Before the commencement of the discussion on the Housing Bill, may I say, Sir, that I have received from you a note to the effect that a number of amendments could not be moved? You do recollect that during the discussion on the Committee Stage, due to an error on the part of the Acting Chairman, the Leas-Cheann Comhairle, some of the amendments down in my name and in the names of some other Deputies were not reached and the House agreed that they could be recommitted. The only point in having the others listed was that they were amendments which hung together. If one group fell, then the remainder would also fall. I am rather surprised that these amendments have now been ruled out of order on the grounds that they were not properly before the House. I wonder, Sir, if we could find out if that is so, in view of the fact that the House did give permission to recommit these amendments on Report Stage?
Housing Bill, 1965: Recommittal.
I am advised that the amendments were not before the House effectively. That is the advice I have received. I have no reason to doubt it. I have no recollection whatever that they were in any shape before the House and I have to rule according to order.
I am not challenging the right of the Chair to make the ruling but simply saying that it was agreed by the Chair and by the House —by the Minister and Opposition— that these amendments could be recommitted and discussed on Report Stage. I do not like anybody trying to make a fool of my Party when amendments are being discussed. It does appear as if somebody has the idea that this was an easy way to get over it and that when the matter would come up today, the Chair would be asked to rule them out of order.
I want to assure the Deputy that the Chair has not lent itself to any such proposal or attempt and that I do not believe any attempt has been made to fool the Party. Anyway, I would not care to try to fool the Party. It would not be a very easy job.
I am not accusing the Chair of doing it but I am accusing somebody, whoever was responsible, for the situation which has arisen now that we are refused permission, despite the fact that in the Dáil Debates—the Chair says that he has no evidence; the evidence is in the debates for everybody to see it—it was agreed that they would be recommitted for discussion. It is in the official record.
I am advised that it will be necessary to recommit certain amendments on the ground that they impose a charge on the Exchequer or on local rates, or that they involve some new matter. I, therefore, propose, with your permission, that the following amendments be recommitted: Amendment No. 8, dealing with grants for custodial staff for elderly persons' accommodation; amendment No. 9 dealing with grants for prototype houses, 12 and 14, dealing with grants for the improvement of local authority houses, 17, 21 and 25 clarifying the power of housing authorities to pay supplementary grants by instalments, and 42——
Did the Minister mention No. 36?
It will be in the next group. I am grouping these together for a reason which I shall give in a moment. Amendments Nos. 17, 21 and 25 clarifying the power of housing authorities to pay supplementary grants by instalments, and 42, enabling a housing authority to make an allowance to a person displaced from his home by certain of their operations.
I should say, in relation to that particular group, that these amendments could impose an extra charge on the Exchequer and on local rates.
The second group then would be amendments Nos. 36, enabling the Minister to apply certain additional conditions for the payment of State grants; 59, 60 and 65, dealing with recovery by housing authorities of houses; 67, 75, 76 and 80 dealing with the making by housing authorities of bye-laws to require minor repairs to houses; 73, 77, 78, 79 and 81, dealing with unfit houses; 90 and 93, requiring the consent of the Minister to the disposal of property by a housing authority in certain circumstances; 94 and 99, dealing with labourers' cottages; 103, providing for an amendment of the Land Act, 1923; and 120, dealing with compensation for compulsory acquisition of property.
These amendments in the second group involve new matter.
I should tell the House that the necessity to recommit a number of these amendments arises from under-takings which I gave to Deputies during the Committee Stage debate to put down Report Stage amendments to meet points raised by them. Other amendments are necessary to meet points raised by local authorities, Government Departments and others, since the Committee Stage of the Bill. Deputies will, I think, agree that it would be undesirable to reject the suggestion for the improvement of the Bill simply because the Committee Stage is passed.
We are all with the Minister there.
In a Bill of the size and complexity of this particular Bill, it is inevitable that such suggestions should arise comparatively often.
The proposal is that these amendments be now recommitted. For clarity, it might be just as well if I repeat them: Nos. 8, 9, 12, 14, 17, 21, 25, 36, 42, 59, 60, 65, 67, 73, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 90, 93, 94, 99, 103 and 120.
How is it there was no notice at all of these? Are we to discuss them now without any prior notice that they were in fact to be recommitted?
The amendments were circulated and they are now before the House.
Are they new amendments?
I move amendment No. 8:
In page 17 —
(i) in line 27, after "persons" to insert", or for the accommodation, as their normal place of residence, in the house or houses or within the precincts thereof, of persons providing welfare or caretaker services for the elderly persons";
(ii) in line 29, to delete "three hundred pounds"; and
(iii) to delete line 30 and insert the following:
"provided in the house—
(a) in case the dwelling is provided for the accommodation of elderly persons, three hundred pounds, and
(b) in case the dwelling is provided for the accommodation of persons other than elderly persons, fifty pounds as respects each room contained in the dwelling, or two hundred and fifty pounds, whichever is the less."
During Committee Stage, I indicated my intention of amending the section dealing with grants for accommodation for elderly persons by providing for special grants for custodial staff. This amendment makes the necessary provisions and, under it, grants of up to £50 a room, subject to a maximum of £250 for each dwelling, will be provided for accommodation for persons providing welfare or caretaker services for elderly persons.
I move amendment No. 9:
In page 18, line 2, after "cost" to insert ", or that houses erected in accordance with the plans and specifications aforesaid, being houses of a type suitable for erection by a housing authority, could conveniently be transferred and erected on another site".
This amendment arises from suggestions by some several Deputies that the special prototype grants should be payable for houses which can be transferred to another site. In other words, these dismantlable houses might qualify for such a prototype grant by being moved to an entirely different location or site.
This is a very desirable improvement. It is very acceptable to us all.
Amendments Nos. 12 and 14 go together.
I move amendment No. 12:
In page 21—
(i) in line 13, to delete "or (e)" and insert ", (c), (d) or (g)";
(ii) in line 17, to delete "(c) or (d)" and insert "(e) or (f)";
(iii) in line 21, to delete "or (e)" and insert ", (c), (d) or (g) of subsection (6) of this section";
(iv) in line 22, to delete "(c) or (d)" and insert "(e) or (f) of the said subsection (6)";
(v) in line 26, to delete "and (e)" and insert ", (c), (d) and (g)";
(vi) in line 28, to delete "(c) and (d)" and insert "(e) and (f)";
(vii) in line 31, to delete "or (e)" and insert ", (c), (d) or (g)"; and
(viii) in lines 38 and 39, to delete "(c) or (d)" and insert "(e) or (f)".
Amendments Nos. 12 and 14 extend the scope of the works for which the Minister may pay a grant to local authorities for the improvement of their houses so as to include the installation of electricity or of a hot water system.
I move amendment No. 14:
In page 22, between lines 10 and 11, to insert the following paragraphs:
"( ) the provision and installation of a hot water system;
( ) works within the house consisting of the provision and installation of a system for the supply of electricity;"
With regard to the supply of electricity, we are on the eve of revolutionary changes in the supply of gas and the availability of gas because of new sources of supply. We ought, I think, to make provision for the supply of gas or other forms of power for heat or light.
Does the Deputy suggest we should make provision for atomic power?
That will come.
I am not very well acquainted with gas but I should imagine the normal development would be urban rather than countrywide. It might well be that gas might be piped through the country in the future, but I must admit it is a development I do not really see evolving.
There could be links between urban centres and gas manufactured at isolated points might be piped to other areas. I suppose we shall have another Housing Bill before that.
If that sort of development arose, I should have no hesitation in coming along with a suitable amendment. I am not to be taken now as anti-gas.
The Minister for Transport and Power went to great trouble to explain to me how one could cool milk by gas.
One can cool ardour as well by gas of course.
It is rather a pity these amendments are not related to the sections to which they apply.
I do not blame Deputies for being puzzled by the sequence. I have had difficulty myself.
Blame nobody.
Blame the Chair.
All right. Amendments Nos. 17, 21 and 25 are cognate.
I move amendment No. 17:
In page 23, line 1, after "may" to insert ", whether the relevant grant has been paid in whole or in part,".
This amendment, and the cognate amendments Nos. 21 and 25, are intended to clarify the position whereby housing authorities may pay supplementary grants by instalments where the State grant has been paid by instalments. The instalment of supplementary grant may not, of course, exceed that of the State grant. Some housing authorities, including Limerick, Offaly, Galway, Roscommon and Monaghan, at present pay instalments of new house supplementary grants. They have been operating that system reasonably satisfactorily and these three amendments are designed to give us the power given to them.
I should like to understand the effect of this amendment more fully. I have had a great deal of difficulty with local authorities over the years in cases where they refuse to pay their portion of a grant because the State had not paid its portion. Is this amendment intended to rectify that position? Does the amendment mean that the local authority does not have to wait any longer for the State to pay? The Department has been used in the past by the local authorities as an excuse for not paying their share. Does the amendment mean that the local authorities will now have to wait until the Department pays its portion of the grant and, when the Department has done that, the local authority will only have to pay its portion to date or can the local authority pay more?
Not more. The situation generally is that the local authorities rely on the operations of the Department of Local Government to certify that a certain point has been reached in the construction of a house and the evidence of that point having been reached is the payment of the first instalment of the grant by the Department. When that evidence has been given to the local authority, they can pay a like amount of their grant, but no more. When the final payment has been made by the Department that is taken as evidence by the local authority that everything is up to requirement and the authority can then pay its final instalment.
I think this is an excellent idea and it applies to new and reconstructed houses. We will all welcome it and, indeed, we have been pressing for it. However, we hope that it will not be used to slow up further the payment of grants. Because of the fact that grants are not now coming out as fast as formerly from the Minister's Department, the local authorities are much slower in paying their grants and some people building houses find that they are tied up.
Whatever may be the Deputy's information and facts, the information available to me does not bear out what has been said by the Deputy with regard to the slowing up of payments.
Would the Minister like me to put down another question on the matter?
I would. My information and facts completely contradict the views expressed by the Deputy.
Amendments Nos. 21 and 25 seem to be the same.
I move amendment No. 21:
In page 24, line 13, after "may" to insert ", whether the grant has been paid in whole or in part,".
I move amendment No. 25:
In page 24, line 33, after "may" to insert ", whether the grant has been paid in whole or in part,".
I move amendment No. 36:
In page 27, between lines 37 and 38, to insert the following subsection:
"(2) (a) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) of this section, the Minister may under this section refuse to allocate, withhold or reduce a grant in respect of any house, flat or maisonette where the amount of the consideration which is being charged for the house, flat or maisonette, whether by way of purchase money, rent or otherwise, exceeds—
(i) in case a maximum consideration order is for the time being in force and applies to the house, flat or maisonette— the appropriate maximum amount fixed by the order, and
(ii) in any other case—the amount appearing to the Minister, after he has considered any representations which the grantee may think fit to make, to represent reasonable value.
(b) In the foregoing paragraph, `maximum consideration order' means an order made by the Minister fixing for the purposes of this subsection the maximum consideration for houses, flats or maisonettes.
(c) Any such order may be revoked or amended by a subsequent order."
This amendment specifically empowers the Minister to withhold or reduce a grant, firstly, when the price of a house is above a level fixed by him by order and, secondly, when a house is not value for money, that is, when the price fixed on a house exceeds the fair value of the house.
Amendment No. 36 does not appear on the white paper handed around to us. It is most confusing.
It is included in the second lot which deals with new matters.
It is still most confusing.
One lot deals with increased or additional expenditure by the State or local authorities and the second lot deals with new matters. We are now taking them numerically.
I am sure that the Minister has given a good deal of attention to this matter and that he intends the amendment as an effort to keep a rein on the cost of houses but I hate to see any additional condition brought in which must be met before grants are paid. I am afraid this provision is something that will leave the grant position in further doubt and will make it more difficult to decide in what conditions a grant will be forthcoming. Because it may be used to have a slowing up effect on the payment of grants, I would be opposed to having it put in the Bill. There are many other ways in which control can be kept over the cost of houses than by putting in this condition.
I would agree with Deputy Clinton that this appears to be an undesirable development. In fact, what the Minister is now saying is that if a house does not appear to him to be good value for money, he can refuse to pay the grant. Who suffers in the event of that happening? It is the person building the house and not the contractor. In such cases the plans for the house will already have been sanctioned and notification issued that a grant will be paid. When the house is finished, the same plans are again inspected and the same officials will decide that the job is not desirable. There is a grave danger that people will decide that they have not the same guarantee as they have now when they decide to build a house. Now when a person decides to build a house and the plans are approved, he knows that he will get the grant but this section proposes to remove that guarantee.
There should be a fairly clear distinction in relation to the more important part of this amendment which is directed rather specifically to the speculative builder who is prepared to erect £12,000 and £15,000 houses. While such houses may be good value for money, there have been cases in which they may be value of the order of only half that figure. It is in regard to such instances that I have directed the insertion of this amendment which means, in effect, that if these people want houses at a price of from £12,000 to £15,000, then let them have them and pay for them.
The Minister's idea is good but what is in the amendment is not so good. I would not suggest to the Minister how he could express what he has just said in the form of an amendment but the amendment he has introduced does not achieve what he has set out to do. It may have the effect of gravely endangering some person who sets out to build a house for himself. After his plans have been okayed and the job finished, the same Government officials as okayed the plans have the right to say that the house is not an appropriate one. The time to say that the grant will not be paid is before the house has been built.
Would it help to state that if the poor law valuation was above a certain figure, no grant would be paid?
That would not apply in this case and there is also the fact that valuations increase from time to time and the Minister would have to review the matter in the case of such increased valuations.
There is that danger. Perhaps you could have a sliding scale.
The point which I think is not appreciated is that although the sentiment of the amendment is not only accepted but would have been welcomed, and possibly has been in the past by a number of Deputies, what I am after is that houses not value for money, and which are obviously so, and out of which some commercial enterprise is making a profit which can as a result of bad value for money be regarded as exorbitant, should not receive a grant from the State or anybody else.
Could the Minister say that this section will not apply to houses built by individuals or housing societies? Would he be prepared to do something like that?
What we are really looking for is that if we have a plan, a proposal or an application for something which is in accordance with the specifications, a reasonable type house, and we approve a grant for that house, then providing they stick to what they have sent us—which is a normal requirement in all applications —and complete their house in that way, and even if there is over-costing or even overpayment in the person's own method of doing this, as long as nobody is making an exorbitant amount out of it, I would not object to it. I do not take the same view in regard to this as I do in regard to exorbitant pricing resulting in exorbitant profits to a commercial concern which is selling the houses to the public.
The amendment takes the same view of it. It makes no distinction between the persons the Minister is talking about.
The Deputy and House will appreciate that to try to do anything in this direction is difficult. To try to legislate in detail for it is, from our experience, practically impossible. For those reasons, we are asking the House to support an amendment which does not attempt to spell out every last detail, because of the impossibility of doing that. At the same time, we seek power to step in where these sorts of objectionable practices may arise again as they have in the past and to be able to say: "If you want to build houses at exorbitant prices and get exorbitant profits, then the public and the tax-payers are not going to contribute to them". This is the intention and while you may read much more into the amendment, the intention and the spirit is broadly that. It is the method of operating these provisions rather than what is in them which is really of essence.
I have mentioned as one danger the possibility of using as a further excuse for delay the fact that the Minister is now investigating this house to see if it is not too costly and to see that the profits will not be too great. That excuse could be given for withholding the grant for a long period. The danger I see is that the person the Minister is trying to get at may not be hurt but the person who is buying the house may be hurt. Builders and developers have ways of tying up the customer, especially if the customer is for some reason or other tied to that area. They will tie him with the deposit or in some other way and if the grant is not given, he is the sufferer and not the man who is building this type of house.
The operation of this in the way the Deputy suggests would be really an exceptional case. I should like to say that not all but only a few of the speculative builders would have been offenders in the past, or may be in the future. It will be an exception rather than the general rule and we will not be investigating all grants with a time-wasting formula. Indeed, I would anticipate that in some cases prospective purchasers would bring to my notice the exorbitant prices they have been asked for houses that allegedly were being built with the aid of State grants. In such cases there would be the retrospective investigation of whether or not grants should be paid for that particular group of houses. The inclusion of this section in the Bill does not mean an immediate decision to put it into operation under either of the two aspects, but that it would be advisable to have it there, lest there be a recurrence of the situation which has only recently passed in regard to exorbitant costing of houses with wither wasteful expenditure, or exorbitant profits going to certain operators. Even if this matter were now in operation, I have no cases in mind to which I could apply it tomorrow.
I am in favour of what is intended in the amendment but I want to emphasise the danger of hurting the wrong person. I remember an attempt being made to withhold grants in order to get a developer to finish his job and provide the people in a certain estate with the amenities to which they were entitled. This was done and it was not 100 per cent in compliance with the law but the people who were suffering were those who wanted to get into the houses and had paid their deposits but could not get in because the grants were being with-held. That danger might arise in this case also.
I can only speak for whatever time I may be administering this law if it is passed, and I can assure the House that these adverse side-effects working to the detriment of the public and contrary to the intention and spirit of the measure, will not occur wittingly while I am in control. I give that undertaking to the House.
Fair enough.
I move amendment No. 42:
In page 35—
(i) to delete lines 38 to 46, and insert the following subsections:
"( ) In case a housing authority are of the opinion that a person to whom this subsection applies has suffered or will suffer hardship by reason of the displacement, the authority may, with the consent of the Minister, pay to him (in addition to an allowance under the said subsection (1)) such reasonable allowance as they think fit towards—
(a) in case the person carries on any trade or business in the premises from which he is displaced—the loss which, in their opinion, the person will sustain by reason of the disturbance of his trade or business consequent upon his displacement, and
(b) in any other case—the loss which, in their opinion, the person will sustain by reason of his displacement.
( ) Subsection ( ) of this section applies to a person mentioned in subsection (1) of this section who carries on any trade or business in the premises from which he is displaced, or who ordinarily resides in such premises for not less than six months prior to the displacement."; and
(ii) in line 47, before "subsection
(2)" to insert "paragraph (a) of". This amendment will enable a housing authority, with the consent of the Minister, to pay a person displaced by the operations of the authority, and who suffers hardship, a contribution towards the loss he will sustain by reason of his displacement, providing that he was living in the premises for over six months. The contribution, I should say, would be in addition to any payment for the acquisition of property for which compensation was payable. The amendment is to meet the case made on Committee Stage by Deputy Clinton and probably others.
I welcome this amendment because we had cases in which people got only token compensation for the loss they suffered and for the increased rents they had to pay for the new accommodation into which they moved. This is something which everybody in the House will be pleased to accept.
Is this in line, roughly, with the provisions that there were so far as the permissive character was concerned? It is only permissive?
Yes; it is only permissive.
I move amendment No. 59:
In page 41, between lines 33 and 34, to insert the following subsection:
"( ) Where—
(a) the rent of any dwelling let by a housing authority under this Act or by the National Building Agency Limited either on a monthly tenancy or on a tenancy for a less period than a month, is in arrears for a period of not less than one month, and
(b) the dwelling is, in the opinion of the authority or the Agency, as the case may be, abandoned by the person to whom it was so let, and
(c) the dwelling is not actually occupied by any person,
the authority or the Agency may give to the person to whom the dwelling was so let notice, being of not less duration than that which would be required to terminate the tenancy by notice to quit, of their intention to resume possession of the dwelling and in case notice is duly given under this subsection and if, but only if, at the expiration of the notice the said rent in arrears is unpaid, the authority or Agency may resume possession of the dwelling and thereupon the tenancy therein shall by virtue of this subsection terminate."
Amendment No. 60 may be discussed with No. 59, as it is consequential.
This amendment will give the housing authorities an easy method of recovering possession of an abandoned house which has been rented from them. It corresponds to the powers in sections 101 and 105 to recover abandoned purchase-houses. The powers in those sections are, however, more restricted since they deal with the recovery of houses which have been sold rather than rented by the housing authority. Under the amendment, where the rented house is vacant for a month and the rent is unpaid the housing authority may serve notice on the tenant of their intention to resume possession. If the rent is unpaid on the expiry of the time mentioned in the notice, then the authority may resume possession without further formality. Notice will be given under section 3 of the Bill which provides for a service where addresses are unknown. I should add that amendment No. 60 is consequential on No. 59.
I would be generally in favour of this amendment, but in certain circumstances, a month might be rather a short period. There might be a case where, through nobody's fault, the month has elapsed without knowledge of the situation. Perhaps that period could be stretched to a couple of months without any great danger. The month is rather short.
Yes, at first sight, I was inclined to take the same line myself. However, in this case we are not dealing with houses occupied by persons who have failed to pay their rent for a month. We are dealing with the tenant who has failed to pay the rent for a month and the house in question has subsequently been discovered to be vacant when the rent collector or agent called. It is in such circumstances that notice will be duly served and the terms of section 3 of the Bill put in motion.
I have sympathy with the need of Dublin Corporation in this regard, the need for a quick and simple method of regaining possession of these houses. It is a constant source of annoyance to thousands of people on the waiting list who petition councillors every time they see such houses vacant, and one cannot explain to people who are in urgent need of a house, to their parents or to their family, that there are legal snags which prevent the corporation repossessing these houses. This is an advance. Technically, as a lawyer, I resent any efforts which seem to interfere with the rights of tenants, but where there is clear evidence of realistic surrender of the house or of non-interest in the house and the rent is not paid the local authority ought to be able to get it back.
That, in essence, is the purpose of this amendment, to meet realistically that situation which obtains in Dublin to the embarrassment of all of us. Very often houses are there to be applied for. People see that they are vacant but, as far as the corporation are concerned, they are not vacant or they cannot get them, and they have to go through a long-term formality to get them back.
It causes a great deal of trouble when people know that a house is idle and one sends a letter to the corporation and gets a letter back to say that the house is not vacant. It calls for a lot of diplomacy to convince the people that the corporation are not liars.
The only point I want to make is in connection with the notice. I agree section 3 does seem to cover all contingencies. Where the house has been abandoned, amongst the modes of service which are allowed is affixing the notice either on the premises or near the premises in some conspicuous place. However, unless I have misread section 3, it does not seem to allow for service of notice by post to the premises, if the premises do appear to be abandoned, and the Minister might consider whether or not it would be an advantage to have that power in these cases. I know that if the notice is affixed at or near the premises as provided, evidence of so affixing the notice can be given in court and presumably would be acted upon, but as a practical means of service of the notice, that may prove to be very ineffective. Take a time, for example, of extremely bad wet weather or something of that sort; a notice may last for only a few minutes before it is gone by reason of the weather. I would suggest that, as an alternative, the local authority might have power simply to send an ordinary letter addressed to the tenant at the premises in cases where they do not know what his address is.
The Deputy thinks the procedure outlined in section 3 may be ineffective or too cumbersome?
The procedure in section 3 does cover the case because notice may be affixed to the premises or near the premises, but I would feel that the local authority should be given the power to send a letter addressed to the premises and that that should be regarded as adequate service. If the person does not go there to collect his mail or if he has abandoned the premises, that is his own funeral. However, I am simply raising the point to be looked at.
The local authority could, if they so desired, put a letter through the letter box, in addition to following the procedure laid down.
I think I am right in this, that section 3 does not give them power to serve at the premises except by affixing the notice, unless they know that is where he ordinarily resides.
I agree it does not specifically indicate the power or obligation to do it, but there is nothing that prevents them from doing it. It might be left as it is and if it were felt it was an improvement, I would bring it to the notice of the local authorities and suggest to them that, in addition to affixing the notice, they might send a letter and have it delivered to the premises as well.
I move amendment No. 60:
In page 41, line 34, after "under" to insert "subsection (1) of". Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 65:
In page 41, line 52, after "document" to insert the following: "and in case there is no tenancy in the premises to which the proceedings relate by reason of the termination of a tenancy by notice to quit and the person to whom such notice was given is the person against whom the proceedings are brought, the following additional provisions shall apply:
(a) any demand or requirement contained in such notice that the person deliver up to possession of the said premises to the authority or the Agency, shall be a sufficient demand for the purposes of paragraph (b) of the said subsection (1); and
(b) any statement in the said notice of the intention of the authority or the Agency to make application under subsection (1) of this section in respect of the premises shall be sufficient notice for the purposes of subsection (2) of this section."
This amendment will make it clear that a notice terminating tenancy may also contain a demand for possession for the purposes of paragraph (b) of subsection 1 of the section, and also that the notice shall be regarded as sufficient notice of the intention of the local authority to take court action if possession is not given to them. The section deals with the recovery of possession of rented dwellings from both tenants and trespassers. In the case of tenants a notice terminating the tenancy must be served. This notice may contain a demand for possession of the dwelling. If, following the service of the notice, possession is not given to the authority, they apply to the district court for the issue of a summons. At the subsequent proceedings, the court, if satisfied that the application is duly made, must give possession but can order a stay of execution.
In the case of trespassers, the housing authority must give notice under subsection (3) of the section of their intention to take court action if the trespasser does not hand up possession. Following this, they apply to the district court for a summons and proceedings may then take the same course as in the case of an ordinary tenancy.
I move amendment No. 67: In page 43, line 32, after "shall" to insert ", in so far as they relate to overcrowding."
Perhaps with amendment No. 67 we might take amendments Nos. 75, 76 and 80 which are consequential.
The principal object of these amendments is to restore the existing position for the making of bye-laws by housing authorities dealing with minor repairs to houses let for rent. It had been the intention originally, as Deputies will see from the explanatory memorandum circulated with the Bill, to allow existing bye-laws to lapse and to rely instead on the repairs notice procedure for securing the execution of urgent repairs. I have, however, recently received urgent representations from Dublin Corporation that the bye-laws should be retained, principally on the ground that they represent an easy and well-tried method of securing minor patching repairs to houses for which the repairs notice procedure might prove too cumbersome. On consideration, I have decided to retain the existing bye-laws. These amendments provide accordingly. Amendment No. 76 provides for the recovery of expenses by the housing authority who do work in default of repairs by the owner. The same method of recovery will apply as applied in respect of work done under a repairs notice.
It is simply being brought back to this Bill, even though it was in existence prior to it?
That is right.
I move amendment No. 73: In page 47, between lines 42 and 43, to insert the following subsection: "( ) In any proceedings under this section against a person for permitting the use for human habitation of premises to which a repairs notice, a closing order, a demolition order or an undertaking applies, it shall be presumed, until the contrary is proved, that the person permitted such use."
This amendment will put the onus of proof on the owner or landlord that he did not permit the use of a house to which a repairs notice, demolition order or clearing order applies.
It may be only a token, but I have objected on several occasions to this type of section being put into Bills. It is undesirable that we should weight our law in the matter of evidence in the manner being done in this amendment now as that the onus of proof, instead of being on the complainant, is by virtue of an Act of Parliament placed squarely on the shoulders of the defendant. There may be special reasons for it in a Housing Bill of this sort, but, generally speaking, the principle being enshrined in this amendment is not a good one. It is one which normally I would feel should be resisted.
I wish to support Deputy O'Higgins on this. I have had the experience—I am not sure whether he has or not—of appearing before one venerable member of the district court bench on a number of occasions pleading on behalf of defendants in proceedings where the onus of proof of innocence lay on the defendant. The district justice in all these cases said it was not himself I should blame for the verdict but persons who, like myself, were legislators. It is undesirable —and, I think unnecessary—to be infringing the principle upon which our law is founded, that is, that every person is innocent until proved guilty.
This is the thin end of the wedge. The wedge is already there. I know it has been inserted in the rights of the individual already. But to give it another tap on this occasion, and on every occasion upon which the State is seeking extra power, is to do damage to the rights of the individual. Frankly, I do not think it is necessary to have it. The Minister should tread warily. The additional powers given in this measure to deal with the improper reoccupation of condemned property are sufficient without bringing in this unnecessary obligation on a defendant to prove his innocence.
There emerges here a grave question of principle. It is presumed a person is actually breaking the law and the responsibility rests on himself to prove he is not. It would seem to be a very retrograde step to accept this amendment and enshrine this principle in any legislation. It is contrary, surely, to all the accepted canons of jurisprudence. The obligation to prove breach of the law must rest upon authority. Here we are seeking to put the obligation to prove innocence upon the individual. It is a serious incursion on individual rights. I would ask the Minister to reconsider it.
On other occasions when this principle was enshrined in legislation—principally I have in mind road traffic legislation—a case was made that a certain amount of time was wasted by the State and Garda in giving technical proofs and that we were only leaving loopholes for people who should be punished to get out. That kind of argument does not really apply here. As I said, I appreciate there is often a certain amount of urgency in dealing with housing matters. Very often exceptional powers may be justified. But I do not think that is the case here. After all, under section 68, we are providing very severe penalties for breaches. The defendant, if he is found to be in breach of the law, may be fined as much as £50 or imprisoned for a month. Where you have a high fine, where you have imprisonment or where you have at the option of the court a fine or imprisonment, in those circumstances it is not right that we should relieve the local authority of what up to now has been their duty to present their case and their proofs properly in court. That does not seem to be adequate justification for a breach of the principle on this occasion. With Deputy Dunne and Deputy Ryan, I urge the Minister to reconsider the matter.
The recent history of housing in Dublin city did present a great problem to the City Council. As far as I remember, they made suggestions to the Department that they had found the law inadequate and that it called for some change. I am not a lawyer——
This is of no benefit to lawyers. It is only a protection for the individual.
I am not suggesting that it is of benefit to lawyers. In the past three years, we have found that the powers were inadequate and it was most frustrating.
This does not add to the powers of the local authority. It is a question of proof before the courts——
Proof against the offending person.
In the final analysis, it may be a matter of interpretation.
No, not even that; not on this case.
I take it that the intention of the amendment is to provide a further deterrent. It is really an additional punishment for the offender. This would arise only in the case where a housing authority suspected that, after notice had been given, the house was being re-occupied or inhabited by people when it should not be inhabited. When they make that accusation, they are the strong party in this dispute. Surely the benefit of the doubt should go to the weaker party? I think it is quite unfair and I feel that here we might have a person who would be perfectly innocent being put to the expense of going to the court and proving his innocence.
That is what it comes down to.
I do not think anybody would like to legislate along those lines.
I think we are inclined to widen this to cover lots of people who will never come under it at all. We are dealing here with the case where a house, in respect of which a repairs notice, demolition order or clearing order applies, is, in fact, occupied. Do not forget that this occupation may be with the knowledge and consent of the landlord and to his own benefit by way of rent, and very often a very high rent. All we are asking here is that if it is found that such a house is, in fact, occupied, the owner will be required not merely to say: "I did not know anything about it" but to clear himself in court of the allegation. What we are asking is that, in court, he will not only be left to say that he did not know about these people but will be able to show that, by his securing of the door or the window of the property, it was not open to anybody to walk in —in other words, if the house was occupied, the persons had to break in—or that he will be able to show that, as soon as he was made aware that his property was being occupied in contravention of one or other of these orders, he made some effort to try to get these people out. This is what we are seeking in relation to that limited class of re-occupied houses in respect of which a repairs notice, a demolition order or a clearing order has been made and which have in fact already been vacated on foot of such notice. It is that limited category that is affected. It is not a question of bringing a person to court and saying to him: "Stand up and defend yourself against the charges by the county council or by anybody else".
The Minister is oversimplifying it. It is a question of principle. Under subsection (2) of section 68 the offence, which we are laying down now will be an offence, is that of using the premises or permitting the premises to be used. Up to now, the ordinary rule of evidence has been that if an allegation is made against a person that that particular offence is being committed—the offence either of using the premises or of permitting the premises to be used —it was necessary for the person bringing the complaint to show that the offence had been committed, to prove that the premises had been used or to prove, in the alternative, that the premises had been permitted to be used. That was the position under the Bill as introduced by the Minister.
The Minister is now saying, by means of this amendment No. 73 that if that offence is alleged—the offence of permitting the premises to be used —the court must accept it as being so, unless the defendant can show that it is not so. In other words, the question of the local authority tendering evidence to show that the offence has been committed is completely dispensed with. All they have to do now, if this amendment is accepted, is to make the allegation and, the allegation having been made by the local authority, the court must convict unless the defendant can come into court and establish his innocence.
Let us see what we are doing. We are setting up a situation where the local authority have simply to make an allegation and that allegation must be accepted by the court unless the defendant comes in and establishes his innocence. The allegation, which must be accepted by the court, carries very heavy penalties: it carries a penalty of up to £50, a month in prison, or both, and that penalty can be imposed by the court, if this amendment is accepted, merely on an allegation, unproved, by the local authority. I think that is going too far.
This argument is on the basis of a principle in relation to which I know there are quite strong feelings which I do not share, as Deputies may remember from other occasions.
The Minister was in a different capacity then.
Even so. In relation to the principle about which some Deputies feel quite strongly, I would say that they are inclined to exaggerate the actual situation we are trying to deal with here. It is not just a question of allegation by a local authority against the owner of the house: it is a question of a factual situation that is brought before the courts. Take, for example, a house which already has been detenanted and cleared by way of a legal instrument—one or other of these orders. If it is a fact that this legal instrument and intention has been circumvented, this is what is brought before the courts and the owner of the house is, as a result, before the courts to show, for instance, in the case of a clearing order or demolition order, that he has, in fact, conformed to the terms of that order which obliges him to take steps to secure the house against re-occupation. This is an imposition already on him, which clearly and in fact will have been broken. It is that which is brought before the court and he will be brought only as a party to that.
I am saying, further, that he is not being brought forward on a mere allegation. He is being brought forward on a factual situation which is in contravention of a legal instrument that compelled him as owner, not only to have the house cleared, but to take steps to see that it would not be re-occupied. What we are saying is that it will not be enough to say: "I did not know anything about it". He will be asked merely to show on the one hand that he had conformed to the order which required him to secure the place against re-occupation or, alternatively, having found that it was re-occupied, that he had taken steps to try to have it detenanted again. This is the distinction that exists between what I am trying to get done and the principle as enunciated and argued by Deputy O'Leary.
In subsection (2) of section 68, there are really two distinct offences involved. There is the offence of using the house and there is the offence of permitting the house to be used. All of the Minister's arguments the last time he was on his feet seemed to me to be directed to the offence of using the house and, in that event, evidence still has to be given to the court to prove that a detenanted house has been used. The Minister's amendment does not weaken or strengthen the position as regards the offence of using the house. The Minister's amendment is, in fact, not relevant to that particular offence at all. It is relevant to the offence of permitting the house to be used and the Minister has not really addressed himself to the argument made on that at all.
Any of us can think of a situation which might arise. Possibly it is far-fetched, but a situation might arise where the order has been fully complied with by the tenant. He has locked up the house, secured it as best he can and another member of the family or, if you like, a stranger goes in and squats in the house and uses it. In that set of circumstances, if the Minister's amendment is accepted, the local authority will simply have to come to court and say that the house has been used and thereupon, without any evidence and, in fact, even without an allegation, the court must hold, under the Minister's amendment, that the tenant knowingly permitted it to be done and that presumption must remain unless the tenant can come in and establish his evidence. It is, whether the Minister recognises it or not, a complete reversal of our standards of justice and standards of evidence in connection with matters of proof.
The Minister is going further in his amendment than he needs to go if what he seeks to do is confined to the particular cases he has in mind. As Deputy O'Higgins points out, there are two offences described in section 68. One is the offence of user and the other is the offence of permitting user. The Minister, in fact, has referred to another offence, to another action or inaction which could be separately classified, that is, the failure to secure a property against re-entry.
There is a very big difference in the moral turpitude involved between failing to secure property against re-entry and actually granting permission to a person to use the property. If I can illustrate it by the reference to another type of offence, I will refer to the Road Traffic Act. There there is a well-known offence of using a mechanically-propelled vehicle without the permission of the owner. If the Minister's argument here is valid, it would be a valid defence for any person charged with using a mechanically-propelled vehicle without the permission of the owner to show to the court that the owner had not secured the car against re-entry and had not secured the car against being driven by another person.
That is the line of argument the Minister is using here now. I would be loth to see the Minister even going so far as to presume in law that a person is guilty of an offence of failing to secure a property against re-entry but if he confined it even to that it would be a reasonable compromise. But, here the presumption is that a person has deliberately, knowingly, thwarted the law, has deliberately been in contempt of an order of the court, of deliberately and knowingly giving another person permission to go into the property. That is an entirely different thing from failing to put a lock on the door or failing to put concrete blocks on the window or otherwise securing the property. The Minister is using a sledge hammer where a nut-cracker would do.
We have the nut-crackers but they will not do.
They are not working.
They are not working. The Deputy is deliberately using the arguments I have just made to suggest that a readymade defence is provided for a person who commits the offence as user, merely by following up and reversing what I have said about a person who permits the use of a house. I did not use any argument that could be used in any such way. I do not think the Deputy was really serious when he suggested that it was fair to draw a parallel between the person who uses a house and the person who takes away a car and makes the plea that it was not locked.
That is the logical conclusion.
The Deputy has not put it forward as anything other than that, to try to make it appear that my argument as to why the onus of proof should be put on the landlord can be reversed in the same way. It cannot be done in the case of a car any more than in the case of a house. The Deputy suggests that that can be done to the advantage of the person who has permitted occupation of the house, namely, the tenant, that the tenant can get away with it merely because we are asking him to carry the onus of proof.
I am simply bringing the Minister's argument into another context, and showing how his argument is not valid.
I think it loses something in the transfer. I still put it this way: that the person who uses the house is committing an offence, distinct and separate.
Under existing legislation.
Here, a person who occupies is committing an offence. A person who permits the occupation is committing an offence. Each of them is committing an offence. All I am saying is that these offences in regard to this section are in relation to the relatively small number of houses which are for the time being subject to a repairs notice, a demolition order or a clearing order and the owner surely can be expected to show in his own defence that he did not willingly permit the use of his house when it should not have been occupied. He can quite clearly show this by indicating that he took the ordinary steps to secure the house against reoccupation, which in respect of demolition and clearing orders he was already obliged to do by this instrument of Order or legal document that would have been served on him originally and, further, that even if he fails to show he took reasonable steps to secure the house against occupation or re-entry he can show that so soon as he becomes aware of its being occupied he made some effort, went to the house and said: "Get out. This is my house. It cannot be re-occupied. It is a case of a clearance order," as an alternative to showing that he had properly secured it. Either would be a good defence.
Who says that?
I would hate to say I do. I am saying we do.
I am asking the Minister seriously where does that appear to be a good defence under this Bill?
Nowhere.
I think the Minister will recall in connection with his term as Minister for Local Government when he was dealing with such matters as the Road Traffic Act it was pointed out time and time again that what the Minister says in this House or what any Deputy says in this House. does not matter as far as the court is concerned. What matters as far as the court is concerned is what is written into legislation. I am asking this now, not in a carping way, Can the Minister point to any portion of section 68 which says it is a good defence to show the man has made the effort? I do not think there is anything there. The Minister is completely wrong in that. It may be what he wants but it is not what is in the Bill, and what is in the Bill when it becomes an Act is what the courts must go by.
The only other point is: am I right in taking it that, if this amendment is accepted, it will cover also proceedings under subsection (3) of section 68? I was regarding it as referring only to subsection (1) and (2) where the penalties are £50 or a month in jail. If, in fact, it extends also to subsection (3) the position is obviously far more serious.
It does apply, and it is more serious.
The penalties are £500 or six months in jail, or both. We will put people in jeopardy simply on an allegation by a local authority, without the local authority having to give any proof whatever, and I say again that that is going too far.
I love listening to the Deputy telling us just how the courts arrive at interpretations of what is wrong as a result of the deliberations in this House.
The Minister may take it they do not look at the Dáil debates.
With no disrespect to them, they do not seem to look at the commonsense of the matter.
They do not even look at the Act.
If it were a question of arriving at the meaning of a constitutional matter or something of that kind, I can quite see that the High Court or the Supreme Court might read the Dáil debates. I am talking about the ordinary case coming before the courts when the court has only the Act in front of it. It is only the Act that is looked at.
Listening to this and hearing about the independence of the courts, not only in interpretation but in their conviction and, on conviction, in their penalties, if we take the argument of Deputy O'Higgins as to the interpretation of the words written here——
It is their job to interpret. That is why we must make it quite clear.
I do not want to be offensive about how clear one must be sometimes. I will use the Deputy's own argument to combat his second one. If we assume that what the Deputy said is so, then nothing we say here need be taken into account by the learned judges in their interpretation of the law. If that is so, then the seriousness of the fine of £500 or the six months in jail will not be taken into account either, even where a conviction has taken place on foot of the judge's interpretation because that is merely something we write in here and it does not really matter; the judge will weigh up the evidence and apply the penalty he thinks fit to suit the crime.
That is what we are telling him to do. We are fixing a maximum.
We cannot have it both ways. If they ignore us in one direction, then there is no increased danger in applying this to subsection (3) of section 68. Subsections (1) and (2) introduce fines of £5 and, if we include subsection (3), the fine will be £500. That would be a real difficulty, were we to take it that the courts would give cognisance to this £500 merely because we have written it in here.
Perhaps I have not made myself clear. The fact is we have written in £500 and six months but we have not written into the Bill that it would be a good defence if the defendant were able to say to the court that he told the fellow to get out or put on a lock and someone took it off. We do not say in the section these are good defences but we do say that he can be fined up to £500 or six months in jail. In having regard to the £500 or the six months, the court will be having regard to what is in the Bill. That is the distinction.
Yes, but they may have regard to any part of it from zero to £500.
But it is written in there.
And the courts will do just what suits them in the light of the evidence before them.
As justice requires, not as it suits them.
This is a rather naive way of expressing some of the findings. There is a word used in this particular amendment; it is the word "permits". I believe—I am not as conversant with the matter as some Deputies are, perhaps, and those Deputies who frequent the courts may be able to tell us— that the word "permits" carries a certain interpretation in the courts. The two legal Deputies who have spoken may be able to throw some light on this; it has a bearing, I think. The word "permits" has a certain connotation and interpretation in our laws at the moment.
I am not quite sure what is in the Minister's mind but, if it does carry any meaning other than the ordinary meaning in which it is used here, then it would seem to me there is a responsibility on the Minister to inform the House.
It seems to me the courts have already told us so much about this that those who practise the law are best equipped to tell us. I might mislead the House in my recollection of the meaning given by the courts to the word "permits".
I presume this has been considered by the Minister's Department.
As a third leg to the argument. We already have two good ones.
The Minister did not give any good reasons when introducing the amendment as to why it is necessary or desirable to take the onus off the housing authority and place it on the suspect.
Of course I did. We heard something just lately about dogs being tagged, named, numbered, registered, and probably taxed before the year is out.
Is that a Budget leak?
No. If a dog kills sheep, or anything else, the owner is, I understand, responsible. That is why people want the tags and names. En passant, I would suggest putting the wrong name on the dog and then there would be no trouble. However, if it can be established that a dog which kills sheep belongs to me, then damages may be visited on my head, and rightly so. If a breach of the law in respect of a house I own takes place, then I would expect to come under some penalty.
Why?
For allowing this to happen.
If you allow it.
If I am the owner, I must have responsibility. I have been directed by order to close and secure the house against re-entry. The local authority find the house has not only been re-entered but is occupied. They may have good reason to believe that it is a rent proposition as far as the owner is concerned. Surely it is reasonable to provide that that owner must go further than merely saying: "I did not know." He must show that he conformed to the closure terms that he should secure it reasonably against re-entry. Alternatively, if he can show that, or if he can say that, as soon as he knew it was re-occupied, he took certain steps to try to have it cleared again, he is pleading innocence. Either of these answers to me would obviously establish clearly that he did not permit. It is on this question of permitting that we will be standing rather than on anything else.
The Minister has, perhaps unwittingly, given his mind away. We would all go along with him in the case of a house the user of which requires that a penalty should be imposed and that the owner, if he allows the user, should be one of the people visited with that penalty or penalties. If the Minister had left it at that, we would all agree with him. What we are concerned about is that it is not now necessary to show that the owner had permitted the user. The Minister has not answered the query put to him by Deputy Clinton and has not stated why it is necessary to bring in an amendment of this sort. His parable about the dog does not appear to me to be relevant.
The Minister may say that he does not wish to waste the time of the officials of local authorities in going to court and trying to prove that a person had knowingly permitted the use of a house in a particular way. Even if he had said that it was going to become impossible to prove positively that the user had been permitted by the owner, there would be something for us to get our teeth into but all he has said is that he wants the House to accept an amendment which will make it quite unnecessary for the local authority to prove the allegation they are making. All the local authority have to do under this amendment is to make the allegation and that allegation must be accepted by the court.
The whole purpose of the amendment is to ensure that houses which have been declared unfit for habitation shall not be occupied until they have been repaired, or whatever. What we are suggesting here is that the owner of the house should prove that he did not permit the use of the house. We are not making any allegations against him but we are saying that he must show that he did not permit the use of the house.
Would the Minister consider the case of a person who is away from his house and, in his absence, a relative occupies the house while he is away, perhaps without his knowledge. Owing to the condition of the house, that person who is occupying it in the absence of the owner is being moved by the local authority into a new house. What is the position of the actual owner of the house if he comes back and has nowhere else to go?
Do I take it that the Deputy is dealing with the case of a house, the owner of which is somewhere abroad?
Take the case of an unoccupied house.
This would not arise in the case of an unoccupied house. If the house is occupied by a relative who pays no rent to the owner and the owner puts nothing into it and does not repair or do anything like that, then due to the neglect of the owner the house may so deteriorate that it must be demolished. Arising out of that and arising from this demolition, the then occupier, not the owner, qualifies and gets a local authority house. The question put to me is what happens to the owner who may return from somewhere.
Yes. He has to return and he has no place else to live.
He comes back to his house and finds it demolished or about to be demolished. There is nothing he can do about it and pleading that he has nowhere else to go is not just good enough. He had that house for long enough. He may plead that he did not know what was going on but he was receiving no rent for the house and was putting nothing into it. Because of this neglect of his, the house is now falling down and the law requires that it be demolished. In that case the house is not a place that he should go into. It is not fit for him.
Here is a case of a person who is an invalid. He is away in hospital and the house is occupied by a relative who is now going to be rehoused by the housing authority because the house he occupies is unfit for habitation. This person now returning from hospital has no place to go. He is served with a demolition order and he tells the local authority that he wants an alternative house. There is no house available for him. What is he going to do? Contravene the law by going into the house or sleep out? There is nothing else for him to do.
What Deputy Jones is saying now is quite different from what he said a moment ago. I agreed with the Minister in his reply to the first case put up by Deputy Jones. In the second instance, what happens if a person goes to hospital and his house is occupied by a relative and that relative is now going to be rehoused because the house is unfit? The house could not be demolished because the original owner could not be rehoused. That would be a different case from that of a person living in another house and the person now to be rehoused is the only occupant. In that case the Minister is right.
Might I suggest the possibility of a compromise on this? I think the amendment as it stands is dangerous and the principle in it is entirely wrong. Would it be possible to insert in the amendment some provision that if the owner had been served by the local authority with a notice calling his attention to the fact that a demolition order appeared to have been made, in proceedings taken subsequent to the service of that notice, it could be presumed that the user had been permitted. Would the Minister interpose some step which would ensure that the attention of the tenant would be directed to the fact that an order had been made and that there was unauthorised user? I have in mind the case of a person who is absolutely innocent and had no knowledge whatever of the fact that unauthorised user had taken place. Under the amendment as it stands, that person is presumed guilty of the allegation made by the local authority. The Minister should make some provision whereby the local authority would serve a notice on the tenant calling his attention to the unauthorised user and saying that in subsequent proceedings guilty knowledge would be presumed.
I would suggest that service of the summons would be sufficient notice. Obviously if he wished to do anything about it by way of trying to get them out, presuming he did not know anything about it, he could take those steps between then and the actual date on which he was to appear in court. On the other hand, if there was to be any sort of compromise that would give me what I want and meet the objection that is being raised, we might say something to the effect that either of the two things I have mentioned could be raised as a good defence.
That would help.
In fact, it would be better than what the Deputy was suggesting because the summons to court will enable the person, if he is completely innocent, time in which to try to get the people out. The other good defence clause might be the proper idea.
It might also be possible to provide that the form of summons would call the attention of the defendant to the fact that he was going to be presumed guilty unless he could establish his innocence. I should like the Minister to follow up his own suggestion of writing in the two matters he mentions as being good defences. That would help a lot.
That would be the better idea. Never mind about the form of summons.
I am not pressing that. If the Minister does the other, I shall be happy.
If the person were entirely innocent, he would either have secured the house against re-entry, according to the dictates of the order already served on him, or subsequently, if he gets a summons for the reoccupation or the permitting of reoccupation, he would have the time to take the other step of saying: "Get out".
I would be happier if the Minister wrote that in.
I shall write it in.
I move amendment No. 75: In page 48, between lines 26 and 27, to insert the following section: (1) A housing authority shall, in relation to houses let for rent or other valuable consideration, make bye-laws for the following purposes:
(a) to ensure the provision as respects the house of proper drainage, ventilation and lighting;
(b) to ensure the execution of any repairs necessary to maintain the structure of the house;
(c) to ensure provision in the house of such closet accommodation, water supplies, washing accommodation and accommodation for the storage, preparation and cooking of food, as shall be adequate for the use of and shall be readily accessible to each family occupying the house;
(d) to ensure that there is maintained as respects the house an adequate standard of cleanliness. (2) A person who contravenes a bye-law under this section shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding twenty-five pounds and, in the case of a continuing offence, to a fine not exceeding five pounds for each day on which the offence is continued. (3) If in relation to a house the requirements of any bye-law made under this section have not been complied with in any respect, the housing authority may, at any time after giving not less than twenty-one days' notice in writing to the owner of the house, do anything necessary to comply with the requirements of the bye-law and for that purpose the authority, their servants or agents may enter on any land. (4) The provisions of sections 221 and 223 of the Public Health (Ireland) Act, 1878, shall apply to bye-laws made under this section in the same manner as they apply to bye-laws made under that Act. (5) In case bye-laws made under section 20 of the Housing (Ireland) Act, 1919, are in force in the area of a housing authority in respect of any matter mentioned in paragraph (a), (b), (c) or (d) of subsection (1) of this section, the obligation of the authority under the said subsection (1) shall, for so long as such bye-laws remain in force, not have effect.
I move amendment No. 76: In page 48, line 28, to delete "or section 69" and insert ", section 69 or section".
Amendment No. 77, and amendments Nos. 78, 79 and 81 are consequential.
I move amendment No. 77: In page 48— (i) in lines 45 and 46, to delete "serving, after not less than fourteen days' notice to the owner of the house, a notice on" and insert "requiring"; (ii) in line 49, to delete "requiring the occupier"; and (iii) in line 53, after "authority" to insert ", or in case the house is or becomes vacant, by letting the same, until the said amount is so paid, on such terms and conditions as the authority think fit, provided that the authority shall serve on the owner of the house not less than twenty-one days' notice either, as may be appropriate, of their intention to require the occupier to pay to them any rent or other payment so due, or of the terms and conditions upon which they propose so to let the house or of any variation which they propose to make in such terms and conditions".
This amendment will clarify the intention of section 70, that a housing authority should be able to recover the expense of repairing a house by letting. Under the section as it stands, they can only require the occupier, if there is one, to pay them the rent. The principal effect of the other three amendments is to give the owner on whom notice of intention to rent a house is served the right of appeal to the Circuit Court. In amendment No. 77 we are giving the right to the local housing authority to recover the expenses of repairing a house by letting, as distinct from the present situation. The following three amendments give the owner, when he gets the notice telling him that they are going to let the house for a rent, the right to appeal to the Circuit Court, if he feels aggrieved.
I move amendment No. 78:
In page 49, line 17, to delete "occupier" and insert "owner".
I move amendment No. 79:
In page 49, lines 19 and 20, to delete "required by the notice to be paid" and insert "payable by virtue of the said subsection (1)".
I move amendment No. 80:
In page 49, line 28, to delete "or the said section 69" and insert ", the said section 69 or the said section."
I move amendment No. 81: In page 50— (i) to delete lines 16 to 19 and insert—"(d) a requirement that a rent or a payment in lieu of rent be paid to a housing authority, a notice or a letting under or by virtue of paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of section 70 of this Act."; (ii) in line 21, to delete ", demand" and after "order," to insert "the making of the demand,"; (iii) in line 38, to delete "or refusal" and insert "order, refusal, letting or requirement"; and (iv) in line 39 and in line 42, to delete "or order" and insert "order, letting or requirement".
Amendment No. 90, and amendment No. 93 might be discussed with it as they are cognate.
I move amendment No. 90:
In page 59, line 14, before "be" to insert ", with the consent of the Minister,".
The principal purpose of these amendments is to insert a requirement that the consent of the Minister be obtained to a disposal of land for houses where the members of a local authority disagree with the proposed disposal terms submitted by the manager. If the requirement to obtain consent were not included, the local authority could dispose of land or houses on any terms they wished, without control, and simply by passing a resolution. In the ordinary case where the members agree, specific sanction of the Minister will not be required so long as the minimum terms of saver laid down are observed. These would probably provide that the sale price would be the best, with reducations in the case of houses to correspond to the grants and subsequent compensation.
The only thing about this is that it may affect the Minister's recent statements in this House that where land was required for the purpose of housing, he would have no objection to local authorities letting, selling or, in fact, I think he used the words, giving away land, for sites. Is there any danger that this may in fact interfere with that proposal or does it mean that the Minister will be laying down a minimum set of rates?
Or is it the intention of the Minister that each case would be considered on its merits, that there would be no general yardstick?
This procedure arises only where there is a difference between the elected members and their manager as to the terms of disposal. Where there is a dispute, I am saying: "Send it to me".
The Minister is aware that in my own county we had a difference of opinion between the elected members and the manager on the terms and the Minister had subsequently to reduce the amount being sought by the manager for sites which were made available. Is it the intention that the Minister should be bothered by all those things again? At that time the manager made the case that the Minister's officials required that the same rate be obtained for the site as had originally been paid for it.
This is in regard to the provision of pre-developed sites? Is that what the Deputy is asking about?
Yes.
If there is anything in this that curtails the freedom to do what we have advocated, and in some cases have carried out, in the past, that is, providing these sites at a reduced figure, then I certainly would be disturbed. My information is to the contrary, that no such change is made in these amendments and that we are dealing mainly with the problem which arises where a manager and his elected council disagree with the proposal he may have put before them. In that case the Minister's consent may then be sought and minimum terms might be laid down and a general indication given of what these might be. On the other hand, specific cases, if they should arise under this, may not be dealt with necessarily in a general way. If there was a good reason why the minimum price generally applicable in cases arising from the amended sections was right for a particular set of circumstances, obviously we would have to look into that and make a charge so as to allow the council to do what we felt was right rather than what was wrong. As a Minister, I am not obliged to lay down a particular line of action in this regard. All that is being done is that the Minister is given the power to consent or to withhold his consent to the disposal of land or property or houses belonging to the local authority, a dispute having arisen on the proposal between the Manager and the elected representatives.
What I am concerned about is this. Section 87 (1) says:
Any land acquired for the purposes of or appropriated for the purposes of or under this Act by a housing authority may be sold, leased or exchanged subject to such conditions as the authority may consider necessary having regard to the purposes of this Act.
Now the Minister proposes to insert "with the consent of the Minister" If a local authority decided to make available at a nominal rent or a nominal charge a site for building and the manager says: "You cannot do that and I shall appeal to the Minister", the Minister then says: "We must protect the rates; we cannot allow this to happen and the charge shall be so much." That is what I am afraid of. I was satisfied with the section as it was. I would not like anything put there which would make it more difficult for housing authorities to improve the housing situation.
Is it the Minister's intention that this will be used only where a dispute arises between the members of the local authority and the manager——
That can apply two ways.
Or will he insist that each case be considered by him on its merits?
No.
The Minister says it is just when a dispute arises. If it was a question of the manager disagreeing with the elected representatives I would be glad to see some way of settling it, but if it is the other way around, that the Minister wants the right to decide, if the manager refuses to agree to what the elected representatives suggest, there is a danger of fouling the thing up.
The manager must get the consent of the council.
If the council consents, that is all right. As the amendment is, the manager can say: "I am not satisfied. The Minister will have to have a say." That is how I read it.
The manager cannot send it without the consent of the members. All I am saying is that in these circumstances, if the members do not agree with the manager, the case may be submitted to the Minister. The Minister is completely free as to what price he will insist upon. He is not tied in any way and can consider the merits of the case put to him by the members or the manager or both, and sit in judgment as between the two.
I can appreciate the Minister's sentiments because he has reduced considerably prices which the manager tried to impose in my own constituency, but I am sure he will agree that if the local authority elected representatives want to make sites available at a given price, all the manager has to do is to say: "I am not satisfied with that price."
We are down to dealing with sites, but this section which it is proposed to amend takes in land, houses and property. Therefore, we are not dealing with the isolated case of developed sites.
Would the Minister say if this can apply to the price which the Minister can charge for a vested cottage of which a tenant is trying to dispose?
That will come under the specific type of scheme that will emerge rather than a different deal for every house. There will be a purchase scheme with some sort of built-in formula whereby prices will be arrived at merely by calculation.
This section refers to all lands and buildings, as the Minister has said, that is, lands and buildings of which the council is disposing. Even though the other section specificially deals with a vested cottage, is there not the possibility that this section also can cover it. The tenant may say: "I am not satisfied with the price". If the council do not agree, does an appeal lie with the Minister?
That does not come within this.
He is redeeming his cottage.
It will be by way of formula stated. In other words, there will be the predetermination of the Minister before the local authorities settle it.
Would the Minister say why he considers this absolutely necessary? Many of us in the local authority think we have to get the Minister's consent for far too many things.
We have to ask for it; we do not always get it.
The Minister has to get consent for a lot of things he does not like.
Why does he now decide he should have to give consent to this? What new circumstances have arisen?
Let us put it this way. The local elections are coming some time this year, and who knows who will be elected?
There is a rumour they will not be held until next year.
The Deputy can discount that. The situation could well arise after any election, after all the care and nurturing that local authorities have given their property over the years, that a few people could be elected who by their influence or their weight in council could adopt a line of action to dispose of property of great value to the council, dispose of it to many people or a few people or even one person, at very poor value to the ratepayers and to the council. Councils sometimes have to be protected from themselves, just the same as Ministers, county managers and all the rest who are subject to error occasionally.
That possibility has always existed.
Now not only has this possibility existed but the actual fears that I have often expressed have been realised in some cases. I am trying to ensure that it will not happen again.
The Minister is talking about houses which cost more to repair than the amount received in rent.
Then you give them away.
If they were given away, the cost would not arise.
Then houses are built at four times the price and you think you save money.
I move amendment No. 93:
In page 61, line 4, before "be" to insert ", with the consent of the Minister,".
I move amendment No. 94:
In page 63, between lines 7 and 8, to insert the following subsection: "( ) Where a cottage purchased under the Act of 1936 comes within an urban area, whether before or after the commencement of this section, all the provisions of the Act of 1936 shall continue to apply in relation to the cottage and the functions in relation to the cottage which could formerly be performed by the authority by whom the relevant vesting order under section 17 of the Act of 1936 was made shall thenceforth be performed by the housing authority for the urban area and in case the cottage came within an urban area before the commencement of this section, the said provisions shall be deemed to have continued to so apply and the said functions shall be deemed to have been so performable as and from the date on which the cottage came within the urban area."
This amendment will make it clear that an urban authority in whose area a vested cottage comes by reason of a boundary extension will have the same powers and duties in relation to the cottage as the county council from whose area the cottage was transferred. The amendment will relate to transfers already made as well as to transfers made in future under section 95.
I take it the Minister has in mind something we were discussing last night, namely, purchase schemes? When the boundary was extended in Dublin we immediately had to put these houses into good repair and give them a vested scheme before they went into the city.
You sent them away decent.
Yes, but I think we were obliged to send them away decent, and I assume that is what this is intended to cover. It would not be necessary to wait until these repairs were carried out and the vesting scheme went through.
It is only in relation to houses which have been purchased.
The poor fellows who have not vested them are caught.