Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 12 Dec 1972

Vol. 264 No. 6

Housing Act, 1969 (Continuance) Order, 1972: Motion of Approval.

(Mr. Molloy)

I move:

That Dáil Éireann approve the following Order in draft:

Housing Act, 1969 (Continuance) Order, 1972

a copy of which Order in draft was laid before Dáil Éireann on 23 November, 1972.

The object of the draft order is to continue in force the Housing Act, 1969, for two years ending on 31st December, 1974.

The Housing Act, 1969, is a temporary measure which will expire on the 31st December, 1972, unless continued by an order made by me after it has been approved by resolution by each House of the Oireachtas. The purpose of the Act is to reduce the loss of habitable houses by providing statutory controls over their demolition or change of use. This it does by requiring generally that the permission of the local authority must be obtained for the demolition or change of use of a habitable house. In dealing with an application for permission the local authority must have regard to the state of repair of the house and the adequacy of the supply of housing available in their area. The authority can refuse permission or they can give it subject to conditions, either requiring the provision of alternative accommodation or the making of contributions towards the cost of providing it. Where permission is refused, or granted subject to conditions, there is a right of appeal to the Minister against the decision of the authority.

The Act came into force in July, 1969, and returns received from local authorities since then indicate that it has been effective in reducing the loss of habitable houses to the housing stock. In my view, the effectiveness of the Act cannot be judged by these returns alone because its very existence must provide a deterrent against indiscriminate housing losses. Activity under the Act has, naturally, been greatest in Dublin city and the local authority there have pressed strongly for the continuance in force of the Act.

While there has been a continuous upward trend in national housing output in recent years, accompanied by a continuing improvement in overall housing conditions, I consider that it is still necessary to retain the controls provided for in the 1969 Act for the further temporary period now proposed. Accordingly, I commend the motion to the House.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): When the Planning and Development Act, 1963 was enacted this party pointed out that a serious deficiency in that Act was the absence of any control over the demolition of dwellings being used for human habitation and the absence of any adequate provisions to control the change of user of such houses from dwellinghouses to offices or other such buildings. In fact, in the Seanad Senators of this party advocated the amendment of the law so that proper control could be exercised in relation to dwellinghouses in order to prevent these dwellinghouses being pulled down and families being evicted from them, and to prevent these houses being changed into office blocks or office accommodation or being put to commercial use.

I think it was as a result of the speeches made by members of this party both in the Houses of the Oireachtas and outside it that at last it was conceded by the Government that there was a deficiency in the Planning and Development Act, 1963, and the Housing Act of 1969, which this order seeks to continue for a further period, was enacted. We welcome this piece of legislation as filling a serious gap in the Act of 1963.

I should like to avail of this opportunity to ask the Minister for Local Government a few questions in relation to the Act of 1969 which he seeks to continue, and I think this is the appropriate time to do it. It is necessary, under the provisions of this Act, that, before a person pulls down a dwellinghouse or a building that is being used for human habitation, he should apply to the housing authority, and the housing authority may grant his application or refuse it or grant it with or without conditions. I should like to ask the Minister how many applications for demolition have been made under the Act of 1969 and how many of these were granted simpliciter, how many were granted subject to conditions, and how many were refused. In particular, I should like the Minister to tell us if the conditions attached to the permissions granted under this Act were observed in all cases and, if not, whether prosecutions were taken against the people involved or whether the provisions of section 2 were enforced.

Having regard to the type of activity which this Act was enacted to stop, the penalty set out in the Act, a maximum fine of £100, is inadequate. Admittedly, there is provision for a six months' sentence and there is provision for a fine of £10 per day for every day on which the offence has been continued, but when I was reading that I wondered did that mean that a person would be fined £10 a day until he reinstated the house or rebuilt it.

There is another section which gives the housing authority power to take action if they are satisfied that the owner of a house is deliberately letting it run down so that it will become beyond repair and so that he will then have an opportunity of getting possession of it and turning it into a suite of office blocks or something else. That is section 5 of the Act with which we are dealing and, in effect, it says that where a housing authority are of the opinion that a person has for the purpose of evading the provisions of the Act caused or permitted a house to deteriorate to the extent that it ceases to be a habitable house the authority, if they think fit, may take certain action. I would like to ask the Minister if he is in a position to tell us how often this section has been invoked by housing authorities since it was enacted.

The penalty for failing to comply with a notice under this section is simply a flat fine of £100 without any provision for imprisonment but, again, the housing authority has power to go in and do work and charge the cost to the owner who had violated the section. These are some of the things concerning the Act with which I would like to deal.

It is proposed to continue the entire Act with the exception of section 11. Section 11 is a section which made an addition to subsection (7) of section 66 of the Act of 1966. Section 66 of the 1966 Act, I regret to say, is a very long section but the relevant subsection said that a demolition order made in respect of any works the execution of which is necessary for compliance with the requirements of the order required that the work be carried out in accordance with such conditions. The Act with which we are dealing now added to that:

including conditions requiring the taking of such reasonable steps as will ensure that the works either while being carried out or when completed will neither cause injury to any adjoining or adjacent building nor interfere with the stability thereof.

It is proposed by this order not to continue that section which adds those words to subsection (7) of the Housing Act, 1966 and I would like to ask the Minister why it is not proposed to continue those precautions because it does seem to me reasonable, where a demolition is being carried out, to require that no damage will be done to adjoining buildings. It may be that the Minister's answer is that there would be common law rights there at any rate but there might be doubt about that since the demolition will be carried out here under a statutory requirement.

There is one other matter that I should like to avail of this opportunity to deal with at some length. As I have said, before a person demolishes a dwellinghouse or a house which is being used for the purpose of a dwelling, he must apply to the housing authority for permission to demolish it. If any person is dissatisfied or aggrieved either by the granting of the permission by the housing authority or by the refusal of the housing authority to grant the permission or by any conditions attached to it, he has a right to appeal under this Act but the appeal lies to the Minister for Local Government. I want to renew the protest that I have been making over the years in regard to appeals lying to the Minister for Local Government under the Planning and Development Act and under this Act instead of to an independent tribunal such as the Circuit Court or even a less formal tribunal provided it is independent and provided it is set up in a way that will inspire public confidence. It can be seen clearly from the Act with which we are dealing today that it has within it the power to add enormously to the value of property. For example, take a tenement house or a house that is let in flats to a number of families and the owner gets them out in some way or other because he wants to demolish the house and sell the site for development —he need not demolish it; he can sell the house for development provided he is in a position to assure the purchaser that he is at liberty to pull it down and put something else in its place. The power to decide whether or not that can be done lies with the Minister for Local Government. I say that that is a power that should not vest in one man. It is a power which can add enormously to the value of property or can devalue property.

Furthermore, an influential speculator could buy a house at grossly under value from the owner in the knowledge or hope that he could get permission from the Minister for Local Government on appeal to do the necessary development.

I say that an amendment in the law in regard to appeals under this Act is long overdue. As far back as 1969, the very year in which this Housing Act became law, the Fine Gael Party through me as the then spokesman on local government introduced a measure into this House to take planning appeals and, it would follow, appeals under this Act, from the Minister for Local Government and to hand them over to an independent tribunal.

An Ceann Comhairle

I cannot see how the Deputy can argue this point on the order before the House.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): With the greatest respect, Sir, it is being sought to continue an Act which makes it obligatory on a man who is going to demolish a house to apply to a housing authority for permission to do so and says that if he is dissatisfied with the decision he has a right of appeal and that that appeal lies to the Minister for Local Government. That is what I am objecting to. I want to develop that argument a little to prove that I have been consistent.

As far back as 1969 we advocated that that system should be changed, that it should be handed over to an independent tribunal. We brought in a Bill which the former Minister for Local Government, Deputy Kevin Boland, opposed but on the concluding Stages of that Private Members Bill he assured us that he would introduce a Bill to do substantially what he said should be done. That Bill was introduced in 1969 and it is still on the Order Paper not having been processed through this House. I know the Minister has promised that a Bill will be introduced which will remedy what I am complaining about and I know that the Taoiseach told me several times last year that the Minister for Local Government was working on the Bill. I would like to see that Bill brought into the House quickly and I would like to see the machinery for appeal under this Act changed because there is grave dissatisfaction in the country about the operation of these appeals. Let me get away from the big business appeal for one moment and tell the Minister in relation to this machinery which he seeks to retain that I know of a young couple in County Cavan who are applicants for planning permission to build a house. They were refused once. They applied again in respect of another site. Their appeal has been in the Minister's Department for months and months. I would invite the Minister to look at the file and to see the letters which I sent from this young married woman.

Mr. Molloy

Under the 1969 Act?

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): Under the 1963 Act but it is analogous.

Mr. Molloy

I thought we were discussing the 1969 Act.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): I know, but we are discussing precisely the same sort of machinery. I invite the Minister to look at the letters from this young married woman, Mrs. O'Donnell from near Bailieborough. County Cavan which I have sent on to him. They are pathetic. If the sort of delays that occurred in that case are to continue under the Housing Act, 1969 it is just too bad.

The appeals system under the Act with which we are now dealing is unsatisfactory and it does not command the respect of the people. It should be scrapped and it should be changed. I do not want to get personal but the Minister for Local Government is a human being like anybody else. He is a politician and he is subject to the pressures to which all politicians are subject from people who support them. That is the main reason why I say that it is not fair or reasonable that a Minister should have, by signing his name, the right to decide whether a dwelling house in the city of Dublin is worth £5,000 or £50,000. The Minister is human. He is a politician and he is subject to political pressures as any other Minister or any other Member of this House would be. As recently as 22nd November the Minister conceded that in his capacity as Deputy Robert Molloy he is expected to make representations because when we were dealing with the County Management Act the Minister stated in reply to Deputy O'Donovan:

I have no intention of interfering in appointments made by way of the executive function by managers. I can give that assurance wholeheartedly to the Deputy as Minister for Local Government.

Deputy O'Donovan said:

That is all I want.

The Minister continued:

That is not to say that as a Deputy I will not continue to make the ordinary representations which every Deputy is asked to make.

That is all right if Deputy John Geoghegan or Deputy John Donnellan was making representations but here we have the farcical, absurd position where Deputy Robert Molloy, as a Deputy for a Galway constituency, will be making representations to Deputy Robert Molloy, Minister for Local Government, who will be sitting as judge and jury and final appeal tribunal in a matter that can decide that the value of a piece of property in Dublin is £5,000 or £50,000 or £150,000. That is a responsibility that nobody should be asked to shoulder. I am not casting, and it is not necessary for the purpose of my case to cast any aspersions on the integrity of the Minister.

Mr. Molloy

It seems to be the institution.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): But I am not saying that the Minister is the Holy Ghost. I am not expected to say that and I am sure the Minister does not believe that he is.

Mr. Molloy

Spell out what you are saying.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): He is suffering from all the frailty of original sin like the rest of us. He is suffering from all the pressures which politicians are exposed to.

Mr. Clinton

He is not Saint Robert.

Dr. FitzGerald

Yet.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): He is exposed to the pressures that all politicians under the democratic system are exposed to. That, perhaps, is one of the reasons why when a judge is put on the bench in this country he can be only removed by a two-thirds majority of this House and the other House.

Mr. Molloy

And the judge is human too.

Dr. O'Donovan

Will the Deputy allow me for a moment? When the Minister made the remark that he would make representations to himself I said long and loud "boo" but, unfortunately, that was not written into the record.

Mr. Molloy

And the Deputy came over afterwards and congratulated me on being an honest man.

Dr. O'Donovan

Oh yes, in other words, for telling the truth for once. I did, indeed, and rightly so. I do not have to approve of that kind of honesty.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): When the Minister left the House he may have sympathised with himself for having been a little indiscreet.

I am availing of this remark of the Minister's to clinch once and for all the argument I have been trying to make— that the system is wrong, that it should be scrapped. The Bill which the Minister's predecessor introduced and did not proceed with is not a completely satisfactory measure because there is a section in it which gives the Minister the right to get his hand back into the appeal in some way. That should not be in it.

That is all I want to say about this measure. We are prepared to continue it at the Minister's request. In fact, we believe we were instrumental in bringing it in. We believe that some of the penalties are not adequate. I believe that the planning machinery in it is faulty in the extreme. It is wide open to the abuse which political pressure exercises on a Minister who must stand at the next election if he intends to continue in public life.

The Minister for Local Government rose.

Dr. FitzGerald

Is the Minister concluding? I was deferring to somebody on the Labour benches.

Mr. M. O'Leary

And I was deferring to another Deputy.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): On a point of order, it is unheard of for a Minister to insist on intervening if somebody offers.

Mr. Molloy

I rose when nobody else offered.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): You did not give much time.

Mr. Molloy

The Deputy was a bit slow in getting off the mark but I will give way.

Dr. FitzGerald

On the inadequacy of the penalties, could the Minister say if he has any intention of doing anything about this? As it stands, the penalties for demolition are so slight that local authorities feel that the power they have is totally inadequate. The Minister must have received representations from local authorities on this matter because a penalty of £100 for demolishing a house is as nothing to the gain to the developer, who having got away with it, is able to build something on the site which is worth much more. Deputy Fitzpatrick asked a question as to the significance in this context of a continuing penalty. I understand from local authorities that it is of no significance and that the effective weapon they have is a £100 fine. This is clearly completely inadequate. Will the Minister not recognise this fact and the need urgently to deal with this problem because while he speaks about his order having some effect in reducing the loss of habitable houses to the housing stock, he did use the word "reduce" and not "eliminate".

If the order were effective, the penalties effective, the Minister would be able to say that this order had been effective in eliminating the loss of habitable houses but the fact is that it is not. It may have reduced it somewhat and there are some reputable developers who would not wish to undertake an action contrary to the law, who although they could well afford the £100—it would mean nothing to them in relation to the value of what they would get— would not engage in that kind of activity. I am quite sure that the order has had some effect where they are concerned, but there are many people who are not reputable and, in my constituency, we have had the demolition of a number of houses without permission, in respect of which the action taken by the local authority is quite inadequate and can only be inadequate because of the total inadequacy of the penalties provided. What does the Minister propose to do about this?

I notice that he referred to the upward trend in national housing output; in recent years accompanied by a continuing improvement in overall housing conditions and I would like the Minister to indicate what he means by that. Of course, there is an upward trend in housing development. After many years of pressure from these benches, the Minister has been operating policies which have had the incidental effect of increasing the amount of private housing but in the area where the Minister is directly responsible, local authority housing, where he has a much more direct responsibility, the increase is negligible, far below the increase in private housing and there is in fact no improvement in overall housing conditions.

Many people who can afford houses can borrow money now more readily from building societies if they can afford to do so and build houses for themselves, but for those who cannot afford housing, the conditions are worse and not better. The Minister knows that, in the city of Dublin, whereas when this Dáil was elected, a couple though they could not then or for a very long time before that get a local authority dwelling, when they got married and had got to the point of having a child, whatever overcrowded or insanitary conditions they had been forced into by inadequate Government housing policy, they had some prospect of getting a dwelling, which would have been a flat in Ballymun at that time which would normally be of high level and imposing a hardship on people with children, but from the beginning of 1970—I have not got the exact date—not long after I was elected, I found the position which I still find that no family in the ordinary way will get local authority accommodation until they have two children. That is not an improvement. It is a deterioration and the Minister should accept that fact and face it.

The increase in private dwellings is not improving that position at all and I would ask the Minister to indicate what he means when he speaks about an improvement in overall housing conditions when there has been a deterioration to the absolutely unacceptable situation in which when people get married and are not in a position to afford the purchase of a dwelling, with the level of deposits and repayments they have no possibility of getting accommodation until they have two children and should they be unable to have two children, it is the case with some couples, they will remain apparently for the rest of their lives living with in-laws or in whatever substandard expensive exploitatory private accommodation they can get hold of. That is a situation we cannot accept and I do not think that a measure of this kind which does not eliminate but merely reduces the loss of habitable houses is having the necessary effect.

I therefore, ask him to tell us what action he proposes to take to make this order effective where it is now ineffective for all but the more scrupulous developers and to explain his curious reference to the improvement in overall housing conditions when so far as the city of Dublin is concerned, and it represents a very large part of the country, conditions remain extremely bad and there is no visible prospect of any improvement because the Minister is continuing his refusal to permit an increase in local authority housing which stands today at the level of no more than 60 per cent of what it stood at 22 years ago when the country was much less well off than it is today.

Mr. Clinton

The Minister in seeking the authority of the House to continue in force the Housing Act of 1969 really made a very poor case for it. His statement gave one the impression that it was something which somebody had wakened up to at the eleventh hour, felt that this was running out and something would have to be done to keep it in force. The main portion of the Minister's statement was taken up in telling us what the Act was all about and those of us who have been in the House for some time have a fair idea of what the 1969 Act was about and a fair idea also of the defects and deficiencies in it. It is surprising that the Minister would not avail himself of the opportunity to correct that situation and not only to correct the defects in the 1969 Act which was really bringing in something to prop up or do something about the deficiencies that existed in the 1963 Act. One would imagine that what he would do is to bring in amending legislation to correct all the defects and deficiencies in the whole of the 1963 Act.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We cannot argue that on this motion.

Mr. Clinton

I do not propose to deal with the 1963 Act. I am merely regretting the fact that when the Minister was coming to the House, he did not come in for something worthwhile. The Minister talks loosely about the fact that the purpose of this legislation is to reduce the loss of habitable houses and is not in a position to tell us what the history of this has been since it was introduced. As has been asked already, in how many cases was this effective? The Minister goes on to say that this is not the full proof, even if he had the total number of cases where the 1969 Act operated to prevent the loss of habitable houses; but we have no figures and no case is made here for the retention of this, even though we all know it is necessary, that more effective legislation is necessary, for the preservation of habitable housing.

I want to ask the Minister whether or not the 1969 Act has any application whatever to local authorities, whether they are bound in any way by it. Local authorities can be quite ruthless in their own demolition process in that people who have lived their lives in certain areas to a ripe old age can be very badly treated because the corporation and the local authorities concerned do not seem to be bound by anything contained in this legislation. If that is so, it is quite wrong that we should enact legislation which binds the ordinary developer, builder or owner of property but does not bind the local authorities concerned. I should like to hear the Minister's comment on this because I have known of a number of cases where people were ruthlessly treated by the local authorities and it appears they had no defence. Some of them were housed in a new district and had to pay much more for their houses. The new accommodation might be better but it was not their homes in the same sense as were the more humble dwellings in which they had lived previously.

Deputy Fitzpatrick was right to deal with this whole question of the appeals mechanism and legislation which we have at the moment. It is one of the many defects in the 1963 Act which was incorporated in the 1969 Act and which the Minister now proposes to continue. There has been widespread criticism of this kind of legislation where the Minister is judge and jury, where he can make and break people, and where the political pressures to which Deputy Fitzpatrick referred operate and have been known to operate. I cannot understand why the Minister wishes to retain this power for himself because the workload involved must be enormous. I mention this fact because of the enormous backlog——

Mr. Molloy

Is the Deputy referring to the 1969 Act?

Mr. Clinton

This section of the 1963 Act has been incorporated in the 1969 Act. It is the same kind of appeals mechanism and, in discussing the continuation of the 1969 Act, we have the right to criticise this fact. We should state firmly that it should go and eventually we might succeed in getting it out of the 1969 Act. During the years we have had many promises that something would be done. Certain Ministers have said they did not want this provision to continue but they have not had the courage to do anything about it. We do not want it to appear that there may be political influences at work in this instance. We want the measure to be seen to be honest and to work in the interests of all in a just manner.

Mr. Molloy

I have said already that the appeals system will be changed.

Mr. Clinton

There is no point in the Minister saying that if he will not do something about it. Other Ministers have said the same thing but nothing was done about it. We have been promised that it will be moved——

Mr. Molloy

It will be moved.

Mr. Clinton

I suppose when we get closer to the elections we will hear another announcement that it may be moved by the present Minister.

Mr. Molloy

It is with the parliamentary draftsman at the moment.

Mr. Clinton

I am glad to hear that; however, I hope we will not have a situation where the Minister's influence can be used. Deputy Fitzpatrick seems to have some knowledge of what we may expect in the new legislation. Perhaps the Minister intends to amend the Bill it was attempted to introduce previously.

Mr. Molloy

That Bill did not go far enough and I have said that several times.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): The Minister should let us see the Bill.

Mr. Clinton

Is the Minister promising the House that any Minister for Local Government in the future will not have an influence in decision making on appeals?

Mr. Molloy

We cannot debate the Bill before it comes before the House.

Mr. Clinton

The Minister has told us the present situation will be changed and that decision making will not be left to the Minister in the future. I hope that is what he is telling the House; otherwise, it represents no change in legislation that has been deplored already.

Mr. Molloy

The Bill will contain provisions along those lines. The Deputy should not let his imagination run riot.

Mr. Clinton

The expression "along those lines" is a rather loose description that indicates it will still be possible for political influence to work in the new legislation and if that is the case that must be regretted.

Mr. Molloy

That will not be so.

Mr. Clinton

I want to make it clear I am completely in favour of the continuation of any legislation that will preserve habitable houses and that will ensure people are not thrown out without adequate accommodation being provided for them elsewhere. By this I mean they should not be moved to a completely new area because that is not proper alternative accommodation. I do not think builders or developers should be allowed to move people ten or 20 miles for what they call the interests of good development. I do not think human beings should be treated in that way and developers should not be given power to do this. The purpose of legislation is to ensure that people who are helpless are protected and assisted. My only regret is that the order was not stronger and more effective.

Mr. M. O'Leary

The Minister's declaration that there will be changes and that legislation on the appeals machinery in the 1963 Act is pending is rather like St. Augustine's prayer: "Lord, make me pure but not yet". The Minister has said that the parliamentary draftsman is dealing with this matter and that eventually the Minister will not have any influence in the decision making. We can suspend our judgment on that until the Bill comes before the House. It is simply stating facts to say that the most powerful lobby having the ear of this Government is the building speculator lobby, a lobby that will be of immense importance to the Government in any election. Obviously, it is open to misconstruction when the Minister has the final say in decisions which may in some instances mean that millions of pounds are made in profits. At least we have the Minister's word that this is to be changed.

This order does not appear to have been satisfactory in preventing the demolition of habitable houses, in this city. The Minister made the point that it has been some kind of deterrent, that more habitable houses would have been knocked were it not for this order. That may be, but we cannot say it has been satisfactory in eliminating the problem. It is stated that the local authority must have regard to the state of repair of the house and the adequacy of the supply of housing available in their area. With regard to the second point regarding the supply of housing, no habitable house in Dublin should have been knocked down in the past five years because there has been a shortage in the supply in the Dublin area. In addition, there is the situation where there is business development on the site of a former habitable house, a site which would be of immense value if a supermarket or an office block were erected on it. In such cases the speculator has no hesitation in assisting the buildings on the site to fall into disrepair. Who is to know, when the speculator applies to the local authority for permission to demolish, whether, in fact, the disrepair was induced or whether it was due to age? We all know cases where lead was removed from roofs. We all know of cases in which the demolition squad arrived in the dark of night to demolish a particular building. What machinery is available for the purpose of discovering whether disrepair of partial demolition has been due to the process of time or whether it has been aided by some human agency? This Order does not prevent the demolition of perfectly sound houses suitable for habitation in the city of Dublin. In cases in which the authority gives permission subject to certain conditions, such as the provision of alternative suitable accommodation or a contribution towards the cost of such accommodation, the situation has been most unsatisfactory. We all know of cases in which rent controlled dwellings have passed into the hands of people anxious only to demolish and erect in their place supermarkets or office blocks; in such cases the tenants have not been given satisfactory compensation by any means. Where accommodation is offered it is never equal to the accommodation the tenants lost.

This order is too weak to withstand the ravages of the speculator prepared to invest a large amount of capital, There is no proper balance as between his interests and the interests of the tenants. Certainly there is no protection for the homeless under this order. As I say, it is most unsatisfactory. It provides no proper control, no effective antidote to the glaring weaknesses in the original Act of 1963. Where demolition is concerned there is certainly no assurance that the situation in Dublin will be any better in the future. The housing situation for those under £2,000 a year, and that includes the great majority, is becoming worse. I say this in reference to the Minister's declaration that an upward trend in housing output continues. Parents with one child here in this city face a bleak prospect indeed.

The penalties provided under this order are not sufficiently strong. It is a pity the Minister did not consider an upward trend in the penalties provided for demolition without permission. It is a little odd that no such increase was sought. Amending the provision would not have caused the draftsmen any great difficulty and it could have made the order efficacious. We all know that for the past five years in Dublin many habitable houses have been demolished. The local authorities are in a rather passive role in all this. There seems to be no provision for active surveillance by local authorities. There is, of course, a shortage of staff. Indeed, in Dublin, we are still without a city architect and we have no elected council. Perhaps one should not then wonder at the situation which obtains, a situation in which housing continues to get worse. Young married people are forced to live with their in-laws and, when they are living with their in-laws, no matter how overcrowded they may be, overcrowding does not enter into the calculations because of the ridiculous points system adopted. There are situations in which there are ten or 12 people in two or three rooms but, because the young married people are living with in-laws, the question of overcrowding does not arise. The local authority has worked to the best possible advantage with the resources available. What is really wrong is the paucity of financial assistance for national housing.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy may not enter into a debate on that.

Mr. M. O'Leary

We can talk of the ineffectiveness of this order in preventing the demolition of habitable houses. Demolition has not been prevented in Dublin. The order does not protect the community against the speculator, the speculator who appears to have the ear of the Government. This order will run for two years, unfortunately, or I should say, perhaps, until the next general election. There is no protection for the tenant in low rent accommodation, no protection for those in need of housing. The Minister says it is his intention to remove the final appeal from himself to an independent body, but there is no evidence of this change of heart in this draft order; it continues something which has proved ineffective in practice and gives no guarantee of improving a situation during the period in which the draft order will operate.

Mr. Moore

I am sure the House will approve this order. It is most necessary as the Minister pointed out. Deputy O'Leary said that Dublin Corporation have a points system, but they have not, of course.

Mr. M. O'Leary

It is only a phrase.

Mr. Moore

He also suggested that speculators deliberately, or in some cunning way, demolish empty houses. The point is that, once local authority houses become vacant, the corporation must rush out and board up the windows to prevent demolition by vandals. This point has not been highlighted sufficiently. I have seen local authority houses which were almost wrecked by vandals who had no thought for the people waiting for housing. Unless the windows are boarded up immediately they smash them, and wreck the inside of the houses. While I condemn the speculators, I do not think they enter into this picture half as much as the vandals who wreck houses belonging to local authorities, or to the people, if you like.

I can find no words strong enough to condemn people who destroy flats and houses, and not only put extra costs on the city, but deprive many families of housing which they are urgently awaiting. They could be and would be given those houses were it not for the wanton acts of the vandals who damage them. As far as I remember, in the 1969 Act there is provision whereby a local authority can carry out repairs to a private house which is in danger of becoming unhabitable and send the bill to the owner of the house. I do not know of one case in which this has happened. I suspect that there may be some weakness in the law in that respect. The Minister might have a look at that aspect of housing.

The Minister, who is the ultimate authority on planning permission, could tie in two things. At present the Planning Act states that the mere granting of permission for development does not automatically ensure the right to demolish the house. There is a time gap here. Some builders apply for planning approval to develop an area and, having got it, they assume that they have the right to demolish existing buildings, which they have not got. The Minister might look at these two Acts and ensure that there is no time lag between them. It should be impressed on a developer that the fact that he has got planning permission to redevelop an area does not give him the right to demolish existing houses. I would go so far as to say that, once they had got planning permission, some people acted in ignorance and knocked down houses. These are very important points.

If a house is too old or too big and a developer wants to demolish it and build flats, he is refused planning application. He then lets the house stand there and the vandals or the elements destroy it eventually. In the end the local authority decide to knock it down and get rid of it because it is only the shell of a building. The point I am trying to make is that there is a connection between the Planning Act and the 1969 Housing Act. If a house has been allowed deliberately to fall into disrepair the local authority should apply the powers they are given under the Act to carry out repairs to the house and send the bill to the owner.

If the Minister can think of any way to stop vandals wrecking existing buildings in Dublin, including local authority flats and dwellings, we will be able to save dozens of houses and flats per year. Perhaps he could find some way of having families moved into vacant houses immediately so that they will not be left empty for some weeks.

Minister for Local Government (Mr. Molloy)

I should like to thank the House for agreeing to the continuation of the 1969 Act and I should like so far as possible to reply to some of the points made. Deputy Fitzpatrick inquired how the Act had operated and how many times it had been used. I should like to put on record some of the information I have available to me with regard to the occasions on which applications were made to local authorities under this Act. In the period from 15th July, 1969, to 31st March, 1971, 312 applications were received by local authorities. Out of that number, 66 were granted without conditions, 195 were granted with conditions, and 51 were refused.

Mr. M. O'Leary

Does the Minister know the areas in which they were made?

Mr. Molloy

These are the figures for all the local authorities but, as I said the Act has been used primarily in the Dublin area. It was mostly in the Dublin Corporation area that the need for the Act originally existed and where there was the problem of habitable houses being demolished.

I have some figures for Dublin city and I can give them to the Deputy. There were 367 applications received by the corporation from 15th July, 1969, to 31st March, 1972. Out of that number, 256 were granted and 112 were refused. A further 86 applications. I understand, are awaiting determination at the moment. As a matter of further interest, up to 20th November of this year 134 appeals were received in my Department against decisions of the various housing authorities but primarily of the Dublin Corporation. Of these eight were not received within the statutory period, 18 were withdrawn, 54 were determined and 44 are under consideration at the moment.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): What order did the Minister make with regard to the 54 appeals he dealt with?

Mr. Molloy

I have not got that exact information. I just have the number I determined. Deputy O'Leary and the last speaker seemed to ignore the fact that the local authorities can grant permission for demolition and that they have the power to put in conditions. If the Deputy noticed houses being demolished which in his opinion were habitable, they may have been, there may have been conditions attached to the permission which those persons got to demolish those houses. The conditions could be of such a nature as to ensure that there was not an overall loss in the housing stock. A developer could be required to pay a sum of money or to provide alternative accommodation. There are various ways in which this can be dealt with and still allow the dwelling to be demolished where he wants to develop. A condition can be made to ensure that there is not an overall drop in the total number of houses.

On the question of an owner allowing his house to fall into disrepair, it is clearly laid down in the Act that where a housing authority are of the opinion that a person has deliberately allowed a house to fall into disrepair in order to evade the control that exists under the Act such a local authority may serve re-instatement requiring him, regardless of the condition of the house, to carry out such works as may be necessary so as to make the house fit for human habitation. That was covered adequately in the Act.

I would like to put on record that the Dublin city manager has expressed satisfaction at the nature and efficacy of the legal powers contained in the Act. He being the one who has to deal primarily with this problem, that is strong evidence that the Act is a satisfactory weapon to the local authorities to deal with the problem. Of course, he did make a plea for a further two years' extension.

The question of appeals was raised also but some of the discussion was rather irrelevant. Under the 1963 Act the Minister can determine the outcome of appeals. That is a right that I would be very pleased to shed as quickly as possible. It has never been easy for me to have to perform this function which, under the law, I am obliged to perform. As I have indicated on a number of occasions both inside the House and outside it, I am in the process of drawing up a new Bill to replace a previous appeals Bill which my predecessor introduced. I indicated that I was proposing a system of dealing with appeals that will be much stronger than that in the Bill proposed by my predecessor and which would be totally different from what is in operation at present under the 1963 Act. I do not think it fair to ask me to go any further on that because we would then be going into detail on a Bill that has not yet been introduced. However, some Opposition spokesmen chose to dwell on the particular difficulty which arises from the 1963 Act and obviously there were moves to make some political capital out of it. Because of that, perhaps I would be forgiven for making some reference to it here. As I indicated by way of interjection, the Bill as I intend it to be, is with the draftsmen at present so that they can put into legal form my own and the Government's intentions in this matter. The Bill will be brought before the Dáil as soon as it is practicable to do so and that should not be very long. I am anxious to have it published and introduced as soon as possible. We may have to wait to have it debated but I am anxious to have the provisions published.

Some speakers tried to draw an analogy between the appeals provisions of the 1963 Act and the appeals provisions under the Bill we are discussing. I would like to point out that there is a distinct difference between the type of appeals that are dealt with under both of these provisions. Under the 1963 Act the appeals must be determined with reference to every aspect of the planning and development of a planning district but the 1969 Act raises issues that are positive and which are not of amenity or other abstract nature such as are contained in appeals dealt with under the 1963 Act. The 1969 Act deals with rather limited matters such as the state of repair of a house and the adequacy of a supply of houses in an area. I do not agree that those criteria give scope for the abuses that Deputy Fitzpatrick alleged take place in his few words here. However, I would not rule out completely the idea of delegating appeals under the 1969 Act to some form of tribunal which may be set up under the Planning Bill which I propose to introduce here so that there would be some new form of appeals system. It is worth pointing out that there is a difference between the types of appeals dealt with under both Acts.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): Surely they are exactly the same types of appeals?

Mr. Molloy

Not necessarily: As I have pointed out, under the 1963 Act one would be dealing with such an aspect as interference with the amenity of an area while under the 1969 Act the issues are positive and direct, for instance, the condition of a house or whether there is a lack of housing to meet the needs in a particular area. These are the types of matters which normally have been dealt with by the Minister on appeal.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): In both cases the Minister would be deciding whether an office block might be built in a certain area.

Mr. Molloy

There is a certain amount of that involved but in practice the Minister does not have much choice in the decisions arising because in deciding appeals under the 1969 Act, I can say from personal experience that one relies heavily on legal advice and that diminishes ministerial discretion in making decisions.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): If the Minister intends shedding one brand of appeals then let him shed them all.

Mr. Molloy

There are a number of appeals made to the Minister under various Acts. I would not agree that the Minister should divest himself completely of all the powers and authority vested in him down through the years by way of various Acts passed in this Parliament. If he were to do so he would become an ineffective and useless figure and I do not think he could then call himself properly the head of this Department. I do not think Deputy Fitzpatrick is serious in suggesting that this be done in such a wide-sweeping way.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): I am extremely serious.

Mr. Molloy

A point raised by Deputy Clinton was that the local authorities should be bound by the controls under the Acts. We must give credit to local authorities for behaving in a mature and rational manner. Regarding the criticism that Deputy Clinton made in regard to the Minister being the judge and jury in dealing with appeals, I would like to ask him what would be the position if a local council were to sit in judgment on what they proposed. The position would be so farcical as not to warrant further attention by me. Therefore, the Deputy's suggestion was rather ridiculous. Deputy Fitzpatrick referred to section 11 of the 1969 Act being excluded in this order. That is a technicality because in section 13 (3) of that Act it is provided that section 11 shall not be temporary. That is the only permanent provision in the 1969 Act. I wish to deal now with what was said by Deputy FitzGerald during his very brief intervention.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): The Minister criticises the Deputy for speaking for too long but now he criticises him for being brief.

Mr. Molloy

Deputy FitzGerald made wide-sweeping statements which are not borne out by the facts. I propose to put some of the facts on the record to point out to him where he is wrong and where, on this occasion, he has not studied his figures properly. However, I will say at the outset that he is only repeating something I have been saying publicly on a number of occasions during the past year and that is that there is a special urgency in regard to the provision of accommodation for small families in the Dublin area in particular. I have striven to try to meet that demand and have had several discussions initiated between the Dublin Corporation and officials of my Department in an effort to find a solution to this problem. I have mentioned in the past that I hope to provide small dwellings, even of a temporary nature, to meet the very urgent needs of people in this situation and who, if the present system of allocation of dwellings continues, can be left on the housing list for many years. Work has been done in that direction, the extent of which I am not yet in a position to illustrate and I hope that much more work can be done to meet this need. Much preparatory work has been done in sifting the various proposals, in seeking suitable sites and dwellings and in seeking manufacturers or contractors who can provide the dwellings. The Dublin Corporation authorities have been very helpful in this work.

I will admit that we have not made the progress in this particular aspect of housing that I would like to have seen made up to this time. Quite a lot has been done and the results will bear fruit in the not too distant future. Even to go further, within the past week I have, by way of a circular to the various local authorities, instructed them to provide at least 10 per cent of their housing output as special dwellings suitable for small families who otherwise would not have the prospect of being rehoused. There is an expression of my intent in this matter and I will continue to work on that and try to meet the very great and urgent need of those who find themselves with small families or no families at all.

Deputy FitzGerald made sweeping statements about there not being any improvement in the overall housing position. He went so far as to say that local authority housing had not shown any real improvement at all. I could not agree less with him in this particular matter because over the last decade we have witnessed a constant rise in the output of new houses, virtually without interruption. We had a cement strike in one year which affected the figures slightly. The continuous rise in housing output has been greater in the last ten years than in any previous ten-year period in the history of the State.

In the early 1960s following the economic depression of the 1950s, to which Deputy FitzGerald's own party largely contributed, fewer than 6,000 houses per year were being built. I should like him to contrast that with the position in 1971-72 when we had just under 16,000 dwellings completed. Between 1st April, 1960, and 31st March, 1972, 127,000 new houses were built and about 110,000 houses were reconstructed with the aid of grants and 85,000 houses were improved by the addition of water and/or sewerage with the aid of grants.

In the period between April, 1960, and March, 1972, almost £500 million was spent on building, reconstructing and improving houses. A further £122 million has been spent on subsidising them. Of this total of almost £622 million spent the Government and local authorities between them have provided £386 million. The effect of programmes and expenditure of this sort has been, first of all, to reduce overcrowding. The Deputy says there has not been any improvement in the overall housing position. I want to contradict that statement. If you go back to 1946 at that time 24.9 per cent of the population was living at a density of two or more persons per room. In 1966 this figure had fallen to 16.8 per cent and it is still declining. The room occupancy rate was 1.01 persons per room in 1946. By 1966 the figure had fallen to .89. If anybody wants to know what the position was in Dublin I can tell them there was an improvement similar to the national figures I have quoted.

The standard of the houses has improved greatly. A substantially higher percentage of houses now have piped water and sewerage. The proportion of new houses in the stock is also substantially higher than it was in 1946. In other words, the quality of the housing stock as a whole is higher than it has ever been. When referring to those figures, Deputy FitzGerald omitted to state the amount of money that is being spent on reconstructing houses where you bring about a substantial improvement in the housing stock by way of maintaining it and improving it. The Government have invested quite substantial sums and housing is a No. 1 priority with this Government. The record in housing is there in the statistics. It is a record of very great success and it is something that this Government can be very proud of.

The progress in this field is continuing. In the current financial year some £105 million alone will be spent on building, reconstructing and improving houses out of a total building programme of just under £275 million. A further £19 million will be spent in subsidising them. Expenditure on house-building is more than seven times what it was in 1960-61. The subsidies the State are providing are about three times greater than the 1960-61 level.

The number of dwellings to be completed this year will be an all time record. We had a record last year in nearly reaching 16,000 and I am happy to tell the House that last year's record figure will be well exceeded in the present year and may reach as high a figure as 18,000. That is as accurate an estimate as I can make at this time. It shows that the policies that this Government are operating in the housing field are bearing results by way of more homes and dwellings which are so badly needed by the community. The demand from the community for new homes is accelerating at a tremendous pace.

All I can say in relation to the figures I have quoted and our attitude to housing is that we are determined to press ahead so far as available resources allow with this expanding housing programme. As the House knows, the White Paper on Housing in the Seventies, which was published in 1969, laid down objectives in the Government's policy for housing and set targets for the mid-1970s of between 15,000 and 17,000 houses. Here we are in 1972 and we have exceeded the upper limit in the targets set for 1975, so I think we can be very proud of what we have done.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): The private sector should be very proud of what they have done but I do not think the local authorities have anything to be proud of.

Mr. Molloy

Deputy Fitzpatrick reminds me of the point that was also made by Deputy FitzGerald. He tried to imply that, although there was an obvious increase in housing, it was all achieved by the private sector. He forgets, of course, that the State policy, as operated through the various aids and grants it uses to promote development in the private sector, which can benefit a house purchaser by up to as much as £1,000, has contributed to the substantial increase in the building of private homes. At the same time, because there has been a tremendous increase in the number of private homes constructed in recent years, one should not read that figure and then say that the increase is only in private housing. This certainly is not the position. An increase in housing has come about in the private sector but also to a very substantial degree in the local authority sector where the record of new houses being constructed, new dwellings being erected and completed each year has shown a remarkable improvement.

In 1961 1,463 local authority houses were completed; in 1965, 2,307; in 1971, 3,875 and last year 5,106 were completed. That is some record of achievement in local authority housing and it is utterly dishonest of Opposition spokesmen to try to create the impression that the increase in housing is all taking place in the private sector. It certainly is not. It is taking place in every sector in the housing industry. There has been a tremendous increase in housing.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): The Minister knows that a lot of the credit is due to the private sector. Many people, who cannot afford to do so, are being forced to build houses.

Mr. Molloy

I take particular pride in that tremendous increase because of the programme I initiated on going into the Department. The guaranteed order project has contributed substantially to the increased capacity of local authorities to turn out new homes of good standard at reasonable prices. These houses have been erected fairly quickly and are good value all around, and the tenants benefit substantially from this.

I thank the House for the brief discussion on the 1969 Act. I trust that the House will accept this extension of it.

Question put and agreed to.