I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 1:
Section 11:
In subsection (2), page 13, line 6, "of" deleted and "for" substituted.
Housing Bill, 1965: From the Seanad.
The Dáil went into Committee to consider amendments by the Seanad.
Question put and agreed to.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 2:
Section 17:
In subsection (1), line 8, before "ordinarily""providing a house, who is" inserted; in line 9, before "who""and" inserted; and in line 10, "providing a house" deleted.
Question put and agreed to.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 3:
Section 19:
In subsection (2), line 32, "in the house" deleted.
Question put and agreed to.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 4:
Section 2:
In subsection (1), line 42, before "to""a grant" inserted.
Question put and agreed to.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 5:
Section 49:
In subsection (2), line 37 "the said subsection (1)" deleted and "subsection (1) of this section" substituted.
Question put and agreed to.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 6:
Section 60:
In subsection 3 (d), page 40, line 15, "segregation of" deleted and "provision of adequate and suitable housing accommodation for" substituted.
Question put and agreed to.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 7:
In page 40, the following new subsection inserted before subsection (9):
"() A housing authority shall, upon request, permit a scheme made by them under this section to be inspected during office hours by any person."
Question put and agreed to.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 8:
Section 62:
In subsection (1), page 41, after "be," in line 38 and before line 39, the following inserted:
"and
(c) there is a statement in the demand of the intention of the authority or Agency to make application under this subsection in the event of the requirements of the demand not being complied with,".
Question put and agreed to.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 9:
Subsection (3) deleted.
Question put and agreed to.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 10:
In subsection (4), lines 15 and 16, "notice required by this section has been duly given" deleted and "demand mentioned in the said subsection (1) has been duly made" substituted.
Question put and agreed to.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 11:
In subsection (5), line 19, before "and""subject to the modification that where as respects an application under subsection (1) of this section, the name of the occupier of a dwelling or building or part thereof cannot by reasonable enquiry be ascertained, a summons under the said section 86 may be addressed to ‘the occupier' without naming him," inserted.
Question put and agreed to.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 12:
In subsection (6) (a), line 33, "to" deleted.
Question put and agreed to.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 13:
In subsection (6) (b), lines 40 and 41, all words from and including "sufficient" in line 40 to the end of the paragraph deleted and "a sufficient statement for the purposes of paragraph (c) of the said subsection (1)" substituted.
Question put and agreed to.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 14:
Section 88:
In subsection (1), line 38, "or under this Act" inserted before "or appropriated" and in line 39 "or under" deleted.
Question put and agreed to.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 15:
In subsection (2) (a), page 59, line 44, "or under this Act" inserted before "or appropriated" and "or under" deleted.
Question put and agreed to.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 16:
Section 90:
In subsection (6), after "housing" in line 39 and before line 40, the following inserted:
";
(c) any attempted or purported mortgaging, charging or alienation in contravention of the condition shall be null and void against all persons; provided, however, that in any case where the consent of the housing authority is given after the attempted or purported mortgaging, charging or alienation, such consent shall, if the authority so direct, so operate as to validate with retrospective effect such attempted or purported mortgaging, charging or alienation".
Could the Minister explain this amendment?
Amendments Nos. 16 and 18 may be regarded as one. The purpose of these amendments is to render any mortgage charge, sub-division or alienation in contravention of sections 90 and 98 of the Bill and section 17 of the Labourers Act, 1936, null and void.
Does it affect the Labourers Act of last year?
That little Bill of last year was an advance instalment of this one and is embodied in the present Bill.
An extraordinary situation has arisen as a result of this. If a tenant who has had the cottage vested in him wishes to sell portion of the plot to somebody to build a house, he is called upon to pay back to the local authority part of the purchase money. I have the case of a man who bought a site for £200 from such a tenant. The tenant was told by the local authority that they would require £180 of that to be paid to them. I do not think this was the intention of the Bill. Certainly, it was not the intention of the House. The Minister might look at it to see if, by regulation or otherwise, he could prevent this sort of stupid thing happening.
This does not directly arise on this. Such matters will be covered by circular instructions to the local authorities.
Can the Minister do anything about a situation which appears to be legally right but is obviously stupid?
Is the Minister aware of the delay this section has brought about in the sale of vested cottages? It has to go to the local authority and then to the Minister to see that each is satisfied with the amount the local authority propose to take.
I think the thing is being confused. In all these cases it is not legally necessary to do these things. They are dealt with either by regulation or by circular direction. In regard to Deputy Clinton's complaint about unnecessarily sending these things for sanction, this again is not statutorily required and may be dispensed with.
The local authorities say they are acting on instructions they got by circular from the Minister. They say they must do this because it is laid down in the Bill. The result is it has completely defeated the purposes of the Bill. It means that it will be almost impossible to sell a cottage to anybody and impossible to sell portion of a site for building a house, all as a result of this stupid interpretation being put on it by some officials.
I am anxious that the Minister would avail of this opportunity to clarify the situation. It was I who discussed this matter with Deputy Tully and brought this particular instance to his notice I should like to go into it in more detail. The holder of a vested cottage had a daughter who got married and became eligible therefore for rehousing by Louth County Council. They were in a very bad way for a house. We had the practice there of giving a half-acre plot with a cottage. We know now that is too big since the workman would not have time to cultivate it. This man suggested he would give to his son-in-law half of his half-acre plot on which they would have a cottage erected for them by the county council. There was no question of a money consideration passing at all. When the request came to the county council, they found the site suitable but informed the holder of the vested cottage that he must repay £183. I asked the county manager if he was bound to do this by the law or by a regulation of the Minister and he informed me that the council were bound.
I also had the case of a man who purchased a house in the Drogheda Corporation area for £4,800. It was then found that £800 was owing on that house by the previous occupier. Before the Corporation would consent to the transfer, they demanded the full capital sum of £800 from this man. He bought the house in good faith and now it is going to cost him another £800 or else there will have to be some sort of rethinking on the deal. I know this is a time of financial stringency but it would help us if the Minister would clarify whether this is a decision of the local authority or whether there is an instruction from him or a regulation whereby the county manager must seek the repayment of any money paid on the transfer of a plot or a house. The Minister will realise that in making this request, I am not being in the least critical of himself or his Department, but it is of the utmost importance that it be clarified now.
The first thing I should clarify is that this matter concerning Drogheda Corporation does not apply to rural areas and does not come within the scope of what we are talking about now. It is a specific case which does not come within the terms of this. If I could have the details, I could deal with it as a specific case.
I shall give them to the Minister this evening. In regard to the other one?
The matter of instructions. What has to be done in this matter will be done by way of instructions and regulations.
Has been done.
Has been done and will be done.
Is the Minister going to change it?
Whatever has to be done will be done by way of instructions. As far as the number in the household is concerned, this is one of the things we would all wish to accommodate, the problem of sub-division in regard to these large cottage plots where members of a household would be getting married and setting up a family. No consideration of money need enter into a case such as this. It does not apply to members of the household. It is only where there is a profit or a consideration being obtained for the part of the plot that is being sold. As I see it at the moment —and I am by no means inflexible about this—if somebody has a cottage plot, is purchasing a cottage and purchasing it on very good terms, and he has only, say, five years of the 35-year period paid when he decides to sell, I cannot see any question of injustice in the proportion of the money received being related to the proportion of the annuity paid. In other words, if he had five years paid, he would get one-seventh of the price, and six-sevenths of it would go to the people who would own six-sevenths of the property. If only part of the annuity is paid, then it seems just—although as I say, I am not inflexible about this—that the proportion of the annuity not paid should go to the public authority.
Can the Minister not agree that, if somebody sells a plot for £200 and he has only one-tenth of the annuity paid, if he is told that of that £200 he will get £20 and the council will get £180, he will not complete the deal? He would hold that his half acre of garden would be worth a lot more to him than £20. Does the Minister not agree that from that angle it is a rather foolish sort of arrangement, because it means that in every case these deals will just fall through?
Take the case of the man who has only just commenced to purchase, and has paid say a year out of 40 years. What does he own of that place? If somebody wants to buy that, why should that man be entitled to get more than the proportion paid? The Deputy makes the point that if this is all he will get, he will not be prepared to sell and, therefore, we will not have the facility of that additional site. That could arise, but what I am thinking of is that the plot might be required not for houses but for other commercial purposes of a very lucrative nature. In that case the value would have no relationship to the value of the cottage and the plot. Perhaps this site would be worth more than the whole thing originally cost. Again, is there any reason why the local housing authority should not get a fair proportion of what is gained by virtue of part of their property being sold which they provided at public expense, money which they can put back into the housing account for the provision of housing and other such amenities in the future? That is the thought behind this matter, and it is not a question of trying to get money out of people unjustly or where it is not due.
(Cavan): When the Minister says a cottage is vested for only a year and only one-fortieth of the annuity has been paid, he takes the view that the tenant-purchaser has little or nothing to sell. All the tenant-purchaser is selling is his interest in the cottage, subject to the annuity. Surely the purchaser of the cottage which has only been vested for one year will have to continue to pay the annuity for 39 years? Therefore, the council are not at any loss and I find it difficult to see why any of the money should be paid to the council. All the tenant-purchaser who has the cottage vested in him for one year is selling is his interest, subject to the annuity which must be paid for 39 years.
No; the annuity is apportioned at the time of the division.
(Cavan): That is a different case. The annuity is purchased, and the annuity is relieved, or a considerable proportion of it——
The part that is going out.
The Minister is not on the ball there. He would want to check again.
(Cavan): I am not taking the question of the sale of a portion of the plot. I am taking the question of the sale of the entire cottage——
That is not what we are talking about. We are talking about divisions.
(Cavan): Does it apply in the case of the sale of a vested cottage and plot?
No. In the case of the full sale, it is either a full redemption of the annuity——
(Cavan): If there is a full redemption of the annuity, the council does not get anything?
They get what has been redeemed, a proportion again depending on what number of years has been paid at the point when sale was sought.
I am sorry I have to come back on this for clarification. If a half-acre plot is being divided, must the county manager of Louth or any other county get that quarter acre valued and insist on that amount of money being paid up to the county council? Does the Minister leave it to the county council and the county manager concerned to make the decision or does the Minister insist that there be a repayment?
The Minister decides what the figure will be.
The Minister decides what the figure will be on the division of the plot and we of the Louth County Council have no function in the matter?
You have the function to get it. You get it and you keep it. I do not get it back.
Does the same relate to the vesting of a cottage?
That is right.
If a man is selling his cottage, the Minister insists on the repayment of the cost price. It is important to get this matter clear.
The man may decide not to pay the redemption.
The council may decide that they want to retain certain control of the cottage, despite whatever sales there may be. In such an event, they would probably refuse to have redemption.
In the case of the family to which I refer, it is a matter for your decision.
Members of the household do not come into this at all. They can sell to each other but need not pay any portion of the selling price to the local authority.
Does a son-in-law come within the family?
The daughter would come within the family, but, if they come with the wrong applicant, I cannot help it.
You are the one who can help if they come with the right applicant.
It is best left that way.
It is a good thing that this opportunity of discussing this matter has arisen and the Minister should consider clearing up this situation once and for all. There is considerable confusion in the way in which this whole matter is operated. The Minister says that in the case of a family transaction there need be no redemption but I had a case where the local authority put a valuation on the divided portion and insisted on an annuity being put on the divided portion. They asked the father to pay for the portion being handed over and the father had not a penny in his pocket. I fought the matter for some time but the council decided that they would still have to get this and that then they would hand it back and the whole transaction was unnecessary. The council could have taken one-third of the valuation, built the house and given it to the son-in-law.
The Minister is insisting that a certain portion of the selling price be returned to the county council. He believes that is reasonable, and it may be so, but you will find the case where it is not reasonable and not desirable. I am aware of cases where, if people were at liberty to sell the cottage and retain the money obtained for it, they would be able to buy an SDA house and put down the money obtained for the cottage as a deposit for such a house. If this money or portion of it is taken by the council, these people will not have sufficient money to pay the deposit and so cannot leave the cottage. If they had the money to pay the deposit on the house, they could leave the cottage which would then be available for somebody else. The Minister should consider the matter very carefully before he insists that this money is retained by the local authority. Individual cases need individual consideration. The matter has now to go to the county council and then back to the applicant. Such a procedure makes the sale almost impossible.
Of course this is the law since last year and for that reason this matter was gently treated during the marathon passage of this Bill through the House. At that time a number of us were pressing the Minister to make the regulations but the regulations which have been made do not bear out what the Minister tells us today. It may be that in the first flush of making the regulations, the Department decided to make them pretty severe and they are much more severe than the Minister realises. We are now considering amendments from the Seanad and no matter what we do, the Bill will become law, but, because of the fact that the Minister has to name a date for the coming into operation of the Bill itself, it means that some of this can be delayed.
On the question of the selling of vested plots, where the cottage and the plot are being sold, there is an option as to whether the annuity may be redeemed but where portion of the plot is being sold as a site, such option does not exist. That portion of the site which is to be built on must have the annuity sub-divided and that annuity must be redeemed. In this way the regulations made by the Minister are going to be all-important. When this matter was going through the House, some of us thought these provisions would be a protection against houses getting into the hands of people who should not get them, but now it appears that it will operate in having more and more vested houses locked up because the tenants would prefer to have them that way and visit them occasionally and to retain ownership rather than give them away.
Under the counter dealings may also be introduced. The people may sell the plot for a nominal sum and make a deal for a further figure which would be kept from the council. The Minister may say that a valuation can be taken by the council but that is being done in the other way at the moment. The council waits to see what is the biggest price offered and then they say that is the valuation. The thing is becoming too confused.
(Cavan): What we are dealing with now is section 98. We are having a very useful discussion, notwithstanding the fact that we may not be on the right section. Am I correct in thinking that it is not obligatory on a housing authority to order that portion of the sale price of a vested cottage be paid to the local authority? I think that is the meaning of subsection (5) of section 98, which says:
A housing authority may, before giving their consent to the alienation or subdivision of any cottage, require the payment to them of an amount approved by the Minister for the purposes of this section.
The word "shall" should be there instead of the word "may". The Deputy must have an unamended copy of the Bill.
(Cavan): With all due respect, I think that is a mistake. I do not know whether I am in order in saying that now or not.
It does not seem to arise on the amendment before the House at the moment. We seem to be travelling around a good deal.
(Cavan): We have been discussing this for the past half-hour and I thought it was no harm to push it a little further.
Is amendment No. 16 agreed?
It is agreed in the hope that the Minister will clarify the position as much as possible in the future.
Question put and agreed to.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 17:
In subsection (5), page 65, line 5, "may" deleted and "shall" substituted, in line 6 "which is subject to and charged with the future payment of an annuity (other than an alienation or subdivision of a class specified by the Minister for the purposes of this subsection)" inserted before ", require", and in lines 7 and 8 "purposes of this section" deleted and "said purposes" substituted.
We are in order now. I take it that this amendment means that it is obligatory on the local authority to demand repayment of the outstanding portion of the annuity. The Minister has been good enough to clarify for us that it is also in the Bill that there shall be a choice open to the local authority either to demand the repayment of all the outstanding portion of the annuity or one-third of it. I should like to get two clarifications here. First of all, is this an executive function of the county manager to decide as between the demand for one-third of that portion of the annuity outstanding and the whole, or is it a decision properly to be taken by the local authority itself? Secondly, I would ask, what subsection of what section of this Bill provides for the manner of dealing with it described by the Minister? I just want to get the thing down on the ground once and for all. It is very necessary that we should start the discussion on that basis.
(Cavan): I think I would be in order now in referring to subsection (5) of section 98 because Seanad amendment No. 17 seems to substitute the word “shall” for the word “may” in the first line of that subsection. I certainly think that, at worst, the local authority and the Minister should have a discretion to say in certain cases that the owner of a vested cottage should be able to sell that cottage and retain the money for himself because, as has been said here earlier in this debate, very many people who occupy what we know as labourers' cottages wish to change from those cottages to a better type of house and provide themselves with these houses with the assistance of loans under the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Act.
If a person has a labourer's cottage and is not allowed to sell it or, if allowed to sell it, is not allowed to retain the purchase price, he will not be in a position to build the other house. If he is allowed to sell the labourer's cottage and build himself a house with the assistance of a loan under the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Act, he is, in fact, relieving the housing authority of building another house because somebody for whom, in the ordinary course of events, the local authority would be liable to provide a house will move into the labourer's cottage. That is what in practice happens. There will be all sorts of injustices arising unless this particular section is operated in a very sympathetic way. Maybe I am wrong in this—I hope I am and that the Minister will tell me there are no grounds for my fear.
There are many people who bought labourers' cottages in the last number of years, when there was no such restriction as this, at £300, £400, and £500. If these people sell these cottages now, will they have to hand over some of the purchase price to the local authority and suffer a loss? There are people who have purchased labourers' cottages and have added rooms to them at considerable expense. I had such a query within the past few days. Will these people now have to put up with the expense of adding a room to the house and, if they want to sell the cottage, will they have to hand over to the local authority part of the purchase price which has been enhanced by the addition of the room? I should like, for the benefit of owners of these vested cottages and others, if the Minister would kindly clear the air now because there seems to be quite an amount of confusion as to what exactly is the position and what the position will be when this section 98 becomes law.
The first thing I should say, probably, is in regard to instructions sent out by way of circular or otherwise to the local authorities. The practice that may have been brought to the notice of Deputies of sending them to and fro like a shuttlecock is not at all the intention but, for our own information, we have sought and have been getting, in the odd cases that have arisen, cases sent up to us to see how they are working. This is how they are coming to us at the moment. Once we get the pattern established and amended to some degree and running on a fairly even keel, there will not be this necessity, nor is there any legal requirement on local authorities to send them up. We merely ask them to do so for our information so that we may see from operation in the various counties how the matter is being approached by the local authority and the manager.
As to the matter mentioned on amendment No. 17, as to whether or not the decision is executive or reserved, it is an executive function. As to where it derives from, it really derives in a negative way: since it is not stated in any part of our law that it is a reserved function, it follows that it is an executive function.
Is that a wise thing?
I was not around with much wisdom at the time that was done. So, do not ask me to comment on it in retrospect.
The Minister, being a wise man, would not think that it would be an idea to have it changed now?
Changing just for the sake of changing ends, while fair in football, does not work out in practice as being anything better than we have.
Does the Minister not think that a local authority member might get some authority?
When I get around to dealing with that matter, I will deal with it as comprehensively as I have demonstrated I deal with any other matter. Do not ask me to deal with it now. There is more confusion and misunderstanding about the situation than there is real difficulty in regard to it. The present situation is that, if it is an inter-family transaction, whether money passes between the members of the family or not, we are not concerned; no amount of that is demanded other than the repayment of the annuity as apportioned in respect of the part of the plot that is being alienated from the original and this, as Deputies know from experience, will be a very nominal figure indeed.
(Cavan): Where is the family excluded in the section?
It is in the circular, not in the section. It is not in the law.
How far out does "family" go? Is that stated in the circular?
We do want to finish this, I believe, and perhaps we should not——
Does it go that far out?
It could. The intention at the moment, and the method of operation, is to include a member of the household, not necessarily of the family. There is no need to get down to definitions of blood relations. Let us put it as "a member of the household". We may have to change that again but after a great deal of thought about the matter, this is what we have come up with.
Regarding sales to others than members of the household, there would again be an apportionment, a division, as it were, of the annuity and, as to the amount in respect of the plot to be alienated, there will then be a decision by the local authority, the county manager, if you like, in furtherance of his instruction by circular and regulation from my Department that the amount to be paid will be arrived at in relation to market value and will be related to the proportion of the annuity already paid. If there is added value, reconstruction of rooms or improvements made, all of that added value would go to the vested owner of the cottage.
(Cavan): An additional room?
Yes, or any added amenity provided by the occupant. That goes in its entirety to his benefit.
(Cavan): I should like the Minister to deal with another aspect of subsection (5) of this section. I am interested from the practical point of view. I am glad the Minister has said that where a room is added by the vested tenant, if he sells the cottage, on the basis of valuation he will not be expected to hand over any of the purchase money attributable to the additional rooms. I should, however, like the Minister to deal with a particular type of case. Suppose that three or four years ago, or even one year ago, a person bought a vested cottage for £500. After the coming into operation of this Act, he decides to sell the cottage and gets, say, £550 or £600 for it. What proportion of the purchase money, if any, will he be obliged to hand over to the local authority?
I know the Minister will tell me "such amount as may be approved by the Minister", but I am asking him, in making these rules and regulations, to put in some clause whereby a man who has actually paid out £300, £400 or £500 or any given sum to purchase a cottage before the law was changed, will not be obliged to be at a loss as a result of the coming into operation of this Act. Unless I misunderstand the section, a person might well suffer a loss, and a comparatively large one, if he had bought the house as many people do for £500 —a common figure to give for a labourer's cottage—a short time ago. I would protest in the strongest terms if that man had to hand over any of the purchase money which would involve him in a net loss on the transaction. I would ask the Minister to deal with that aspect of the matter now.
The whole intention is that nobody should be expected to make a loss. If somebody paid £500 two or three years ago and then wants to sell the cottage under new laws and regulations, we must look at it then. If it is established that, in fact, in his efforts to sell he cannot get a better price than he paid for it or can only get less, which is quite possible, if he has made an effort, there will not be anything in this for the council.
Where does the Minister get that?
I do not know what the Deputy wants me to get but that is what I get. What does the Deputy want me to find in the section?
When Deputy Fitzpatrick has finished, I shall tell the Minister.
(Cavan): As I see it, the amount the vendor will have to pay the local authority will depend on regulations to be drawn up by the Minister or if not regulations, on the decision of the Minister. I am talking of the Minister as an anonymous person for the time being in the office of Minister. If this Minister gives an assurance that it is his intention that this subsection shall not operate in a manner that will inflict loss on a person who has purchased a vested cottage, we shall be satisfied.
That is exactly what I said. But it is definitions we are after.
(Cavan): There is nothing like that written into the Bill.
No. The whole exercise here seems to be to provide definitions that will tie me in regard to what I may do in the future or ensure that I shall have no discretion about anything.
(Cavan): I should not like the Minister to treat this as a frivolous interjection. His assurance will relieve many people.
I just want to find out what the Minister means. If somebody bought a cottage before the passing of the Labourers Act for £500 and after the passing of the Act, proposes to sell it for £500, what is the position? There has been no redemption and the annuity is still being paid. Will the Minister say whether or not portion of that £500 will be paid to the council? He is paying an annuity and he is not in the same position as a tenant of the cottage vested in the first case.
No.
Perhaps there is not enough time now but I should be glad if the Minister will some time show me where that is provided in the Bill. I think the Minister will admit that I know as much about this Bill as himself.
No; I shall not admit that, although I may be prepared to go a long way with the Deputy.
I should like to make a more serious statement. I admit there is a certain amount of justification for the local authorities, who represent the ratepayers, getting back the one-third subsidy they have been paying on those cottages but I have repeatedly appealed to the Minister in connection with urban areas. I find the most extraordinary position has arisen now in which in the town of Cobh, under some new regulation, the purchase price of the houses has been increased in one case from £397, the purchase scheme price, to £975, and in another from £163 to £480. In a third lot, the increase is from £151 to £780 and from £348 to £730.
I drew attention before to this anomaly between the Labourers Act and the Housing of the Working Classes Act. At that time, the difference in the rents, due to the withdrawal of subsidy, was the difference between the two lots of houses built in the one year on both sides of the road. One lot was let at 11/- per week plus rates. The county council let those houses be purchased at 9/- per week. However, in the other area, due to withdrawal of subsidy, they went to 32/- a week. Now, under this new arrangement, instead of 32/- a week, it will be 38/6d.
We are discussing amendment No. 17 and what the Deputy is saying seems to have to relevance whatsoever——
I beg the Chair's pardon. The increases in this section, on purchase, arise. I am pointing out to the Minister an increase of from £300 odd to £900. I am talking about one lot of houses on one side of a road which are purchased at 9/- a week annuity while the houses on the other side of the road will cost 38/6d a week. I consider that any Housing Act that enshrines that principle should be done away with, and that is putting it blunt enough.
The Minister said that when a plot is sub-divided and the amount of the annuity is to be redeemed, the amount is so small that it would not be a burden on anybody. The amount could be £50 on a farm labourer.
In the case I spoke of, it is £183.
What I spoke about is within the household.
What I am talking about is within the household, too. I would ask the Minister to bear that sort of situation in mind when talking to the county managers because it represents a burden which people cannot meet. If that is so, it should be the price of the site of the cottage for the member of the family.
The Minister said that the decision as to whether one-third of the outstanding annuity is to be repayable to the county council, or the whole, is an executive function of the county manager. Have we the right, as a local authority, to request the county manager to do one thing or the other, under the City and County Management Act, 1955, or is it enshrined in that Act that this decision of the county manager is excluded from our function of being in a position to requisition——
Any single case may be brought by way of section 4.
I shall send the Minister details of the urban one.
Question put and agreed to.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 18:
In page 65 the following new subsection added:
"() In case any person, without the consent of a housing authority, attempts or purports to effect in relation to any cottage, plot or part of a plot held with a cottage, a charge, mortgage, subdivision or alienation as respects which the consent of a housing authority is required by this section or by a vesting order made under section 17 of the Act of 1936, such attempted or purported charging, mortgaging, subdivision or alienation shall be null and void against all persons; provided, however, that in any case where the consent of the authority is given after the attempted or purported charging, mortgaging, subdivision or alienation, such consent shall operate, if the authority so direct, to validate with retrospective effect, such attempted or purported charging, mortgaging, subdivision or alienation."
Question put and agreed to.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 19:
Section 102:
In subsection (1), line 55, after "occurs""and ‘subject to the modification that where as respects an application under subsection (1) of this section the name of the owner of a cottage cannot by reasonable enquiry be ascertained, a summons under the said section 86 may be addressed to "the owner" without naming him' is hereby inserted after ‘this section'" inserted.
Question put and agreed to.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 20:
In subsection (1), page 67, after "necessary." in line 47 and before line 48, the following inserted:
";
(d) paragraph (d) of section 29 is hereby amended by the insertion of ‘addressing it to "the owner", without naming him and' before ‘delivering' and by the substitution of ‘or' for ‘or by'".
Question put and agreed to.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 21:
Section 106:
Subsection (4) deleted.
(Cavan): What is its effect?
The first thing I should say is that it is to meet some objections raised by Deputies and Senators. It is similar in many respects to amendments tabled by many Labour Deputies on the Committee and Report Stages in the Dáil. The result of this amendment, if agreed to, will be that housing authorities will not statutorily be restricted in determining whether or not a house is in good structural condition to have regard only to matters which affect or are likely to affect the stability of the structure. Subsection (1) of the section restricted the works a housing authority must do to those necessary to put the house or cottage into good structural condition.
Does the Minister not think it rather peculiar that specific instructions are laid down in the Housing Acts as to the condition in which a house must be before it can be declared habitable? A local authority cottage which has been vested need only be in good structural condition. It is peculiar that an exception is made in this case. Our amendments in this House and in the Seanad were designed to ensure that the house would at least be habitable. Under the regulations in this Bill, a house need not be habitable. A round tower in this country is in good structural condition but nobody would say it is habitable. I think it is foolish that "good sanitary condition" was not included in the specification.
Question put and agreed to.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 22:
Section 107:
In subsection (5), page 70, line 15, before "and""subject to the modification that where as respects an application under subsection (1) of this section the name of the owner of a house or dwelling cannot by reasonable enquiry be ascertained, a summons under the said section 86 may be addressed to ‘the owner' without naming him," inserted.
Question put and agreed to.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 23:
Section 111:
In subsection (4), lines 39 to 42, the following deleted:
"—
(a) a body, other than a housing authority, to prosecute an offence under this Act,
(b) ".
This amendment enables a body performing a function on behalf of a Minister, where a housing authority failed to carry out such function, to prosecute, where necessary——
(Cavan): What particular body? Are there any at the moment?
The National Building Agency.
That would be a good instance. We will create a few, if we need them.
Question put and agreed to.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 24:
Section 115:
In subsection (2), line 47, "by the" deleted and "by a" substituted.
Question put and agreed to.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 25:
In subsection (5), page 74, line 18, "or" inserted before "so".
Question put and agreed to.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 26:
Section 116:
In subsection (1) (a), line 27, "or" deleted.
Question put and agreed to.
I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 27:
In subsection (1) (b), after "that authority" in line 29 and before line 30, the following inserted:
", or
(c) in case the function is being performed by a person—that person".
Question put and agreed to.
Amendments reported and agreed to.