be built each year, we must have land to build them on. Section 76 of this Bill will give power to acquire land compulsorily for housebuilding. That may or may not meet the points raised by the Labour Party.
I might also mention that this amendment, I think, is tied up with amendments tabled by the Labour Party to some of the previous sections and the Minister has given some indication that he is prepared to look at this aspect of the matter between now and Report Stage and if that relates to one, it will relate to all. It is quite possible that the wishes of the Deputies who have spoken may be met by the Minister if he decides by means of a new section to deal with the problem mentioned in the amendments to section 56 and 57.
It appears that the Parliamentary Secretary has become confused in his amendments. In fact, the amendment he was talking about is the previous one. In this amendment, we are very kind and we are only suggesting that whenever an urban or non-municipal authority has no land suitable for the purposes of sections 56 and 57 of the Bill, it shall be the duty of the authority to acquire land as soon as possible. The authority we understand here would be the elected representatives, but if the previous amendment is not accepted, it means that the manager will acquire.
I am glad the Parliamentary Secretary cleared up the question about Wicklow because I could not understand people all over County Wicklow getting sites for nothing from Wicklow County Council. He has assured us the same situation applies there as in some other counties, that there are local authorities within the county providing this facility and there are others who, because the county manager will not let them——
But it is the same manager. So it must be the local authority representatives who are not pushing it.
I have had sufficient dealings with county managers to know that they operate the system according to what suits the area. If it does not suit them to seek land in a particular area, they will not do it. We are not suggesting it in this amendment, but if we put the onus on the members of the local authority to force the pace and make them do it, then they will have to do it.
There is another question. The Parliamentary Secretary referred to officials having to make the decision because, after all, people could build houses anywhere and the land might not be suitable. What kind of fools does the Parliamentary Secretary think local authority members are? Does he suggest any member of a local authority would suggest that portion of a lake or a hill should be bought which would not be suitable for building purposes? We may come to the point of using houseboats later but we have not reached that yet. That sort of approach is not helpful as far as local authorities are concerned. If members of a local authority suggest the purchase of land in advance of needs, they usually select land that can be used for housing. I have never known them to pick out land that could not be used for housing.
That is a thing most commonly met.
I am not dealing with Wicklow, which may have a peculiar problem. I know very little about Wicklow. It may be quite possible to pick a site there which may not be suitable. Any local authorities that I know do not go out to buy unsuitable land and they would be great fools if they did. The Parliamentary Secretary has suggested that as this is more or less tied up with the previous amendment, we might deal with it in the same way. I am satisfied to withdraw the amendment, if the Minister considers that it would help him, and to have a similar amendment introduced either by the Minister or by us on Report Stage.
There is just one point. The question of lands suitable for building purposes was first raised by Deputy Tully's colleague. The examination of land from the point of view of suitability is standard practice. It is a common occurence that land recommended for building purposes by, perhaps, some representative, to the county manager is found by the engineer to be unsuitable. It may be impossible to service the land or it may be unsuitable for a variety of reasons. That is not something that does not happen. It happens very often—all too often. One of the causes, in Wicklow, of the difficulty in proceeding with the housing programme is that we have not been able to acquire land which, in the opinion of the engineers and other officials, is suitable for building.
That is the trouble.
That is the point I want to make. According to Deputy Tully, this does not enter into it; no member of a local authority will suggest that the land is unsuitable. He may not realise that it is unsuitable.
It will not be bought. The amendment does not suggest that they should buy unsuitable land.
I am not suggesting that it does but the question of unsuitability of land comes into it. It quite often happens that a piece of land that is mentioned at a council meeting as being available is found not to be suitable for the purpose the council have in mind.
I understand the amendment was withdrawn and there cannot be further discussion on it.
I said that I was prepared to withdraw the amendment, but in view of the remarks that have been made, I am having second thoughts. "If the authority has no land suitable"—that is good, plain English. Nobody should misinterpret that. If they have no land suitable "it shall be the duty of the authority to acquire land as soon as possible." I am not suggesting, and nobody would suggest, that either the members of the local authority or the county manager should go out and buy land just because it is land. What we are talking about is suitable land. The Parliamentary Secretary has suggested that if the manager will not do it now he will not do it even after this is passed. Subsection (2) of the amendment says:
Within one month after the passing of this Act (and thereafter in the months of May and November in each year) the manager of a housing authority shall, in respect of each urban area, non-municipal town area and each rural housing district, report the following particulars to the authority:
(a) the area of land and site capacity,
(b) the number of applicants for houses and sites, and
(c) the number of houses provided by the authority in which more than one family resides.
That is the way to deal with it and that is not in the existing Act or in the Bill before the House. What we are trying to do is to tighten it up so that there will be no question of people putting it on the long finger. If that is laid down, the manager must do it, whether he wants to do it or not.
He must do what?
He must report what the situation is and if there is no suitable land available, he must make provision to obtain suitable land.
Is this on request of some councillor?
On request from the council. Perhaps I had better read the whole amendment again?
The Deputy would not be in order in reading the amendment.
If after we have debated it for nearly an hour, the Parliamentary Secretary does not know what is in the amendment, I can hardly be blamed for suggesting that I should read it.
The Chair, under Standing Orders, cannot allow a Deputy to read amendments. It is not in order.
At least, I can move them.
A Deputy may move amendments but he may not read them to the House.
Is that in Standing Orders?
Something should be done about that.
I bow to your ruling, Sir. If the Parliamentary Secretary quotes something that is not in the amendment, am I not in order in asking to be allowed to read the amendment?
The Deputy referred to the county manager as having to report. I am asking to whom has he to report?
To the local authority.
Can he not do that at the moment?
He does not do it.
He will have to do it.
The Parliamentary Secretary said that it was not done, that even if asked to do it, they forget about it, that it was completely ignored. Did the Parliamentary Secretary not say, a few minutes ago, that the reason this was not working under existing legislation was that nobody bothered about it, that it was not pushed? We suggest that if this section is inserted, it will push the county manager to report to the local authority.
The council can push him at the moment.
But they do not.
But they can.
He must do it under the law of the land, if this is passed.
He must do it under the law of the land at the moment.
The Parliamentary Secretary is talking about section 4.
I am not talking about section 4. If I am a member of a public body and I attend a meeting and ask for some information in relation to the availability of land for house building in a village in my county and ask for a report at the next meeting, can he refuse to give it to me? He cannot. I could remove him at very short notice.
How?
By suspending him.
The Minister would reinstate him.
I do not want to foul this up. I suggested a few minutes ago that, if it is tied up with the previous amendment, I have no objection to withdrawing it and, if necessary, we can resubmit it, if it can be resubmitted, on Report Stage.
I think the Minister is delighted with the way this argument is going and the confusion surrounding it. He knows very well what is sought in the amendment. He knows very well that what we want to ensure is that the building programme will not be frustrated because of shortage of land and that there is no point in putting that responsibility on county councils, unless it is given to the elected representatives and unless the onus is placed on somebody to provide the land so that we can proceed with housing, if and when money is available. It gets back all the time to this divided authority as between the elected representatives and the manager. If you can repose this responsibility in one or the other and insist on its being carried out, we will get somewhere. We cannot get anywhere so long as responsibility is divided between the elected representatives and the manager.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 58 agreed to.
Section 59 agreed to.
SECTION 60.
I move amendment No. 70:—
In page 40, between lines 4 and 5, to add new paragraphs as follows:
"(e) the provision of temporary or emergency accommodation for persons rendered homeless due to storm damage, fire damage or eviction;
(f) the provision of reserved accommodation for newly-weds."
It is true that in certain cities and some of the larger towns an effort is made to provide reserve accommodation for those who are rendered homeless by fire or storm damage or eviction. It is not possible in smaller towns to provide such accommodation. We believe that there should be some effort made to have reserve accommodation. One of the worst things that can happen to a family is to be rendered homeless from any of the causes mentioned in the amendment. The Minister should ensure that such accomodation is provided. He can do so easily by inserting a section to that effect in the Bill.
Reserve accommodation is provided for newly-weds to a certain extent in Dublin city. Because of the system adopted, persons who have been married for four years can qualify for accommodation reserved for newly-weds and may be allowed to keep it for a certain time, after which they must surrender possession to somebody else. We believe it should be possible to provide some place which would be only transit accommodation for newly-weds, of only two or three rooms. They could move from this transit accommodation when other accommodation became available. There has been much talk about members of the farming community who do not marry but in the country districts everybody getting married finds he needs rehousing and cannot get it. It should be possible in every local authority area to provide houses in which these people could be accommodated.
I am in complete agreement with paragraph (e) of the amendment which seeks to provide temporary accommodation for people, and I am particularly interested in the case of people who have been evicted for one reason or another or who find themselves on the roadside. We have had rather unpleasant experiences over the past three years in Dublin city in relation to the provision of family-type accommodation for people who have been separated from their wives and families. This particular responsibility has been foisted on to the health authority which has no responsibility for building and that authority has been asked to provide houses for people who are not sick or destitute.
Here we have an amendment seeking to have, in times of emergency, accommodation that will be a family-type of accommodation where the man and his wife and family can live together in a Christian way, but temporary accommodation in the sense that when proper accommodation becomes available, they will be compelled to move into it. How this is to be done it is not easy to say. It will be difficult to do it in the city of Dublin where the arrears are so great and where so many people might attempt to take advantage of such accommodation to get themselves higher up on the priority list or to get cheap houses. However, it is essential that we should have some place other than accommodation which will divide the family. Emergency accommodation of this kind should be included in the Bill.
I am not quite so anxious to support paragraph (f) of the amendment. I find it hard to advocate that newly-weds should be provided with accommodation at a time when we have so many people living in deplorably over-crowded conditions or in unfit houses. We all know that the ideal is to have houses available for newly-weds but it is hard to support such a provision as a priority, as something that should be at all times available in the light of present housing needs.
As I see it, all these points are fully covered in subsection (3) (c) of section 60. That subsection covers both paragraph (e) and paragraph (f) of the amendment in that it says:
The provision of adequate and suitable housing accommodation for persons who, in the opinion of the housing authority are in need and are unable to provide such accommodation from their own resources.
This would without doubt cover those persons rendered homeless by storm, fire damage, eviction and all others without proper houses who would come within the category of need. It is understandable to hear Deputy Clinton say that in present circumstances he would find it difficult to advocate housing priority for newly-weds. This is one of the difficulties which the drawing up of priorities will impose on the elected representatives whose duty it will be to draw them up for the guidance of the manager. Subsection (3) (c) covers the two cases mentioned by Deputy Tully.
I repeat what I have already said once today, that Dublin is not Ireland. If the situation in the area mentioned by Deputy Clinton is as he states it is, that does not mean that the rest of Ireland must fall in line. Where the Minister and, to a certain extent Deputy Clinton, are falling down is that they have not read the amendment properly. The amendment says:
The provision of temporary or emergency accommodation for persons rendered homeless due to fire damage, storm damage or eviction.
and
the provision of reserved accommodation for newly-weds.
What the Minister is referring to is housing. There are certain priorities for rehousing which depend on what is needed in a particular area but I was careful, when moving my amendment, to refer to the fact that it would be necessary to have accommodation available in case of emergency.
In this city, we have a considerable amount of Government and corporation property, barracks, disused hospitals and so on. With the expenditure of a reasonable amount of money, they could be turned into decent family unit accommodation for people who actually need it. That has not been done and is not being done, but if the amendment is accepted, it can be done in future and we can so solve many of our problems. It is easy for officials to say that there is no place to put these people, that they will jump the queue and so on, but if somebody is burned out, is it not the proper thing to put him into temporary accommodation from which he can be removed later? Is that not a sensible suggestion?
It is not sensible, in the circumstances.
There is no other argument against it.
Dublin Corporation have the authority.
With all due respect to Deputy Burke, they are making damn poor use of it.
That is wrong.
So are the rest of you.
It is a very big problem.
We will have another session on it and I am sure Deputy Burke will be able to explain why the corporation have not used all the accommodation they have to house the people who are tramping the streets of Dublin.
That is not fair, at the end of the evening.
There will be another day and I can have a go at the Deputy.
Progress reported; Committee to sit again.