I was explaining the reasons for this amendment when progress was reported last Wednesday.
Private Members' Business. - Housing Bill, 1965: Committee Stage (Resumed).
NEW SECTION.
Debate resumed on the following amendment:
Before section 75 to insert a new section as follows:
"(1) A housing authority may acquire by agreement any land situate within or without their functional area although the area or tract of land offered for sale by auction or by private treaty is in excess of the reasonable requirements of the authority for immediate and further need, and, having reserved sufficient land for immediate and further needs, the housing authority may dispose of any surplus land.
(2) A housing authority may acquire land which is not suitable or convenient for the purposes of this Act provided that the land is acquired with a view to an exchange of that land for suitable land.
(3) The power conferred on a housing authority under this section shall be in addition to their powers to acquire land under section 82 of the Local Government Act, 1946.
(4) This section shall come into operation on the passing of this Act."
—(Deputy James Tully).
If the Deputy wishes, he may discuss Nos. 80 and 81 together, as they seem to be related.
Yes, that was agreed, but I can move only No. 80. I assume No. 81 cannot be moved at this stage because it belongs to a different section. However, in order to avoid confusion, I should like it to be clear that we may speak on No. 81 when it comes to its correct place because, if we may not, we might find ourselves in the same position as we did before.
The amendment is for the purpose of preventing a recurrence of something that happened quite recently in Dublin County Council. Dublin County Council needed a considerable amount of land for housing. The Land Commission acquired an estate near the area. The county council applied to the Land commission for portion of that estate. Within a half mile of the estate, there was a portion of land which was eminently suitable for housing but there was more land on it than was actually required at that time for housing in the area. The advice given by the law agent of the Dublin County Council was as follows:
This land comes under the scope of section 82 of the Local Government Act, 1946, and the section should not give rise to any idea that the council is free to acquire by agreement land for which it has no use for reasonably foreseeable requirements.
He further advised that:
The council must be of opinion that it will require the land in the future for the purpose of its powers and duties, and this opinion must be no mere whim or vague idea but a practical idea based on facts which warrant its formation.
Having been given that opinion, the council were left in the position that they were not able to proceed. However, they asked the Land Commission if they would be prepared to give them a portion of the land which would be suitable. Between the village where the houses were acquired and this land was a narrow strip of land on which trees and scrub were growing, and on the edge of this land was the portion the county council wanted. What did the Land Commission do? They immediately allocated that portion of land which the county council wanted for houses, and they have now created a situation that the council must either take the scrub and trees and try to clear that or, alternatively, the Land Commission must give them land which is a mile further on and which will cost very much more to develop, including the cost of providing water and sewerage facilities.
In order to prevent a recurrence of that, we propose this new section and we believe this will allow local authorities to acquire land which they feel they need for housing, which they may not require immediately but may use over a period of years or, if necessary, they may purchase the land, use what they want of it and dispose of the remainder. We do not think there is anything wrong with that, nor is there any big change suggested in this amendment. As the law stands, it appears the council may not do it and we are suggesting it is desirable that it should be done. Therefore, we are asking that this amendment should be accepted by the Minister.
I am pleased that the Labour Party have put down this amendment, because this problem has arisen in exactly the way that Deputy Tully describes. I personally would have thought, and did think up to that point, that we had power under existing legislation to do what we are pressing should be done in the county council, that we could buy this extra land, and if it was found undesirable to keep all of it, that we could dispose of some of it when we had sufficient for our own needs and when we had picked the most suitable area of it. However, the law agent advised us as Deputy Tully says.
It is quite possible that if another legal opinion were sought the advice might not be the same. There is still some doubt in my mind as to whether that power exists, in spite of what the law agent has said in this case. It may be that the law agent advising a county council feels he has an obligation to keep the members of the council from going mad and from spending far too much of the ratepayers' money. They are not likely to go wrong in that because they have to meet the ratepayers at an early date and will have to answer to them. It will be appreciated that in an area like County Dublin, where there is such a demand for sites, it is extremely difficult to get suitable sites or adequate land for housing. If we are to have houses built there in future with any speed, we must have sites and we must have every possible facility to get those sites.
This is a problem which is likely to arise in many other instances. I know another case in the county where a man has a farm and is prepared willingly to dispose of the entire farm but not of half or less than half of it. Less than half would be sufficient for our needs. Only that area of the farm can be serviced, the remainder being agricultural land which could beneficially be divided among existing conacre holders who would be very pleased to get it. There again the law agent could correct us and say that it could not be done.
It is the second case in which we have pressed for the purchase of the entire farm. If we try for a compulsory purchase order on this, it is unlikely we will succeed because we cannot show that the whole area cannot be serviced and we cannot say we need the remainder urgently. We were there in a position to get what would meet our requirements for some time to come and we would be at liberty to do so under the amendment. We could buy the entire holding and dispose of the part that could not be serviced.
As I have said, we are likely to meet this type of case again and again in County Dublin and in other areas throughout the country. The case cited by Deputy Tully is typical in areas where there is land available but an inadequacy of power, because we must purchase according to our legal advice. Sometimes, as a result, we have to purchase the part of the holding which is least suitable, being much more expensive to service. I advise the Minister to accept the wisdom of the amendment in the interests of getting houses built at reasonable speed when money becomes available.
The amendments, or parts of them, do not, to my mind, appear to propose to do anything very useful or revolutionary. Whatever about the second amendment, there is nothing to the first. I may have missed some specific cases cited before I came in that might answer the doubts and questions in my mind about the first part of one of the amendments. I cannot see a local authority wishing to acquire, by agreement or otherwise, land in excess of their reasonable needs or requirements, when you consider that the overall powers of local authorities will be such that they can acquire land for their own immediate needs, for their programmed and planned needs as to housing in the future, that they can take into account—and indeed are being urged to do so—the necessity to take land for private development, whether in individual site lots or group lots. They can and may provide under our law lands for industry. If you add all these things, surely you cannot see the necessity for local authorities to acquire lands beyond their reasonable requirements for all or any of these things.
The Minister appears to have misunderstood the whole case.
That is quite possible.
Would the Minister mind if I try to clarify it?
If the Deputy thinks he can.
I am sure the Minister has often chosen a pair of shoes. He chooses two shoes, though one of those he has already might do. He must buy two because shoes are sold in pairs, not singly. If a local authority need ten acres of land for building houses but the farm available for sale to them for that purpose contains 15 or 20 acres, you have there your pair of shoes. The farmer will not sell half but he will sell the whole, and if the local authority do not want the whole, he will sell it to somebody else because if he divides it, he will not get as satisfactory a price for it.
Here we have a case where Dublin County Council could have acquired a big farm at a reasonable price, could have used some of that for their housing needs and could have sold the rest to the Land Commission, but the law agent said they could not acquire land beyond their urgent requirements. The Land Commission could acquire it and when the county council asked the Land Commission for a site, they would find the portion had been divided. The Minister may say that does not have a bearing on this case. All we ask in the amendments is that where land becomes available, the local authority should have power to acquire it, use what they need and pass on the remainder by sale or otherwise. It cannot be done now, and as a result building sites are being lost to local authorities.
I shall take the Deputy up on the pair of shoes. Of course I have bought shoes but I have certainly never asked for three shoes and if I did, I would probably be locked up for doing so. Two shoes are one's reasonable requirements if one has the good fortune to have two feet. Three shoes would be more in line with the demand in the first part of the amendment. Getting back to what Deputy Tully has said, I agree that where farms of 15, 16, 17 or 20 acres are concerned, they can be acquired. Any council who abide by their law agent in such circumstances even now cannot have any complaint in this respect. There seems to be something wrong somewhere.
Let us take the case cited of the 260 acres. An official of the council indicated that the requirement of the local authority at the time would be met by approximately seven acres. There is an awful lot of difference between seven and 260 acres.
It was the officials.
Here we go again. You have the officials talking for the council——
Talking for themselves.
——and not corrected by the councillors. I cannot remedy that. I have time and again indicated this should not happen. I do not think the Deputy seriously thinks anybody is really convinced that because an unnamed official of the council says the council need only seven acres and that somebody else says the council should be allowed to buy 260 acres, the official was so seriously wrong.
The 260 acres would have been far too much.
So much for the case cited to support this amendment. It may not have been used by Deputy Clinton but he said he felt the amendment was prompted by happenings in his constituency. If this is not an apt case, why use it? It is a bad argument and, to my mind, damns any reasonable case that can be made for the amendments. I am coming back again to say that where a small amount of land is available and the council can, at a fair price, by agreement and without antagonism get that land only if they take all, then there is no question, either under existing law or future law that may be created under this Bill, but that that council are quite entitled to make their deal for the whole amount rather than to offer what they know a farmer will not agree to. Furthermore, if the offer is refused by the farmer, as undoubtedly it will be in a certain set of circumstances, then, if it is followed by a compulsory purchase order, it will not be confirmed by any sane Minister for Local Government because it will be quite obvious to him that the viability of the whole, if split in two, will go out the window. In such a case, I can see no problem to acquire it even though it might be said that the acreage was some six or ten acres, for instance, more than what was needed. You would have to take into consideration the circumstances in which you are placed. In such a case, you do not have to ask me and quite candidly, I do not know why you have to ask your legal adviser either.
It was not the council who asked the legal adviser; it was the Minister's representative who asked him.
The Deputy is working back to the worst circumstances of the case. Treble it, if you like, and still it does not make a case for this amendment. In fact, I think it ruins it. I do not think it is a good angle to quote this as a real example of what you want to prevent happening in the future. I want to make clear my own belief about the other kind of case, where the number of acres is small, in the total, and the number required are not terribly large and agreement can be got that the viability of the holding can be split without a compulsory order. In those circumstances, where your needs are running into half or maybe over, I can see no reason why, under the law, you cannot go ahead and get that land. If I felt that such was the situation or that such a situation would obtain, then I certainly would wish to amend that situation but not to the degree or in the same way or to meet the case outlined by Deputy Tully. I certainly would not want to go in any direction nearly as far as that. I do not think we have to go any distance other than what was already provided for, as it will meet all reasonable cases. I am only on the first part of the amendment; there are four parts.
The second part of the amendment, I am glad to be able to tell Deputy Tully and the House, is unnecessary. Local authorities will have full powers of disposal of land under section 87 of the Bill. This is a section we have not yet come to deal with, so that it is not something we shall not have. It is something we are already providing for. I merely draw the attention of the House to that particular section so that Deputies may feel satisfaction that this is so.
I am not quite clear in regard to the intention of the third part of the amendment. Section 87 would give full power to exchange land. I do not clearly understand the intention of the amendment. From what understanding I draw from it at the moment, I feel that section 87 may answer what is sought to be done under it. I should say, further, that there are reasons to feel, in regard to the amendment itself, as proposed, that if read in certain ways, it could give rise to certain objections which I would have to voice against it. Perhaps I should leave that in order to find out what is behind the third part of the amendment, about which I am not quite clear.
The Minister has been harping on the case which I cited. The reason I cited the case was because I wanted to prove to the Minister that when the local authority could not acquire this farm, which they wanted to acquire, it passed out of their hands completely. They now find themselves in the position that, if they do acquire land, it will be so far away from the services that it will cost the ratepayers and the Department of Local Government and the taxpayers a considerable amount of money to service it, whereas, if the local authority had been allowed, in the start, to acquire—even though the Minister considers it unreasonable —it would have been possible to have acquired the portion they wanted and they could have passed the remainder either to the Land Commission or to some other purchaser and no loss would have been incurred. The law agent's advice, which was sought by the manager and not by the members of the council, suggested that there was no authority to purchase any land in excess of what could be proven as required. He was very definite that it was not because the estate was so big but because there was no authority to acquire any land in addition to what they required.
The Minister knows well what happens when a local authority attempts to do something which the law agent and the county manager rule is illegal. The Minister has referred to section 87 and says that this is the cure-all. If I read it aright, that section simply refers to the disposal of surplus land which is left over when road widening takes place or when there is a building site and there is a small corner, and so on— small sections of land—and does not relate to excess land which has been bought for the purpose of buying a site big enough and this is the surplus land attached to it and can be disposed of. If there were no necessity to introduce this section, the amendment would not have been introduced by the Labour Party. However, because we know that this situation does arise, and that, in fact, it can and will arise again, more so now because of the recent change in planning, we believe it is essential that some type of authority should be given to allow local authorities to purchase suitable sites even though such land is very much in excess of the amount of land they require for housing. If the Minister cannot see justice in that, I am afraid I cannot hope to convince him that it is necessary.
The Minister wants to know what is meant by the third part of the proposed section. It is included because the law agent referred to section 82 of the Local Government Act, 1946, and gave as his opinion that it was not strong enough to allow the council to do what they wanted. That being so, the only way of ensuring that that position is rectified in this legislation is by including a section of this sort.
The Minister said there is nothing revolutionary about it, and I agree. It is a simple, sensible proposal, and I cannot for the life of me see why the Minister is so opposed to it. If he does not include it, we will continue with the present system under which if the local authority decide they need sites for ten houses, they attempt to buy sites for ten houses. If it happens that there is a site which would take 12 houses, they feel they are not entitled to purchase it. Of course, if they were doing right, they would make provision for future building and be prepared to buy sites that would take twice, three times or four times the number of houses they require at the particular time. I think the Minister should consider this again. I feel he has the wrong angle on it.
The Deputy should not read this proposal or any housing legislation already enacted in isolation. He should keep in mind that the local authorities have powers of land acquisition by agreement or compulsion under a number of enactments. For instance, there is section 82 of the Local Government Act, 1946.
The Minister was not listening. That is the cause of the trouble.
That section provides that a local authority may acquire land which they will require in future, without having determined what they are going to do with it. That is what the Act says. What the legal adviser says is another matter. I have no responsibility for his utterances and I would not like to have it. They talk with divers tongues and some of them are well known for their varied views and have been since I went to the Department. That does not cure the situation and I do not suppose it will be cured. Their job is not to advise the council but to interpret the law as they see it. Sometimes their advice may run completely counter to what the council have determined on a particular thing. If the council do not agree with their advice, it is up to the council to take the steps open to them. They can disagree with their legal adviser and the manager.
I know Deputy Clinton, Deputy Tully and other Deputies who are members of local authorities speak with their tongues in their cheeks when they talk about how councils behave when they are told something by the manager and by the legal adviser. I know how they behave. They continue to do exactly what they want to do, despite that advice. Sometimes there are sham battles which are never intended to be fought to a conclusion. A council will not accept an interpretation, particularly if it is not in conformity with the interpretation that is being operated elsewhere, and may have been operated many times by councils in adjoining areas. In those circumstances, they do not take "no" for an answer, and they would be very foolish to start doing so now.
The 1946 Act is there. We also have the Planning Act which seems to be keeping Deputy Tully awake at nights. I think he will agree that the powers in this Act are such that if complaint there was in this House during the passage of that Act, it was that they were too wide. If we apply the terms of the Act to the purpose underlying it, I think we will find supplementary powers there adequate to supplement those of the 1946 Act and the Housing Bill which we now have before us. If land is required for the attainment of planning objectives as set out or determined in an approved development plan, I think it is true to say that there is plenty of power under the Planning Act to acquire that land. This very often entails the lay-out of towns, cities, and urban areas, housing of the people, zoning of the land, and not only are the council empowered to acquire the land but I think it is their duty to do so in order to avoid the land being put out of their reach for whatever purpose by anyone else. That is inherent in the Planning Act.
As I say, taking the Planning Act and the 1946 Local Government Act together with the provisions of this Bill, I do not think there can be any complaint that we have left uncovered any worthwhile grounds on which councils can complain about lack of power to acquire land by agreement or compulsion.
It is probably unfortunate that the example of Kenure came up because it looks like extravagant purchasing for housing purposes and other suitable purposes, but while the officials of the councils may advise that seven acres would meet the known needs at the moment, this is a very popular seaside resort and an area which will develop rapidly. We have in that area about 40 applicants for private sites. I think 50 acres would not be sufficient not to talk of seven acres. I think we would not be going mad if we had 100 acres. The fact is that we could get 100 acres at a bargain price if we were allowed to buy the estate and sell the remainder. To bring that down to a smaller case, we could get 55 acres where we want 20 acres. I think the Minister is fearful that if he accepts the amendment, the county councils all over the country will become land dealers. I do not think any county council are particularly anxious to become land dealers. In any case there would always be sufficient people on the council to ensure that such a proposition would not go through if it were crazy. The number of crazy propositions that would go through would be very small.
In this case we could get 55 acres at a bargain price but we will not get the 20 acres we require at a bargain price. I believe we could dispose of the surplus to neighbouring farmers at no loss. This would not leave the floodgates open. It would enable the county council, in areas where sites are difficult to acquire, to purchase sites they could not otherwise obtain, except by a long process of compulsory purchase. By the time all the machinery is geared and moving, the opportunity is gone and probably the price has increased threefold.
The only thing I would like to add is this. Kenure Park is an example in all the circumstances, but, on the other hand, as outlined by Deputy Clinton, this land or area lying along the seashore will probably become very attractive in the not too distant future when water and other services are available. This surely comes within the jurisdiction and the calculations of the council and the housing authority to project their needs, not now but in two years or five years time. This is what we are saying should be done under this Bill and moreover we would hope there would be some programming and planning for ten years, 15 years or even 20 years ahead.
Surely this place, which is attractive, is within the scope of the local authority or the council to decide that they would want 50 acres. Even though there is a shortage of services there at the moment, surely they should be able to see that when such services are provided in five or ten years, they will have need of 50 acres. There is no reason why they should not do so and I hope this is the sort of exercise that will be done. If we do not do this in the circumstances, the very thing Deputy Clinton has mentioned, and Deputy Tully is afraid of, will happen. You will not have land when you want buildings to go up. If you cannot have land, you cannot have programming and without programming, you cannot have planning. We cannot have any continuity in building without all these things. We can have no security and no real progress in the industry as a whole. I do not want to take from the argument that this Bill and our present laws are adequate.
The trouble about this seems to be that the Minister is giving his interpretation here of what he says this Bill means and also what section 82 of the Local Government Act, 1946, means. According to the Minister, there appears to be ample power in section 82 of the 1946 Act to acquire in advance of need. He says that, but the legal adviser to Dublin County Council says the direct opposite. He further advises:
that the Council must be of opinion that it will require the lands in future for the purpose of its normal duties. This opinion must be no mere whim or vague idea but practical judgment based on facts which warrant its formation.
This is the advice given by the legal adviser to Dublin County Council, of which, thank God, I am not a member. It shows that the position under the 1946 Act, which the Minister is quoting, is not clear and, for that reason, we believe that the position should be clarified.
We have put down an amendment which we are asking the Minister to accept in order to clarify it. If the main objection is that the amendment has been put down otherwise than by the Minister, it would appear that nothing is to be accepted unless it comes from the Government benches. If that is so, we have no objection at all if the Minister will agree to ensure that this is made crystal-clear, that the local authority have the right to acquire in advance of need. If he is prepared to include that and put it down in black and white so that nobody can misinterpret it, then we are prepared to withdraw this amendment. If the Minister is not prepared to do so, we have no option but to insist on its being put.
Section 76 is the section which sets out the direction in which we should be thinking in regard to this matter of acquisition for expected requirements of the future. Let us look at it this way. The Deputy spoke about facts and opinion given by a law adviser. There is nothing we can do here, nothing we ever have done, whether it be on legal advice or court interpretation, that has not got another opinion. We can do our best and when we have reached the last night and have passed this measure and everybody is satisfied beyond yea or nay, somebody somewhere, either by reason of the opinion of an adviser from the council, or, indeed, the long and tedious trial of a case in the Supreme Court, may be advised otherwise. The only thing we can do, and what we have always attempted to do, is to try to provide for what we want done.
We believe we are doing it in this particular case and relating it to whatever powers are in existence and, with all the powers of acquisition, there can be little doubt we have adequate powers. Probably in some cases if we want to use them and are prepared to use them, even when we are advised to use them—this probably has an element of truth in it—we are too timid to use them. We may have been led into the belief in the past that the interpretation by one law adviser was gospel, and that it was gospel more than the gospel of another law adviser who would have advised me or previous Ministers before I brought in this section. These are the hazards in regard to interpretation of the law over the years. They will continue to arise and we can never guarantee that somebody will not upset them and not conform to the law we are trying to clarify in this House. I still refer back to section 76 of this particular measure.
It reads word for word what the law adviser said.
The Deputy instanced facts and you would have to produce facts. I would hope that in the future when a scheme was in the course of preparation for a certain area, you would find that that area was already reserved entirely for building houses: it would be a fact that that was stated in your outlined plans for the future. This, to my mind, would be an adequate fact to answer the interpretation given by the law adviser to Dublin County Council. If it were stated as part and parcel of planning under the Planning Acts that this was so, that it was a fact that it was so, it might satisfy the particular legal adviser that this fact alone was enough in regard to this matter. Therefore this was a need which would have to be met in regard to land reservation in the future and, therefore: "All right: buy the land." I am not suggesting that this is what should be done, but I would almost say that you could manufacture the facts by virtue of what would fit the bill if the legal advice runs counter to what you want to do.
The people who were fighting this case in Dublin used section 82 of the 1946 Act and the advice was that that was not strong enough. Now the Minister tells us that when we come to section 76, all this is being remedied. In my opinion, section 76 repeats what was in section 82 and repeats the legal adviser's wording in that. He says "the land will be required by the authority in the future.... to have regard in preparing a building programme." That, in effect, is what the legal adviser said and that is what section 76 says. I am afraid the Minister is sticking to the point that because the idea did not come from his side of the House, it is not worth considering. I am afraid we cannot agree that it should be dumped out in this way and we will have to insist on it.
Before we part on that note—not that there is any likelihood of our parting for some time on this Bill—I should like to refer back to the circular of last May which in paragraph 4, on page 2, says:
The new powers available to local authorities for forward site acquisition under the Local Government Planning and Development Acts, 1963, should be fully utilised, particularly in towns and larger villages where suitable sites should be acquired, if necessary ahead of environmental services, so that the benefit of the provision of services accrues to the local authority, its tenants or to house purchasers.
That is actually advocated by me and I put that to the local authorities in May, along with many other suggestions as to what we could all do to try to provide for this type of forward planning and forward programming of our house building which entails surveying, the assessment of needs, the projection of future needs, the allowance one must make for improving housing standards which our people will demand, new family formations and possibly catering for, we hope, expanded industrial employment. All these things are outlined in some detail in this circular of May, 1965. The few lines which I have quoted from that circular are really indicative of meeting the situation which is being put forward as an argument as to why we should have an amendment to what is proposed. if we can do all these things, there is no answer to Deputy Tully getting up and saying that the legal adviser does not agree with that——
A legal adviser.
Nobody can answer that. It is there in this measure of 1963, and if our local authorities are challenged as to whether that is in it or not, the only way to find out is to pursue it to its logical end, that is, that we push it to the limit and get the highest court to interpret, if necessary, what is in the measure. This is something that is not always necessary but it is something which as far as I see is the only possible answer to Deputy Tully. It does not matter what one says is in a measure, or how it is operated in the greater part of the country, or how it is going to be operated, or how we feel it should be operated, if Deputy Tully gets up and says: "I do not think so and I do not think any legal adviser will agree with you." Clearly, there is no answer except to say that we think we are right. Equally, he may think he is right, and perhaps in some cases he is, but we are trying to act on the best advice available to us and we would like to continue to use the interpretations we have put on these measures in the past when we were taking them through the House. Only when they have been duly upset should the local authority take lying down, as it were, any contrary advice from anybody. I am saying that not so much as Minister for Local Government as a past member of a local authority. I do not see why we should always take the advice we get. In fact we do not and I am sure Deputy Tully does not always take the advice he gets, whether it is legal, technical or otherwise.
I am not talking about the legal adviser in my own area but the legal adviser in another area. I have a clear conscience on that.
What I suggest there is that the Deputy might possibly explain to his colleagues in that other area what he would do if he were a member of the local authority in question.
I did, using section 4, and it came unstuck.
Perhaps it was not gone about properly.
It was.
Maybe so, but you should never take a bad case. Maybe you were too hasty.
You said it was a bad case but it is the one you are arguing against.
I did not say that; I said "Never take a bad one". Again, I cannot dispute whether it was or was not, but I should think that a section 4 matter would be a good case to start on and you may get through on that and the others may not be necessary. I just do not see in what way one can answer the arguments being put forward by Deputy Tully. I would not say that he does not believe what he is putting up but in a way I suspect that at times he is not fully convinced that good though the argument may sound, it is in fact really sound. In those circumstances, it is difficult to know how to go about meeting his point of view. I would say, and perhaps I should have said this before we lost sight of the other parts of the amendment——
I have not introduced the other parts. This is the first part of the amendment. There is another amendment being taken along with it but that has not been moved.
I am referring to the four parts of the amendment; I am not talking about another amendment. I am getting back to the question of what is or what is not contained in section 87 which we will be discussing later. The question of exchange has been mentioned and I want to reiterate that we feel we are providing for the contingencies mentioned by Deputy Tully. This question of exchange is covered by the proposals in section 87 and that should remove the necessity for providing for what he seeks in that part of his amendment. Then, we have the fourth part of this amendment which proposes that this section shall come into operation on the passing of this Act. This is something I do not think is necessary at all. We are here enacting legislation and my wish is that we enact it as quickly as we can, and if I could have a wish, it would be that we could enact it a little more quickly than it appears we are likely to.
This suggestion coming from Deputy Tully is not funny. Suffice to say that the measure before the House, if and when enacted, is intended to operate and, to put in an amendment to say that when it has been passed it will operate, is rather laying it on a bit thick. There is probably no harm in that and indeed, when these amendments were put down, Deputy Tully may have had the feeling that it is I who would have been holding up the passage of this Bill rather than others who had views to express, including himself, and this may have been motivated by something I saw recently arising from some deliberations of the Labour Party at which, I think, it was intimated that they were going to ensure that the measure would go ahead and be got through the House. As it turned out, either we listened to the Labour Party and acted accordingly because we have discussed practically nothing else but housing since the Recess or perhaps there was a feeling that this was necessary and that we should not only get the measure moving but that we should actually operate it from the date it was passed.
It should be evident to the House that so far as I am concerned no spur is needed to get this measure into operation but that is not to say that we should not discuss it fully and completely.
I am satisfied that we all want to accomplish the same thing, and that includes the Minister. We want to arm local authorities with sufficient power to get the necessary land for all the houses they need for at least five or six years ahead. I am supporting this amendment because it was put down as a result of experience which showed that when we were trying to get sites, we met with formidable opposition. It is for that reason that Deputy Tully and I want to see this amendment in the Bill. It is all very well for the Minister to say that he sent out a circular last May giving all sorts of advice. There are certain law agents who have a healthy disrespect for such circulars and indeed for statements made by the Minister in the House. They simply say: "That is not the law." They are in a position to say that. I do not suggest they totally disrespect Ministerial statements or circulars, but they give that impression if they want to oppose something that members of the council are pushing forward. It is because of that sort of opposition that can be built up, because the matter is not covered in legislation, that we are anxious to see this amendment included in the legislation to ensure that there will be no way out, no way of building up a case against us. I do not think that if this is accepted, it will be misused, but I believe it will be of considerable benefit to certain housing authorities in acquiring the land they are likely to need for housing and other purposes in the future.
I happen to have by a pure coincidence a copy of the circular to which the Minister has referred, dated 24th May, 1965, addressed to housing authorities, which goes into great detail about certain surveys local authorities have to carry out and the acquisition of sites, but right through the circular runs the theme that it is sites for the purpose of filling future housing needs. I do not know if there has been a mistake—perhaps we are not getting across to the Minister; perhaps we are on different wavelengths—but what we have been trying to say to him in this debate is that we are asking in the amendment that land should be acquired in excess of needs if the land we need can only be acquired in that way. If somebody had a farm which is more than we need but the sites on that farm are suitable, we should be entitled to buy the farm, use what we need of it and sell the remainder: otherwise, the farmer will not sell to us. I think there is nothing unreasonable in that, as the Minister will agree.
The Minister keeps on saying that this is already provided for and I am saying it is not provided for in section 82 of the 1946 Act or in section 76 of the present Act or in the circular, because in each case the reference is to the housing needs and what can be done for future needs but in no case is it spelled out that a local authority is entitled to buy or acquire more land than they need and dispose of the remainder. The amendment contains another subsection which we have passed over and lest it be completely ignored, it is the subsection that says:
A housing authority may acquire land which is not suitable or convenient for the purposes of this Act provided that the land is acquired with a view to an exchange of that land for suitable land.
I am sure the Minister is well aware of numerous cases even in his own area where it may be possible to acquire land pretty easily but is not suitable for housing and it may be possible—to use a country expression —to swop that land at a later stage for land which is suitable for housing. We ask that permission to do that be given to local authorities because as far as I can find out, leaving aside the interpretation given by the Dublin law agent, it is not contained anywhere in existing legislation or in the Ministerial circular.
The Minister referred to the point that this has come up at our annual conference. That is true. This matter was raised and it was suggested we should try to get this Housing Bill dealt with as quickly as possible. That is why the fourth part of the amendment provides that the section shall come into operation on the passing of this Bill. We can hardly be blamed for putting that down because the first time this legislation was mooted was in October, 1963. We are not blaming the Minister for that: we know the Minister is not the last word on legislation, even so far as Local Government is concerned, and we are trying to give him a friendly push where a little extra power may be needed to ensure this is done as quickly as possible.
If he wants to know why we are going into such detail regarding sections of the Bill, let me refer to the statement I made the first day we started to discuss this in Committee: we were codded with the Planning Act of 1963; we are not going to be codded with this one.
Do not cod yourself. You were not codded.
Perhaps we were not codded.
I do not know if the Deputy is serious about that. If he feels that either he or some members of the House, including myself, were codded, we should have an opportunity of having some review of this on some suitable occasion.
If the Minister is prepared to meet us to discuss it, we shall be delighted.
Certainly; if you feel that is the situation that possibly exists, I should be glad to try to remedy it or explain it away, if possible. If it can be shown that we have been codded or that we codded ourselves, we shall have other opportunities to rectify it.
We shall invite you to meet the county councils to do that.
I think Deputy Tully is being innocent to a degree beyond his capacity of innocence in this whole matter. Even Deputy Clinton believed that long since, but I would say to the Deputy and the House that it is not the want of powers that should be questioned in regard to local authorities in this matter of land for their use in the future. If anything, the question might well be asked whether in fact they may not be getting too much power for land acquisition in their functional areas. This is a point we can reach. It is possible we would be going beyond that point if we were to set out by way of agreement or otherwise that local authorities should acquire land beyond their reasonable needs and expectations.
It is "may". The Minister should be fair.
There is not much difference when it comes to operating these things. Section 82 (i) of the 1946 Local Government Act reads as follows:
A local authority may, with the consent of and subject to any conditions imposed by the Minister, acquire by agreement, whether by way of purchase, lease or exchange, any land, whether situate within or outside their functional area, which in their opinion they will require in the future for the purposes of their powers and duties notwithstanding that they have not determined the manner in which or the purpose for which they will use the land.
If that does not give local authorities— even 20 years ago—sufficient power to hang themselves with land transactions, I do not know what we can devise. In addition, there is the Planning Act, the other provisions in this Bill and other more refined provisions we may have in other enactments. Therefore, I do not think there can be any doubt that they have the power. The question is: are they prepared to use it, or are they prepared to be stopped in doing what they feel is right and what the Minister for Local Government of the time says is right? It is a question whether the local members and the Minister see eye to eye on these matters. If they do, it does not matter what the legal adviser says.
The Minister's statement having gone on the record, I am prepared to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
SECTION 75
Question proposed: "That section 75 stand part of the Bill".
I would like to ask the Minister one question. Say a builder gets a lease of a certain area of land and it is found half way through his building programme that a church or school is required. He is prepared to sell the required area to whatever authority needs it for a church or school, but it is found that the head landlord has a convenant in the lease which states that a church or school cannot be built on this land. If there is a compulsory purchase order put on that by agreement with the builder, does that covenant fall before the compulsory purchase order?
Yes, the covenant would go.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 76.
I move amendment No. 81:
In page 52, between lines 32 and 33, to add a new subsection as follows:
"(2) A housing authority may be authorised to acquire land by agreement or otherwise for the purpose of facilitating the acquisition, by agreement or otherwise, of land under tillage, within or adjacent to an urban area, non-municipal town or an area serviced by water and sewerage."
This amendment is related to the matter we discussed very fully on the previous section. The purpose here is to deal with a case of somebody who has tillage land and is not anxious to sell. It might be possible to acquire other tillage land and arrange a "swop" with him. That is the purpose of this amendment.
The purpose of this amendment is that a housing authority may be authorised to facilitate the purchase of land under tillage? Land jobbing is it?
For the purpose of getting land under tillage for exchange. I will not force the issue if the Minister is not willing to accept it.
I should like to be a little clearer on this. What is suggested here is that a council should be enabled to buy land they have no intention of using either now or in the future? It would be purchased on the basis that either in the near or distant future it would be useful in offering to somebody with land the council wished to develop? In other words, it would be used as a method of acquiring land by agreement? Surely this is getting us "round the bend" completely? What would your legal advisers say about this?
If it is written into the Act, the legal adviser will have no say. That is the purpose of the amendment.
I know the intention but I think it is creating a sledge-hammer to crack a nut. There are ways and means of dealing with the case where a person has a bit of land on which they are earning a living and with which they do not wish to part. Money may not compensate such a person for his livelihood unless the price per acre was beyond anything reasonable. The only way of paying him for his land would be, perhaps, to get him ten times the acreage three or four miles away from this little place on which he was earning his livelihood by market gardening or something else. Surely it is not beyond the capabilities of council members, the manager and his advisers, including the legal adviser, if such land is available at a fair price, to acquire that land. Would that not be the obvious way? If, say, you or I wanted to do this sort of deal, we would know how to go about it; we would probably consult someone like Deputy Fitzpatrick.
(Cavan): And then, if I have been listening properly, the Minister would ignore the advice.
Possibly.
Sometimes with advantage, possibly.
With advantage, possibly. Be that as it may, I still suggest this sort of roundabout transaction, which is unlikely to arise very frequently, can be resolved by the ingenuity of councillors such as Deputy Tully and others, who know how these things can be done peaceably and agreeably without officialdom at either the local level or the central government level knowing anything. That is, I think, the best solution as against providing this sledge-hammer which might subsequently be used for all sorts of purposes.
Long ago, when local authorities had no county managers, this practice was frequently carried out. This sort of swop took place. No one came down from the Department in answer to a phone call from the county manager to say that it was illegal and that it could not be done. Having county managers now, and having to abide by the advice they give, I cannot see how a local authority could do what the Minister suggests. If it could be done I agree it appears to be the ideal way but, for the life of me, I cannot see how any local authority would be prepared to agree that they should buy a portion of land without telling anybody, and then go and try to acquire land for housing purposes adjacent to the town without anybody knowing anything about it. Presumably they will have to wear masks. I do not know if they will have to disguise their voices. That might be difficult. I cannot understand how this could be done. However, it is tied up with the previous amendment and, since the Minister was so strongly opposed to the previous one, I do not propose to press this either.
I know some local authorities still own land they bought in the past and, in some cases, they do not know what land they own.
I am not talking about Donegal; I am talking about other parts of the country.
I am not talking about Donegal either.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 76 agreed to.
NEW SECTIONS.
I move amendment No. 82:
Before section 77, page 52, to insert a new section as follows:
"(1) Where the Minister is satisfied that any housing authority or two or more housing authorities jointly, or any authorised association, are prepared to purchase and develop any land as a garden city (including a garden suburb or a garden village), or any land in regard to which a town-planning scheme may be made for the purpose of such a scheme for the area in which the land is situate, in accordance with a scheme approved by him, he may acquire that land on behalf of the authority or association either by compulsion or by agreement in any case in which it appears to him necessary or expedient so to do for the purpose of securing the development of the land as aforesaid, and may do all such things as may be necessary to vest the land so acquired in the housing authority or association.
(2) The provisions of this Act relating to the powers of a housing authority to acquire land shall apply for the purpose of the acquisition of land by the Minister under this section.
(3) A housing authority shall have power to acquire land for the purposes of a scheme approved by the Minister under this section, and to develop any land so acquired in accordance with the scheme, and shall have power to borrow any money required for the purpose of so acquiring or developing any land.
(4) In this section authorised association means any society, company or body of persons approved by the Minister whose objects include the promotion, formation, or management of garden cities (including garden suburbs and garden villages), and the erection, improvement or management of buildings for the working classes and others, which does not trade for profit or whose constitution forbids payment of any interest or dividend at a higher rate than six per centum per annum."
This is a very long amendment, but this is a very long Bill. Presumably there will be a very long discussion. So far as we can find out there is no provision in the Bill to allow these things to be done. If there is provision perhaps the Minister would point it out to me now before I develop my argument any further.
Try as we may, we have failed to turn up any attempt to utilise this old enactment. We regard the section as obsolete because it has never been invoked since it appeared on the Statute Book. Having regard to the enactments of 1934, 1939 and the Planning Act of 1963 the provision is, in fact, now obsolete. Apart altogether from the powers in the Acts I have mentioned, we also have a new device, one that can be very effective; I refer to the National Building Agency. It is attached to the Department and it has freedom to do things that the local authority could not do.
Freedom, but have they power?
They have power to provide housing and associated services and those services include amenities on a very wide scale. One that comes to mind immediately is the Ballymun project. They are engaged on this project at the moment. The National Building Agency have demonstrated that they are capable of doing these things. As well as that, the Minister may in future do things where he feels the local authority have neglected to do them. Taking all these matters into consideration, the background against which the 1919 Act was framed is seen to have altered very radically and whatever need may have inspired the insertion of that section at that time has been largely displaced by the other newer devices we are operating today and capable of operating to a degree that will meet the intention behind the amendment.
Does the Minister not agree that the Ballymum project that he has referred to has, in fact, been operated under the 1919 Act? One of the reasons why we proposed the insertion of this section is that we believe the Minister would otherwise lose a valuable section which he has used, perhaps for the first time, in relation to Ballymun. He said it has never been used as far as he knows but Ballymum is one case where it is being used. Secondly, if the section is not inserted, does the Minister believe that a local authority can carry out the developments suggested in the amendment? Is the exclusion of the section not a backward step? The fact that it was not operated from 1919 until now and is now being operated proves that there is something in it and that its exclusion was a mistake. Therefore, we are giving the Minister an opportunity of restoring it.
I should say that I am not invoking and did not invoke the 1919 Act in regard to Ballymun.
I should like to know how it was done otherwise. Maybe it is not covered by any Act. I thought the Minister had got coverage under the 1919 Act.
I should like Deputy Tully to enlarge on the words, "garden city, garden suburb or garden village". If we build 100 houses in any area in the county adjacent to the city it could be described as a garden suburb. The power is certainly already existing. I would be amazed to find that it is not. It is only a question of whether it is 10 houses or 200 houses. We have power now to provide sites for schools, churches and recreation centres. Surely, that is all part of a garden city? Perhaps Deputy Tully might have other definitions.
No.
If not, I personally am satisfied that we have sufficient power already in existing legislation.
Is the Minister satisfied that he can do the things covered in the section of the 1919 Act which we propose should be included in the Bill, without so including it?
Apart from the suggestion that the Minister should acquire land, there is not anything that I feel we require or that was provided in the 1919 Act that we have not already got or are not now providing. It is true to say, also, that the 1919 Act did not in itself confer power on the Minister for Local Government to acquire land compulsorily. To put the Minister for Local Government into the position of acquiring land compulsorily would run completely contrary to the generally accepted principle that the Minister in regard to compulsory acquisition must in many cases act in a quasi-judicial manner. If he were to enter the field as a person who could exercise power of compulsory acquisition his quasi-judicial position would have to be altered and we would have to take the Minister for Local Government out of these cases and put in somebody else who in turn could sit in judgment, as it were, on what the Minister for Local Government proposed to do in invoking the power proposed for him in the amendment. I do not think that would be a good thing to do. I do not think the indications are that it would be worth all the trouble it would entail.
In addition, I am satisfied that the existing enactment, particularly relying on the Planning Acts and on the National Building Agency and the section which we hope to have enacted in this Bill providing that a Minister for Local Government may go in where a local authority has failed to do any of its jobs, after due warning, gives the Minister sufficient power. If the Minister for Local Government should at some stage find himself in the position that he has to go into a local authority area to build a garden, city or village or town he certainly will be empowered to acquire by agreement, all the land that might be necessary but I still do not think that it would be a good idea that he should be given power of compulsory acquisition over and above the powers that the local authority have already vested in them. That is my view of it. I do not believe the amendment is necessary.
Perhaps the Minister would have another look at it?
I shall have another look at it, certainly.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 83:
Before section 77, page 52, to insert a new section as follows:
"(1) Before allocating any land for the purposes of the Land Acts the Land Commission shall inform a housing authority of the area and location of such land and the manager of the authority shall place any such communication before the next meeting of the authority.
(2) Whenever a housing authority informs the Land Commission that the authority needs land in any specified area for their powers and duties and certifies that all or part of the lands in the hands of the Land Commission is suitable, the Land Commission shall first make an allocation of suitable land to the housing authority before allotting the lands for the purposes of the Land Acts.
(3) Whenever any local authority has land surplus to their needs that local authority shall, before disposing of the surplus land, offer the land to the housing authority."
The case for this amendment is the same case as we made earlier except that it is the tail-end of the case. In County Dublin, where an allotment was available, after the law agent had refused to allow the local authority to purchase all the estate, the Land Commission purchased the estate. There was, first of all, an area of shrubs and trees which was absolutely no use for housing and which was nearest to the town. That covered roughly half a mile from the main street in a long narrow stretch. Next to that was a portion of land eminently suitable for housing and only half a mile from the existing services, water and sewerage. Beyond that was a portion of land which would also be suitable for housing but which was three-quarters of a mile to a mile from existing services and from the town.
For some extraordinary reason, despite the fact that the Land Commission were asked by the local authority to give or to sell the portion of land which was suitable for housing to the local authority, they did not do so.
Not alone did they not do so but, in fact, they allocated to smallholders small parcels of land. I think I have the particulars here—six acres, three roods, five acres, five acres, four to six acres, three acres, two acres, two acres, one acre, slightly over an acre —allocated to a lot of people. I have no objection at all. I would be the last person in this House to object to local smallholders, particularly market gardeners, getting extra small portions of land. But the objection we have is that the land away from the village and the services was just as suitable to the smallholders, while the land beside the services was the ideal land for development and would have cost the Department of Local Government and, through them, the taxpayer much less money than the development of the site which is at present being offered by the Land Commission at the other end of the area.
The suggestion is that, in cases like this, if the Land Commission acquire a farm, they should be required, before allocating any land, to inform the housing authority of the intention to allocate the land. Therefore, the local authority could then decide whether or not they needed some of that land and whether or not it would be suitable. I mentioned particularly a County Dublin case, not because I am familiar with County Dublin but because this case has been brought to my notice and it seems to be an ideal one to use as an example.
Throughout the country at the present time—and particularly in my own constituency—we have the Land Commission acquiring land, large farms, and the local authorities are in urgent need of the acquired sites. They cannot get these sites. We believe the onus should be put on the Land Commission to notify the local authority that they have acquired land in their functional area and ask the local authority what land they require for housing, before they divide any of the land or do anything else with it. I think it is a perfectly reasonable suggestion and one which the Minister should accept.
The ideas behind the amendment are I think, in themselves, laudable enough but I question very much whether or not the intentions of the first two parts of the amendment are really serving a useful purpose. For instance, surely the information which the Land Commission would be required to furnish to the local authority in regard to the Land Commission's intention to make allocations of land in that local authority's area would be rather gratuitous, in the sense that the dogs in the streets know a long time before there are any allocations at all. That is one of our problems. They have land far too long before they do anything with it and this is probably a true criticism, although there are good reasons for it, as we have often found out. So the actual intention to require the Land Commission to furnish the information that they intend to do this or that about certain lands they have acquired is really giving them nothing. As the Deputy has said, the manager probably does not know. If he does not, what are the 20 or 30 councillors doing? I am quite sure they will inform him particularly if there is any likelihood at all that any part of the lands already acquired are needed or are suitable for housing.
In regard to the practice in the past, I understand—and I am subject to correction in this—the Land Commission do generally co-operate with the local authorities in the provision of land arising from an acquisition they may have made, where that land required for the local authority might be a genuine case, and where the circumstances could be regarded as reasonable, at the same time ensuring that the demands of the housing authority are not so great as to run contrary to the intentions of the Land Acts, under which the lands would have been acquired.
Generally speaking, the Land Commission's acquisition procedures over the years are rather slow to make themselves felt. In other words, I would say that the Land Commission in most cases are probably the last interested party to come by the knowledge that land is available. In most cases the local county councillor and indeed the locals living around any particular plot of land likely to go on the market, are, in nine cases out of ten, aware either by intuition or information for years before the Land Commission make a move. They know in fact that a particular piece of land is up for acquisition and will fall to somebody one way or another in the not too distant future. With that knowledge, which can be imparted and further conveyed through to the manager of the council, surely if anything else can be done the simple remedy to forestall any action by the Land Commission or anybody else would be for the local authority in question to put a CPO on the requisite amount of land in the estate or farm in question, thereby safeguarding, as it were, their interest in the lands. With their undoubted early knowledge of the happenings around the countryside, through the information of the council elected members, there should be little likelihood that lands which are of any use to or badly needed by the council would have already been identified. Any hint that they are for sale or likely to be for sale would be acted upon in the normal way if there was an agreement to a sale and if they have this CPO which will safeguard the interests of the council, no matter what might happen thereafter.
In regard to part (3) of the amendment which says:
Whenever any local authority has land surplus to their needs that local authority shall, before disposing of the surplus land, offer the land to the housing authority.
there is not, as I see it, a great deal of need for this provision, since the housing authorities and the local authorities generally make——
Would the Minister like an example?
Yes, I would.
Did the Minister ever hear of Santry Court? Is the Minister aware that when Santry Court was sold, the site went for a song while the housing authority in the area were crying out for sites and could not get it? Since then, the situation has been that the local authority have had extreme difficulty in acquiring land, and if such a provision were included in the law of the land—that they must notify the housing authority that the land is available—it would prevent that sort of stupid thing happening again.
That story might result in quite a dear price for the land in question.
No.
There have been many suggestions about development in and around that same place since which have not come to fruition for two reasons. One is its close proximity to the airport, which could be a determining factor but certainly is an influencing one.
What about the ten-storey hotel beside the airport?
That is another question. Furthermore, there is the lack of services in the area.
That hare will not run. They could have had all the services they wanted. They would have been supplying services to the hotel. That was a stupid blunder and we do not want it to happen again.
There is a heap of appeals in respect of applications which had to be turned down in and around this area because of lack of adequate drainage and other facilities to enable this development to go on.
What about the hotel?
It could well be that if the decision to build the hotel were scrapped, we could substitute some of the other developments by releasing the earmarked capacity which the hotel is not using and appears unlikely to use in the very near future.
To decide to give facilities to an hotel while private houses could not get them—that is another matter which does not come up for discussion on this. Who decided to give it to them?
I presume the planning authority.
That is the reason this amendment is here, to prevent that happening again.
Despite the fact that I do not go much for the case made by Deputy Tully, I am inclined to agree that there is something in the third part of his amendment, and that something should be done about this matter. Although on this question of the power of a county manager, he does not seem to have authority even to meet Deputy Tully's wishes——
Does that not bear out our argument that the managers are not doing what they should be doing?
If we wanted to follow that hare, it could prove something completely different, but I do not intend to discuss something that has nothing to do with this legislation. While I do not agree with many of the arguments that have been made, I do think there is something to be said for the intention of the third part of the amendment and I should like to have another look at the amendment with a view to doing something about that.
It is quite obvious from what the Minister has said that he has no serious objection to this amendment. The only case he has made is that most of it is unnecessary. The first part of the amendment requires the Land Commission to give certain information to the housing authority. The housing authority would have that information in most cases. If they do, well and good; if they do not, this section would operate to assist them. The Minister sees no objection to the first part but thinks it unnecessary.
In the case of Santry Court, it would be wrong to say the housing authority were not aware that this land was available. They were aware the land was being disposed of, but they were discouraged from purchasing the land. They were discouraged from being among the people who were bidding for the land because they were advised there would be no services available for that land in Santry Court, and consequently they had no further interest in it. Another authority, whatever advice they had—and I have no reason to believe they had any exceptional advice that the housing authority had not—bought it and, as Deputy Tully says, bought it at a very cheap price. The services were made available for their purposes afterwards, but that has not come to fruition, and even if it did, I suppose it could not require anything like the same services that would be needed for a worthwhile housing estate.
Every part of the amendment is useful. It does something that would be beneficial to the housing authority and should be written into the Bill. It is an additional help to the end we all have in mind, that is, the provision of adequate housing, if and when the money is available. The Minister sees no serious objection to any part of the amendment. He says some of it is unnecessary but he could not say that it would detract in any way from the legislation if it were included.
I want to welcome the Minister's assurance that he will look at this amendment again, as it indicates a favourable disposition. I should like to support Deputy Tully in the case he has made. He gave an instance not only of what could happen but of what has happened in regard to an area of land within approximately four miles of the city of Dublin. The local health authority owned that ground and sold it without regard to the future, although at the time they were repeatedly advised of the needs of the county council and were repeatedly advised of the future value and attractiveness of the property. It was sold in 1960 but the peculiar thing about it is that two attempts were made years previously to sell that ground, before the establishment of the Dublin Health Authority, but it was decided by the then authority, the Grangegorman Joint Board, that they would not dispose of it because of its proximity to the city and the possibility of future development there.
I am glad the Minister made reference to the question of possible difficulties there arising from proximity to the airport. One thing that must be remembered is that sometimes not only county managers but Ministers do not exchange information to the extent they could. Although there was quite a suspicion for many years that the sole difficulty about building in some form in the area arose from the views of the Minister for Industry and Commerce, at no stage did the Minister for Industry and Commerce sign any certificate prohibiting building on that site. The signing of such a certificate would have enabled the authority that owned it, Grangegorman Joint Board, to recover compensation. No certificate was signed but some kind of a ploy was worked between the various Ministers—I do not say the present Minister—and officials. I do not think anyone will ever discover exactly what machinations occurred in relation to Santry Court. Attempts were made twice to sell it under the Grangegorman Joint Board, but on the two occasions the members of that body resisted because of its value, within four miles of the centre of the city of Dublin, 200 acres of ground which was bound to be needed by the city.
I am glad the Minister has stressed in this Bill not only the necessity to acquire ground for the immediate purpose of local authority housing but the need to anticipate requirements. This was a case in point where the county council, having an immediate need, were also anticipating future requirements. I do not think it unfair to say that pressure from Ministerial level— not the present Minister—has affected the views of officials of the local authority concerned. Deputy Tully said there was some excuse at some stage that the county council could not get land for housing because of the lack of services. Anyone inside or outside the House will agree that the call of a modern hotel on a water supply or on sewerage services is greater than that of a local authority housing scheme of the size concerned here.
Much nearer to the airport, approval was given for the erection of a modern hotel within a year or so of the ground being disposed of. Peculiarly enough, the land was not sold to the owners of the proposed hotel but to a private party and the portion of the ground was leased to the people interested in the hotel project. There was a difficulty at a point of time about sewerage but this could have been got over as, I feel quite sure, the Minister is aware. The area in which the council were anxious to get porperty lies very close to the area in Ballymun where there is a scheme of flats. I should be glad if the Minister told us now or on some other occasion how the problems in relation to the development of Santry Court have been got over, not only in relation to hotels and ordinary dwellings but in relation to the flats which have been erected close by.
The Minister indicated he is sympathetic with the third part of the amendment which, as far as we are concerned, is the major portion of the proposed provision. It deals with the Land Commission who, surely, have responsibility in this matter. It may well be, as the Minister has said, that the dogs in the village street know when the Land Commission acquire land in an area but I can tell the Minister that it is amazing the lack of contact there is between the officials of various local authorities and the Land Commission. It is amazing how often senior officials of a local authority have been unaware of the availability of land on which houses could be built and community facilities developed. Santry Court is an example of what should not happen and the amendment would preclude it happening in the future.
The Minister might have another look at the second part of the amendment and not continue to assume that because the Land Commission should exchange information with local authorities, they will always do so. There is no assurance of that, unless it is set down that they are required to do it. If they are so required, they can be asked why they did not do it, but if they are not required, they are not obliged to give an answer. Deputy Tully gave information in relation to an occurrence in a certain area and I am quite sure he would be willing to enlarge on that information, if the Minister so desires. I trust the Minister will have another look at the second part of the amendment and have it included in the Bill.
I intervene because I feel local authorities have already been given in this Bill adequate means to acquire any land they may need. To extend it further would also extend the amount of paper work and interdepartmental communication to no great benefit. If we wish to get the Land Commission choked up quickly with paper work this is the surest way of going about it. If we accept the amendment, the Land Commission will have to wait until the housing authority in the area concerned indicate what land they might need in the future and the result will be that land is frozen until the housing authority make their minds up.
No local authority need be frightened about their ability to acquire land for housing purposes. They can proceed to a compulsory purchase order and they can serve notices and purchase land. Generally, land is sold by public auction or private treaty and indeed, as the Minister has told us, where the Land Commission take over land, the dogs in the street are aware of it, and so also must members of local authorities. The amendment is not necessary. It might have sound features here and there about which I would be in agreement but I am against this danger of a build-up of communication between the Land Commission and the local authorities.
The proposed new section suggests that the Land Commission shall notify local authorities so that any land they do not need will be offered to the local authorities. There may be a case made for this but I submit that the local authorities already have adequate means of acquiring the land they need. There may be cases such as Deputy Tully and Deputy Larkin cited, a certain estate in Dublin, but if I remember correctly, that was fully advertised and the town planning requirements adequately published. It went by public auction and I cannot see why the Dublin Health Authority, who had to approve of certain matters in relation to the site, did not step in and buy it. Despite the fact that it was sold five or six years ago, I have not seen any building on it, though I am aware of the intention to erect the hotel mentioned by Deputy Larkin.
I am satisfied that local authorities, acting with the full powers they already have and surveying their needs, are not prohibited by the Bill from acquiring any land they need. In fact, I think there is adequate means in this Bill whereby they can do just that and then you can proceed with the provision of drains, water mains, and so on. I do not think the Minister need accept this amendment. The Bill pretty well covers everything that is required. If there is any one particular point, it would be subsection (3) and that is if there were any messing about, as it were, in the local authorities themselves under the various departments: there might be a point in that. I think the other two parts, involving the Land Commission, would have only a delaying effect on action by the Land Commission. Today, we want the Land Commission to act with expedition and authority. The more people we ask the Land Commission to serve, the more we should leave the Land Commission to purchase land for the relief of congestion. If there is any consideration to be given, then, I would say it is to subsection (3) of the amendment.
I have never been consciously rude to any Deputy and I hope Deputy Gallagher will not consider me rude to him now when I say he has been talking a lot of cod. Unfortunately, he did not hear the debate because, if he had heard it, he would not have said what he has just said. All the Labour Party are suggesting in this amendment is that one letter be sent from the Land Commission to one local authority when the Land Commission acquire a farm in that local authority area. If that will clutter up all the channels between the local authority and the Land Commission and if we shall have to put extra postmen on duty and extra staff at both ends to deal with it, then it will have to be a very peculiar letter.
A letter of that type would be absolutely useless unless you give it effect.
That is a foot for the third shoe.
That is the third shoe. That is No. 1. Now I come to No. 2. Nobody suggests that the work of the Land Commission should be interfered with. Surely Deputy Gallagher does not suggest that the Land Commission acquire a farm and rush off to divide it immediately? I challenge anybody to say that farms acquired by the Land Commission have been divided in less than two years, from two years to 12 years, and I can give thousands of examples of them, all over the place. Surely, within those two years, they could notify the local authority and the local authority could notify them of their housing needs for the area and how much land they would require.
Deputy Gallagher misread subsection (2) of the proposed section when he spoke about the Land Commission having any land left. That is not the suggestion at all. The suggestion is that the local authority should be in a position to ask the Land Commission for whatever land they require for housing in the area. The Minister earlier asked if we could not put a compulsory purchase order on the original owner. It is amazing the number of farms that are acquired at the present time without anybody except the owner and the Land Commission being aware of it. Afterwards, of course, everybody knows about it, knows who will get portion of it, and so on, but it is amazing the number of properties that are acquired without anybody knowing about it until later.
I should be surprised if that were true in Meath.
I think I would be a better judge of what happens in Meath than anybody else here, except perhaps Deputy Farrelly. He will agree with me that this sort of thing does happen.
I come now to subsection (3) of the proposed new section. Mention was made of Santry Court. There is not the slightest doubt that an awfully stupid thing was done by a local authority in regard to Santry Court. Everybody knew that the proposal to sell was there, and so on. There is no doubt in anybody's mind, who knows anything about it, that, in fact, the deal was carried through before it was publicised, and, in fact, that land which was needed badly for housing either by Dublin County Council or by Dublin Corporation, was allowed to go for a song—and it was not one of the Beatles' songs.
It was advertised for public tender, if I remember aright.
The Deputy does not remember aright. If he did, he would not have made the statement he did make. I am making a statement of fact, that this is what happened. A further point is that an hotel was to be built there. That hotel would require more services, as Deputy Larkin said, than a scheme of workingclass houses for the whole area would take. I am not accusing anyone of criminal intent. All I say is that a local authority did an incredibly stupid thing and now we propose that, before land is disposed of by a local authority, the housing authority shall have a right to look at it. The Minister should also have another look at the first two subsections because I think the longer he looks at them the more he will realise the justice of the case.
I am sure he will agree with me that, at the present time, land for housing is becoming mighty scarce. It is amazing how difficult local authorities are finding it to acquire land in places where, a few years ago, they could pick it up pretty easily. Because of the system by which they acquire only their exact needs, they are now finding it extremely difficult and, following the famous Planning Act, as I mentioned the other day, housing areas, where development can take place, are being acquired by groups of individuals who are now trying to sell them back to the local authority or to anybody else for ten times what they were worth a year ago before the Planning Bill was passed. Therefore, I think every effort should be made to ensure that any land that can be got at a reasonable price will be notified to the local authority so that they cannot say, for instance: "The Land Commission had a farm and we wanted 20 sites in that area. If we had known that the Land Commission were taking over that farm, we could have acquired sites on it." If the Land Commission notify them and there is an arrangement by which a loan can be made available from the Land Commission to the local authority at a reasonable price, I think it solves it all.
We are not asking the Minister to accept the amendment as it is but to give further consideration to the three portions of the amendment. If he does that, then we are satisfied.
Santry Court I know little about.
Hurrah.
However, it does appear to me that if, as Deputy Gallagher said, it was sold on the public market—if that is true—the local authority who feel they have lost something by not getting it could have tendered for it. I am surprised that they have any grievance now or how come they did not seek to get it at that particular sale at that particular time?
I am sorry the Minister takes the word of one of his own Deputies rather than the word of those here who know the position.
Does Deputy Tully challenge the veracity of what Deputy Gallagher has said?
I have already done so.
So it was not sold publicly?
It was advertised.
It is on the record.
Was it or was it not? Which is it? I am asking the Deputy for information.
The Minister's advisers can tell him.
Was it or was it not sold and was there not an opportunity? Was there or was there not an opportunity for the local authority in question to have a go at purchasing it?
Not at the time, no.
Right. I can only take it——
I think there was.
There was not an opportunity to have it for housing; most certainly no.
I said, for sale.
It was for sale and it was sold.
I can give the Minister the details of it.
That is not what I am asking. I am just saying I am inclined to follow the line Deputy Gallagher has taken, that it was offered for sale. All I am asking is why the local authority in question, who thought they should have got it and who now feel they have missed something——
Does the Minister want to know? I will tell him if he does.
Not if it means another speech.
No, no more speeches.
I am afraid it would mean two or three more speeches.
Now, now.
Either the Minister wants to know or he does not.
Would I be right in saying that it was for public sale, that something has now come out relevant to the fact that it would not be allowed for housing? Am I to take it that the restrictions imposed in regard to this land when offered for sale were such that they made it unattractive to the local authority?
That is exactly right.
And were those restrictions brought about by a planning authority decision?
They were removed very shortly afterwards to allow the second owner to build an hotel.
No. I am suggesting that the restrictions made it unattractive to the local authority because sufficient houses were not being allowed, arising from the planning authority decision, and that that same planning authority would have had very definite and direct concern because it would have been part of the same local authority.
So far as the hotel project is concerned, I have information, rightly or wrongly, and subject to correction, that this particular portion of land in its offering for sale was indicated as suitable for the building of an institution. I do not know whether the word "hotel" was used. If that is so—and I am told it is—I cannot see where any great objection can be taken if the proposed hotel which has not yet materialised emerges, because if this is suitable for an institution, if that is the manner in which it was advertised, then the services required for an institution would be no different from the services required for an hotel.
With regard to Deputy Larkin's query—and I presume he asked the question only because he already knows the answer—as to why we can now get over all these difficulties in land which is almost adjacent to the Santry Court land, the answer is that I arrived. Deputy Larkin knows that. He asked me to say it and I thank him for the opportunity.
Would the Minister mind repeating that? I did not hear it.
I said I arrived, and that is why.
Was there a change of Ministers?
No; I arrived and Deputy Larkin, I am glad to say, on my arrival welcomed me.
The Minister made a point about the hotel. So far as we were concerned, there was no question of permitting the construction of any form of institution, including an hotel, at the time the land was disposed of.
That is my information.
The second owner got the permission.
Subsequently some change was made.
The Minister.
That is the position, and all the services which they were so short of in those days are about to be provided.
Not many years previously——
I am trying to be helpful to the Deputies who are rather tortured in their minds about some sort of happenings about which I have not the full facts. I am trying to see if there is a rational explanation for the apparent torture of their minds in regard to this land at Santry Court.
This is an excellent example of bungling by a local authority which would not notify another local authority about what could be done in their area. The proposed subsection would prevent that happening again. However, the Minister said he would have another look at it.
I shall have another look at it. I hope I have satisfied Deputy Larkin with regard to the high buildings in Ballymun.
(Cavan): I want to support this amendment in its very broad principle, and I want to support it in its entirety. We all fully agree that the acquisition of land for housing purposes must be a first priority but, at the same time, we would wish, I hope, to cause as little inconvenience as possible to private individuals who want to hold on to their land.
This amendment would place an obligation on the Land Commission, when they acquire land, to consult with the housing authority and see if they can meet the needs of the housing authority. When the Land Commission acquire land, either by compulsion or by private purchase, that land for the time being is no man's land. It is held in trust by the Land Commission until such time as it is allocated. It is only reasonable that that land should be at the disposal of the housing authority for their housing purposes, if it is suitable. In that way the housing authority might avoid the compulsory acquisition of land in the locality from a person who might not want to part with it. There should be co-operation between the Land Commission, on the one hand, and the housing authority, on the other. I think that is what is behind the amendment.
If there were that co-operation between the Land Commission and the housing authority, the landowners in the locality who wanted to hold on to their land might be spared a lot of inconvenience and hardship and, at the same time, the requirements of the housing authority might be met, and the Land Commission might still have sufficient land for the relief of congestion in the area. I strongly urge the Minister on those grounds seriously to consider the amendment in its entirety.
Before we leave this amendment, I should like to clear up one point. I was, and am, a member of the Dublin Health Authority who owned this land. I am also a member of the local authority who were anxious to get it for housing, so I know something about it. I want to say quite clearly that the land was disposed of by the health authority in a perfectly legal and open way. We were given certain information, which was that services would not be available, and consequently the county council did not buy the land. That was the information they were given at the time and they did not compete when it was being sold. It was eventually sold at a competitive price at that time. Subsequently the person who bought it sold it again.
Then suddenly the services became available. No new sewer was provided. There was no scheme that would give the additional capacity. Suddenly a second owner was informed he could go ahead and build this magnificent hotel and all the services would be available. That is the only thing that arises on this. There has been undue influence on the part of somebody but it is wrong to say the housing authority were not aware of the sale. They were perfectly well aware of it and perfectly free to buy it but they were certainly given wrong information in relation to the services available.
By whom?
The sewerage authorities, in this case.
Deputy Clinton said the sewerage authorities.
They are not the only people who have wrong information.
Deputy Clinton described it as a perfectly straightforward matter. There was only one qualification he omitted—a perfectly stupid way.
Perhaps so.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
SECTION 77.
I move amendment No. 84:
In page 53, to delete subsection (3) and insert the following new subsections:
(3) A compulsory purchase order as confirmed by a confirmation order shall—
(a) as respects the land to which the confirmation order relates; (i) in case no application mentioned in subsection (2) of this section is made or in case such application is withdrawn— become operative at the expiration of the period ending twenty-one days after the notice required by subsection (1) of this section is published, or the withdrawal of the application, or
(ii) in case such an application is made and is not withdrawn, and the Court decides neither to quash the order as confirmed as aforesaid, nor to quash the order in so far only as it affects any property of the applicant—become operative on the date of the determination of the application,
(b) in case an application mentioned in subsection (2) of this section is made and is not withdrawn, and the Court decides to quash the order in so far only as it affects any property of the applicant—become operative, on the date of the determination of the application, in so far as it affects any property other than the said property of the applicant.
(4) Subject to the provisions of subsection (2) of this section, a person shall not question a compulsory purchase order by prohibition or certiorari or in any legal proceedings whatsoever.
This amendment is really to add to what is contained already in section 77. Subsection (3) of that section provides that a compulsory purchase order shall become operative at the expiration of 21 days after publication by the housing authority of notice that the Minister has made a confirmation order confirming the compulsory purchase order or where an aggrieved person questions the validity of the compulsory purchase order and the court decides neither to quash an order if confirmed nor quash it in so far as it affects only the property of the applicant on the date of the determination by the court of the application. Amendment 84 provides for the further cases where the court decides to quash a compulsory purchase order in so far as it affects the property of the applicant. In this case the order will become operative in respect of the balance of the land, if any, to which it relates from the date of the determination by the court of the application. It is really an addition to the powers already in section 77 (3).
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 85:
In page 53, between lines 24 and 25, to insert the following new subsection:
(5) So soon as may be after a compulsory purchase order has become operative, the housing authority shall serve a copy thereof on every person on whom a notice was served by them of their intention to submit the order to the Minister for confirmation.
Section 17 (5) of the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1931, provides that as soon as a compulsory purchase order has become operative the local authority shall serve a copy of the order on every person on whom notice was served by them of their intention to submit the order to the Minister for confirmation. This amendment will make a similar provision in relation to compulsory purchase orders made under this Bill. It is really, if you like, inserting into the Bill that which was contained in section 17 (5) of the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act and there is no change of principle whatsoever.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 77, as amended, agreed to.
Section 78 agreed to.
SECTION 79.
I move amendment No. 86:
In page 54, subsection (2), line 8, to delete "and take possession of" and insert, ", take possession of and use".
I should say, in explanation of this particular amendment, that in section 79 (1) power is given to a housing authority to enter on or take possession of and use land which they are authorised to acquire compulsorily. Section 79 (2) gives the authority similar power in relation to land which they have agreed to purchase or which they have appropriated to any purpose of the Act. The section, however, states that they may enter on or take possession of the land. It does not make any reference to the use of the land. This amendment will rectify the omission.
If they take possession surely it is assumed they will find a reason to use it?
I am advised otherwise.
Even Homer nods.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 79, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 80 and 81 agreed to.
SECTION 82.
I move amendment No. 87:
In page 55, subsection (2), line 32, after "them" to insert ", otherwise than by vesting order,"
The purpose of this amendment is to clear up a minor difference between section 81 (1) and section 82 (2).
Amendment agreed to.
Section 82, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 83.
I move amendment No. 88:
In page 56, subsection (2), line 2, to delete "(e)" and insert "(l)".
The purpose of this amendment is to correct a typographical error which arose in the circulated copy of the Bill.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 83, as amended, agreed to.
Section 84 agreed to.
SECTION 85.
I move amendment No. 89:
In page 57,—
(i) in line 17, to delete "and 81" and insert ", 81 and 83",
(ii) in line 18, to insert "and the Fourth Schedule thereto" before "shall", and
(iii) in line 20, to insert "and in the said Fourth Schedule" before "as".
The purpose of this amendment is to insert a reference to section 83 and the Fourth Schedule of the present Bill in section 10 (4) of the Local Government (No. 2) Act, 1960. The amendment, I should add, would clarify the intention that the same rules as to the assessment of compensation for land acquired compulsorily should apply for acquisitions under section 10 of the 1960 Act as apply to land acquired for housing purposes. The same rules, I should add, apply at present to acquisition for housing purposes under section 10 of the 1960 Act.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 85, as amended, agreed to.
Section 86 agreed to.
SECTION 87.
Perhaps we could take amendment No. 93 with this amendment.
-I move amendment No. 90:
In page 58, subsection (1), line 20, to insert "for the purposes of or" before "under".
These amendments will make it clear that a housing authority have power to dispose under section 87 of land appropriated under any Act for the purpose of building. This is the section I referred to earlier when we were discussing some other matters on earlier sections.
Is this the one in which it is proposed to make people who are building houses develop roads etc. around the sites?
Does this apply to land that is acquired only by agreement or does it include compulsorily acquired land?
It applies to all land acquired no matter in what way or under which Act.
I do not think the Minister heard my question. Is this the section under which builders are made develop roads, etc.?
No, this is the section which deals with the disposal and exchange of land.
The section says:
... the person will erect and maintain houses thereon and when necessary, in the opinion of the authority, will construct roads and lay out open spaces on the land.
I should add that when they are disposing of any lands, no matter how they have been acquired, they may attach conditions as to their future use as part and parcel of their agreement. This could be to a speculative builder and could provide for the provision of open spaces, roads and so on. This sort of thing could be inserted.
Does this open up the way for local authorities to acquire land compulsorily which they know in advance they are going to service and then sell it at a profit afterwards because it has been serviced?
This is not dealing with acquisition; this is dealing with disposal and sale of land that they may have at the moment or may have acquired subsequently.
They have power already to acquire by compulsion. Does this give them the power to dispose of land that has been compulsorily acquired?
Any land they have acquired, whether by compulsion or agreement, they may dispose of and when disposing of it, they may attach these conditions.
I take it that this section deals with the position where the local authority may decide to dispose of land, maybe to a private individual or to a co-operative group, and the section empowering them to dispose of land also empowers them to lay down conditions governing the disposal. Would it be advisable to give the local authority power to ensure that such lands will be properly developed? The section says that the housing authority "may".
They may do so; we are not requiring them to do so.
If the housing authority are somewhat lax in the matter—they may have acquired land and then decided at a particular time to dispose of it to an individual, or an organisation, for the purpose, say, of building houses—they may neglect to insist that the requirements of providing recreation spaces for people living in the area are adequate or that the roads, paths and lighting are adequate. The section does not make it obligatory on the local authority to require the person or group to whom they sold the land to do these things. It is an enabling provision.
The only thing I suggest is that the Deputy should reply to his earlier argument. I am trying to decide between the two because he has both sides of the case.
The section says "may sell or lease." I do not know whether the word "lease" has the usual meaning in this case. If somebody leases land for the purpose of building houses, the original owner then has the right to decide the type of building, the type of building operation to be carried out, and a whole lot of other things, and he may demand a yearly payment. Is that the type of lease the Minister has in mind? Does the Minister say that the local authority shall create a lease or a ground rent?
Sometimes, yes, but it does not necessarily follow. It really means that they may but it does not follow that they must, for its own sake, create a ground rent. Our suggestion is that the local authority should have at least equal rights with the ordinary private landowner and that when parting with any land, they can attach conditions as to its future use. No people are qualified to do that more than the local authority and the planning authority.
The Minister went portion of the way when he said that the local authority should have at least equal rights with the ordinary private landowner and I thought he was going to finish by saying "to create ground rents". We have been told that within the next couple of weeks we will have a Bill to abolish this system. That is why I am particularly anxious to see that this does not come along here. I do not believe that a local authority, any more than private individuals, building societies, or anybody else, have any rights to create these.
What does the Deputy think about the idea? I should like to hear his views before it comes out. Would it be a good thing?
We have one quarter of an hour left and——
On the amendment to the section——
If the Minister and the Government think that on the one side they can publish the fact that they propose to do away with, or permit the doing away with ground rents, and on the other side, propose the introduction of this section in which leases may be created, they should not get away with it.
It is a bit confusing, is it not?
It may be to the Minister.
No.
I am quite sure the Minister is becoming confused over a number of things he said. Does this in fact mean that a local authority may lease, for a yearly payment, over a period of 99, or 199 or 999 years? Let us hear the Minister's comments on that.
The Deputy seems to tie himself to the idea that the only possible use to which the lands might be put would be for housing but that does not follow. They are not restricted solely to this use. If the local authority dispose of surplus lands which they do not require, they will not be restricted in this way. Perhaps they cannot find anybody who wants the land for houses, or perhaps it would not be desirable that there should be houses there. The Deputy suggests that this is in conflict with the alleged reports which he is quoting in regard to what the House may expect in respect of the abolition of ground rents. Instead of being helpful to the Government and to me and letting us have his views, the Deputy, as he very often does, tries to imply that what I am doing may conflict with what somebody else is doing. This does not necessarily apply to house building at all. The land may be used for any of several other uses. It could be for an industry and it could well be that a lease may be necessary when parting with land for that purpose, not only to ensure proper and orderly development of the locality but to ensure that houses already built adjoining these lands will not be jeopardised in respect of their valuation by the new owner doing just what he likes.
The Minister may have no doubt in his mind that I think ground rents are an abomination.
We are getting away from the amendment. Could we dispose of amendment No. 90 and get on to the section, if the Deputy wishes?
I was under the impression that it had been disposed of.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 91:
In page 58, subsection (1), lines 22 to 36, to delete all words in the subsection after "Act" in line 22.
As a result of this amendment, section 87 will simply provide that any land acquired or appropriated by a housing authority, for the purposes of, or under the Bill, may be sold, leased or exchanged by them, subject to such conditions as they consider necessary.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 92:
In page 58, lines 37 to 42, to delete subsection (2).
Section 87 (2) enables a housing authority to contribute to the development of land sold by them, subject to the condition that all roads and open spaces on those lands will be dedicated to the public. The subsection is not necessary in view of section 12 of the Bill enabling a housing authority to assist other bodies with the consent of the Minister in a number of different ways and also in view of their power to pay supplementary grants.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 93:
In page 58, subsection (3), line 44, to insert "for the purposes of or" before "under".
This amendment has been considered with amendment No. 90.
Amendment agreed to.
Perhaps we could take amendments Nos. 94 and 98 together, as they are cognate.
I move amendment No. 94:
In page 58, subsection (4), line 56, before "have" to insert "apply and".
The purpose of these amendments is to put it beyond doubt that section 83 applies both to the disposal of land and houses.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 95:
In page 59, to add a new subsection as follows:
(6) Before leasing, selling, exchanging or otherwise disposing of land a housing authority shall ascertain if allotments are required by agricultural workers or other persons and may, by resolution, decide to provide allotments to the extent that a demand for allotments exists.
This amendment is to ensure that if there is land available in an area where there is a number of agricultural workers or people of that category who require plots of land, the housing authority will be entitled to dispose of it to those people rather than to sell it in one lot to people who might not need the land. That is the meaning of it.
To my mind, this amendment appears to give a duty to the local authority which is not really proper to them. The provision of allotments on any sort of large scale is not really appropriate to the business of a local authority but is much more the business of the Land Commission, and as regards the more limited action, I commend section 56 of the Bill to the Deputies for their consideration, as it does, I suggest, provide that a housing authority may provide allotments. I feel this probably sufficient on the small scale that I believe is probably well within the proper functions of a local authority and I think we should avoid, as it were, setting up another Land Commission in the local authorities, lest they might conflict in their selection of allottees, about which we hear so many diverse views expressed in the House at different times. I feel that section 56 really meets the point.
Is the Minister sure he is giving the correct number of the section?
I hope so.
I do not know if section 56 empowers the local authorities to make allotments available, but even if that is so, that is a different aim from what is set out in the amendment because the amendment requires the local authority to do so. That is the purpose of the amendment. It places an obligation on the local authorities to inquire whether agricultural labourers in the area need allotments and the type of allotment involved would probably be the normal type of allotment that generally goes with an agricultural labourer's cottage. That is the purpose of the amendment, not to take over the responsibilities of the Land Commission. The Minister is being a little facetious in his approach to it. What is involved is a small plot as indicated in the wording of the amendment and by the proposer, Deputy Tully. Even if section 56 or other sections of the Bill give the local authority power to do this, I do not think it meets the point of the amendment. If the Minister reads the amendment again, he will find that there is the difference between "may" provide plots and requiring them to do so in the case of agricultural labourers where there is a demand for plots.
Both the Deputy and I might benefit from re-reading the amendment in that the first part of the amendment says "a housing authority shall ascertain", and then finishes up very lamely by saying "may" provide.
They can only provide plots if the land is available.
You compel them to find out if there is need for plots and then you back out by saying "may".
There is a section whereby county committees of agriculture can do something like that.
Under that particular scheme, the number of allotments is going down with a bang. I suppose there is an explanation.
I should like to hear it at the appropriate time.
The people will not work them.
No.
All right; they do not need them.
Since the five-day week came in, more people are looking for plots.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 87, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 88.
Question proposed: "That section 88 stand part of the Bill."
This is a section about which I am not quite clear and I should like some explanation. It says that "special condition" means a condition requiring that——
(a) payments in respect of the purchase money shall be made punctually on the due dates,
(b) the dwelling shall, unless the housing authority otherwise allow, be occupied as a normal place of residence by the purchaser, or the purchaser's successor in title or by a member of the purchaser's family or the family of his successor in title.
(c) the dwelling or any part thereof shall not, without the consent of the housing authority, be mortgaged, charged or alienated otherwise than by devise or operation of law.
Perhaps the Minister would explain what this means?
The real intention here is to try to ensure that houses will be used.
What houses are you referring to?
A house sold by a local authority—that it will be used as a house.
Would that include a vested cottage?
Yes.
I am particularly interested in this if the section means that in future those who occupy vested cottages or, shall we say, own them can only occupy them themselves or their families may occupy them or if a member of the family dies and passes it on to another member and so on. That only continues so long as there is a vesting order, so long as an annuity is being paid. Does that position terminate when the annuity terminates? There was something similar in the 1936 Act. Does it mean that if somebody owns a vested cottage and has to leave the area or the country for a number of years, he is entitled to rent that cottage to somebody else or does the section mean that it cannot be sold? At present that is only the position where the annuity is not finally redeemed. Does this apply where the annuity is redeemed and it is freehold and the property of the owner? Is there any alteration of this?
Not really.
This simply means that the existing conditions will continue to operate, except that houses can no longer be——
These are conditions which the council may apply. It is desirable in most cases that they should apply them because there are so many unoccupied vested cottages but there is no provision for those that are redeemed.
They are freehold: they cannot be touched. I assume that continues?
If the annuity is completely redeemed.
That is clear, but otherwise this provision holds for the people who are still paying an annuity, that they cannot leave the house, lock it up and go away? Are you providing for that?
That would be provided for.
Is it provided for in this section?
It is to be used in a normal way as a house and the normal place of residence of the person paying the annuity.
If somebody is paying the annuity and working in England but coming home every 12 months—but perhaps we can argue that on another occasion.
Progress reported; Committee to sit again.
The Dáil adjourned at 10.30 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Tuesday. 23rd November, 1965.