Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 14 Feb 1989

Vol. 387 No. 1

Private Members' Business. - Derelict Sites Bill, 1989: Second Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Mr. L. Burke

Before I reported progress I was speaking about improvements to and the refurbishment of existing dwellings which would be of benefit in the Cork designated areas. The development has not yet commenced in the Blackpool section. In Cork the seizure of vacant lands in urban areas took place in the late sixties and seventies. This practice is now more infrequent on account of the city's plan to discourage the buying of vacant lots cheaply and holding them for profit. This is not only an amenity issue but also a problem with the land market. The type of people who are holding on to vacant land are, first, those who purchased land quite some time ago at bargain prices or those who have inherited same; secondly, those who have held on to land which they did not pay money to maintain and, thirdly, people who over-rated their prospects by buying land in the hope of it being purchased by a developer for office blocks etc. and hang on to these sites in the hope of making a big profit.

The Bill needs a mechanism whereby purchasers of these sites are discouraged from holding land which could be used for amenities. In relation to the tax benefits introduced in this Bill, which I understand are to encourage owners to clean up these sites and put the land on the market, I feel that the benefit would be to the advantage of the purchaser and not the seller. The tax benefit is, of course, beneficial to the functioning of the land market and should discourage the holding of land for long periods.

In conclusion, I am aware that many vacant sites are kept very clean and tidy by their owners but it is still a problem in urban areas. Often these sites or buildings have had their roofs removed in order to remove the rates liability for their owners. This aspect of the law should be changed in order to eliminate this practice. Many such buildings are kept clean and tidy by their owners but are still very unsightly. In appropriate cases, perhaps it would be advisable to allow owners to maintain their vacant buildings without the onerous rates bills, which they face at present, by introducing some form of graded rates for such buildings. The encouragement to owners of derelict buildings should be directed towards holding these sites for the shortest time possible. In many cases these sites could be sold into public ownership at reasonable prices which would reduce the actual cost of providing housing, schools, hospitals etc. unlike the present situation where the owners of these sites have very high expectations of large profits from property held by them for very long periods. I welcome this legislation which should have come before the House many years ago and I wish the Minister and the Bill every success.

Mr. B. O'Keeffe

Before I speak on this Bill it is appropriate that I should remind the House that the Minister for the Environment and, indeed, the Minister of State at the Department of the Environment have already introduced the Water Pollution Bill. In the budget they made provision for the cleaning up of our beaches and recycling of waste and now with the introduction of the Derelict Sites Bill, 1989, we can truly say that we have two Ministers who care for the environment.

The Derelict Sites Bill, 1989, must be welcomed by all as a major improvement on its predecessor, the 1961 Act. The massive increase which we have seen in dereliction has obviously been a major concern to all of us and raises significant questions relating to the inadequacy of the present Act and the underlying reasons for this increase in derelict sites. It is also significant for us as a people that we become increasingly aware of our environment and, as I said at the outset, as a Government we are adamant that we should encourage urban renewal. Indeed, Deputy Burke in his speech to the House emphasised the major effect urban renewal has had on the city of Cork and all over the country. It is significant that the Government have provided these incentives to reactivate economic activity in our larger cities and towns.

The perception of tourists and visiting industrialists of our urban areas is extremely important. I can point out that in my own city of Cork the IDA have been particularly vocal on the condition of some of the derelict properties on the approach roads to the city. The same applies to every city and town in the country. Indeed, the IDA contend that such buildings and sites can have an adverse effect on the perceptions of intending investors in our country. They further contend that by their buildings shall we know them, to coin a phrase. Therefore, the general lack of care for our environment could prove harmful to the attraction of high tech industry, one which is renowned for the high level of hygiene and environmental awareness.

Turning to the Bill; the wider definition of "derelict sites" is welcome in that it now includes dwellings which were excluded from the 1961 Act. This, taken in conjunction with sections 11 and 12 of the Bill, will mean that action can be taken by local authorities against early dereliction. When we come to the control of derelict sites there is a major step forward on the previous Bill in that many local authorities chose up to now to ignore derelict sites due to the fact that the costs involved in restoring or in refurbishing them could never be recouped by them. Now local authorities under this Bill are mandated to maintain and establish a register of all the derelict sites and this will ensure their active involvement in administering the provisions of the Bill.

Another positive result is that we can now quantify the scale of dereliction in each area. We can provide a follow-up system and in the case of urban areas we can allow the imposition of a derelict sites levy. On the question of a levy, it strikes me that we have been extremely successful when we have provided a carrot for our citizens. Nowhere was that more evident than in the tax amnesty, which brought in £500 million. It strikes me also that people would be much quicker to get rid of dereliction if they were granted an incentive to do so in some way. There is a disincentive for a person who immediately refurbishes his derelict building, in that the person suddenly has a rateable commercial property on his hands. Indeed I know of a recent exmple in my own area where a person was paying absolutely no rates on a derelict property because the roof had been removed, but immediately on the refurbishment of the property, he was faced with a rates bill of £1,100 per annum. Therefore I would suggest that the Minister might consider an option for the owners of such properties, namely a five years rates remission for such premises which were converted into commercial entities, thereby increasing the prospects of job creation. The Minister should also consider the possibility of extending in some cases section 27 to derelict sites and buildings where again there was conversion to industrial activity.

Under the old Act there was a major problem with the establishment of ownership. I know of several instances within my own county council area where the local authority found it extremely difficult to establish the identity and the address of the owner. In fact, in one instance — and a row of houses were involved — the owner was living in Australia and his legal representatives refused point blank to give his address. For refusing to do so they were levied the paltry sum of £5. Thankfully that situation has been rectified and now the fine has been increased substantially. Perhaps the Minister should make it compulsory when property changes hands that the rating authority would be notified of the name and address of the new owner and that the rate records be given some legal status when it comes to dealing with derelict sites. To cite an example, when the Register of Titles Act was introduced, it was envisaged that the Land Registry system could be gradually extended throughout the whole country, but as it transpired only counties Carlow, Laois and Offaly had this applied and no further steps were taken to have it extended to the other counties. I would also point out that at present town properties are registered in the Registry of Deeds and not under the Register of Titles Act. I ask the Minister to check the feasibility of having the Registry of Titles extended.

We are all well aware of the unscrupulous measures taken by some people to induce dereliction for their gainful purposes and for those, section 29 with its provisions for increased fines is more than timely. However, one also has to be aware that people who have been left derelict properties by way of wills or by the next of kin dying intestate may not have the means to refurbish the property. Obviously I would express concern that such persons might be criminalised under section 29, and again I suggest to the Minister that he could make provision for exceptional cases as he does by way of exemption in other sections. In the same vein, I refer the Minister to section 12 (3) of the Bill. Under the 1961 Act when notice of dereliction is served by the local authority, there is provision in that Act for an appeal to the Minister. However, in section 12 (3) of the Bill, I have not been able to locate such an appeal system. I hope the Minister will be able to enlighten me on this because there could be a constitutional problem in that if there is no right of appeal the section as it is stated may offend one of the principles of natural justice, that is that no man can act as a judge in his own cause. Therefore there should be a provision in the Bill to appeal to the Minister after the serving by the local authority of a dereliction notice.

This Bill is an amazing step forward and I recommend it totally to the House. However, I ask the Minister to consider carefully the number of points I have raised in my speech. Finally I would like the Minister to examine the preservation order on historical and cultural buildings. While in fact many of these buildings have been preserved, many have fallen into ruin. I would ask the Minister to see if certain incentives can be made available by way of restoration work where a preservation order is in place.

Mr. Boylan

I welcome the opportunity to speak again on this very important Bill. I assure the Minister of my wholehearted support for it, and I believe that every effort will be made to ensure that the provisions of the Bill are implemented. The Bill has been welcomed by all sides of the House. However, I would sound a note of caution, in that we might try to undo in the short term what has happened over a long number of years. We might try to move too hastily to correct many of the unsightly buildings and sites which are so prevalent in the countryside. By doing so, we could inflict great hardship on people who through no fault of their own find that they have a derelict site or building which they cannot afford to keep in good repair.

As I have said, we have a major and widespread problem on our hands. Anybody who travels around the country and takes note of what is happening around him will know that it has become quite common to see unsightly developments, indiscriminate dumping of old cars or rubbish. The local authorities will have to have more power to put an end to this.

I welcome the statement by the last speaker on the Land Registry and I would welcome the conversion of Fianna Fáil to the provisions of a land register. In fact this was well under way during the term of office of the last Government. Of course, it would have been a very useful exercise and would have given us up-to-date information on the ownership of all our lands in the country. This is a policy that should have been pursued, whether we were in favour of a land tax or not, which is an altogether different issue. The compilation of a land register was very important work and I know that in the counties where the officers had completed their task they had come up with very useful information, which could now be used in the Bill apart altogether from the purpose for which it was set up. There is an idea abroad that if a person takes the roof off a commercial building it will no longer be liable for rates. It should be stated clearly that this will no longer be the case. Once the roof is removed, a building will go into decay and become unsightly. Obviously some people believe this is a means by which they can bypass paying rates on commercial buildings.

Housing schemes can be unsightly because when they are completed the residents who move in paint their houses in various colours. They can be blue, red, black, green and purple in some cases. There should be regulations whereby a colour scheme would be part and parcel of a housing development and one could only paint their house brown, grey or whatever. This could be done by the developer, whether a private developer or a local authority. There needs to be some direction in this regard because as one approaches a town or village one can see housing schemes which are a maze of colour and these can be very unsightly. Both the residents and the authorities responsible for these housing schemes should take notice of this problem.

I welcome the urban renewal scheme. The work which has been carried out under that scheme is impressive. The first impression one gets of anything is usually the lasting impression one has. I come from a Border region — I make no apologies for being parochial about this matter — and if we want to attract people from Northern Ireland to trade with us the urban renewal scheme will have to be extended to Border towns and villages. Many people in these small towns and villages make a gallant effort to maintain their buildings but because of economic difficulties in that region it is noticeable that these towns and villages have become neglected. The urban renewal scheme should have been extended to all the Border towns and villages, with no apologies made to the rest of the country, because of the impact they have on people coming from Northern Ireland. One or two towns have been singled out for particular reasons. That is fine as an example of what can be done but I hope that in the further development of that scheme all of the other towns and villages along the Border will be included. Clones was earmarked to receive a certain amount of funds but to date it has not received any of these funds. Clones is an "island" town in the Border area which is much in need of an uplift and money spent there would be well spent. There is no doubt that when one becomes accustomed to looking at something it can go unnoticed but when visitors see an unsightly building or whatever they can be put off by it.

This Bill is more than welcome because it will draw attention to what is happening in our countryside. Many of these problems are caused by absentee landlords and I welcome that part of the Bill — if I am correct in my reading of it — which provides that in order to acquire a site it will not be necessary for a local authority to establish the ownership of a site. That is a welcome development because it is unfair to local residents, whether they be urban or rural, who are making a gallant effort to maintain their homes and their area to have a derelict site in their area because somebody who is not resident there and who has no input into it will not spend money on such a site. If people are not prepared to spend money on cleaning up or developing a site it can be screened off in a short time and at a minimum cost with wooden screens that can be painted.

County councils have authority to move in and acquire derelict sites. This is a welcome provision but before they do so every effort should be made to establish the ownership of the site and to find out why it had become unsightly. It may well be that the person who owns the site may be in financial difficulty and for that reason I believe funds should be made available to the local authority which they could disperse to people in difficulties. One cannot legislate or penalise people into undoing what has been done in our countryside over a long number of years but they could be encouraged to carry out improvements, and the best encouragement one can give is to offer people a reward for bringing about the changes which are needed.

Rapid progress is being made in regard to developments in my county. We have an excellent county manager who intends to announce an inter-county competition between towns and villages of a similar size which will give local communities an initiative to bring about the improvements he believes are necessary. This is a welcome development and it should be taken up by other counties. The Tidy Towns competition is run on a national basis, and I believe it should be continued, but when competitions are run on a county basis, for example, inter-county sport competitions, they create more of an interest and stir people into doing things which will be to the benefit of everybody.

I should like to refer to dumps, whether they are local authority dumps or areas of land used by people for dumping. Local authorities are very often the culprits for the manner in which these dumps are maintained. Every town has its own dump adjacent to it but I believe there should be a centralised dump for the refuse from towns and villages. Rather than having a dump adjacent to each town, one large area perhaps of wasteland or bogland could be screened off from view, an area which is generally not being used by the public or by visitors. There may be some additional cost involved, but probably in the long term such a large dump would be cheaper to maintain than a large number of smaller dumps all over the country which are poorly maintained, to say the least.

In Clonee there is a problem with people who are trading in car parks. There is an unholy development there and I cannot understand how it is allowed to continue. This is alongside a road where many residents keep their homes and farms in excellent condition. There is nothing nicer in the springtime of the year than to see people out painting their gates and whitewashing the walls. It is a great tradition with us to maintain our holdings. It is very discouraging that down the road from such well-kept dwellings a group of travelling people, I suppose, can set up camp, bringing in all sorts of car bodies and scrap machinery, start a dump and begin cutting these vehicles up. I do not understand how or why these people are allowed to behave like this. Is it that the local authority have not powers to prevent it? If they have not, the powers should certainly be given to them. I do not know if such powers are included in this Bill. Such dumps are prevalent and quite noticeable. A stop should be put to this immediately.

People from urban areas often go for a drive on a Sunday afternoon. Having gathered up all the rubbish around their houses they put it in the back of the car, drive out to the country and, when there is nobody looking, they throw it across the nearest hedgerow. The identification of a car number should be sufficient evidence, even if people do not know who are in the car. The car should be traced and the people prosecuted. It is wrong that people can do that sort of thing and get away with it.

I certainly welcome the Bill. The Government should move with caution and try not to undo what good we have been doing. The countryside has been subjected to attack over a number of years. Where absentee landlords are involved, or people are not in residence locally and there is no attempt to improve an unsightly development, these people should be gone after. With local residents I would exercise caution so as not to humiliate anybody. This could have a bad effect. I assure the Minister of my support and welcome for the Bill. It should have been introduced into this House many years ago.

Mr. Flood

I particularly welcome the opportunity to participate tonight in this debate on the Derelict Sites Bill, 1989. The views I am going to express will be largely based on personal experience as a local public representative on Dublin County Council and I hope my views will contain many of the comments made to me by my constituents throughout the part of Dublin I represent. These comments are from people who have experienced the utter frustration of trying to deal with derelict sites in their own area, or neighbourhood over the years, under the legislation available to them until now. It is hoped this Bill will become law as quickly as possible.

How often have we been faced at public meetings with demands from residents to deal with a particular eyesore or derelict site in their area? When we refer the matter to the local authority we find frequently that for a variety of reasons, largely going back to the inadequacy of present legislation, the local authority are unable to deal with the problem. This has had a tremendous impact on communities, on the older communities which saw the increase in derelict sites in their areas and on the newer communities, the new housing areas where, although housing estates were being developed, places around those estates were being allowed to decay and become derelict, causing great concern and discomfort to both types of community. This legislation is an attempt rapidly to correct the situation which has been allowed to get out of hand for far too long. Basically, we are dealing with the inadequacies of the 1940 and 1961 legislation in this regard.

The Minister when opening this debate made a number of telling points which put the legislation in perspective. He sought to highlight clearly for us the reasons for the legislation being necessary. We must understand the impact of derelict sites on the environment, on people living in the immediate area, and the effect the general sense of dilapidation derelict sites can have to those who see them, perhaps for the first time. This legislation seeks to confer on the local authority primarily, the power to deal with derelict sites, which power all of us have realised for some time they have lacked. Many of us, having the benefit of serving on local authorities, will know that there is very much an involvement in development plans which are largely drawn up or renewed every five years and very often during discussion on such plans the issue addressed in this Bill comes up for discussion.

The Minister has given us something of the history of the legislation in so far as it attempts to deal with derelict sites. He has shown quite clearly that the legislation available to local authorities at present is extremely weak. One local authority, Dublin Corporation, find that there are, in a very small space between the canals, something in the order of 600 derelict sites. That is an enormous number and obviously it is causing tremendous disquiet to those living in the area concerned. Perhaps it has given rise to the drift from inner city areas out to the suburbs, something which we now recognise is not necessarily a welcome trend in population movement.

This Bill sets out to try to provide local authorities with powers to deal with the issue of derelict sites. It is extremely timely and follows on a number of very imaginative Bills brought forward by the Minister for the Environment, Deputy Flynn, and the Minister of State, Deputy Connolly, to strengthen the hand of the elected representatives of local authorities. One frequently hears the complaint from elected representatives at local level that their powers in relation to local matters are extremely limited. This Bill represents an attempt by the Minister and the Minister of State to give back substantial powers to local authorities. The elected representatives are familiar with the problems of their own areas and are best qualified to deal with them.

There is no more important issue than derelict sites when it comes to the exercise of power by locally elected representative organisations. Local assemblies are in a position not only to harness the powers within the local authorities but also to call upon voluntary effort to deal with derelict sites. This has been shown to some extent by some of the more enlightened local authorities who have been able to devise schemes in which tenants' associations and other interested groups and organisations play a specific role in cleaning up areas which have become eyesores. Voluntary organisations have contributed very significantly to the enhancement of their neighbourhoods, but local voluntary effort, no matter how well disposed, is not always able to deal ultimately with the issue. For that reason the Government have brought forward this Bill.

If the Bill was not strong enough to deal with this problem, it would be a waste of time, but any examination of its contents will show that the Minister sets out to give teeth to the Bill. It contains provisions which will allow local authorities to take very strong action once notices have been served on the owners or occupiers of derelict sites. There is a fundamental difference between this legislation and the Acts of 1940 and 1961. The 1940 Act contains only the threat that the local authority will be enabled to acquire derelict sites if the owner or occupier does not put them in order. There is no case to make nowadays for a local authority dealing with this issue by threatening to acquire a piece of property. This would lead to enormous difficulty in the expenditure of taxpayers' money to acquire sites which would be of no use to the local authority. That was one of the fundamental weaknesses in the 1940 Act. The Minister here deals with the problem by way of levies.

A major difficulty for a local authority has always been the definition of the derelict site. Those of us who have experience of serving on local authorities have frequently brought a particular site to the attention of the management, asking that it should be investigated. Frequently the manager reports back that he cannot define the site as derelict under existing legislation, although we know that by comparison with neighbouring sites the site in question is clearly derelict. Nevertheless, legal opinion is often otherwise. The Minister has addressed this problem by widening the definition. This will strengthen the hand of the elected representatives and the management of local authorities in defining derelict sites on a much wider scale. Problems of definition have heretofore allowed for the continued existence of derelict sites, despite complaints by individuals and local representatives.

An important provision of the Bill is that which requires a register of derelict sites to be drawn up by every local authority within one year from the commencement of the Act. They must establish and maintain a register to be known as the derelict sites register. Although it might not be realised by some contributors, this outstanding provision means that any elected representative or other interested person can, by contacting a local authority, discover if a particular site is on that register. If so, the matter can be pursued with the local authority so that action can be taken under this legislation. If the site in question is not included in the register, the local authority can be alerted to undertake the various procedures necessary to have it entered on the register. This is a very important aspect of the Bill. The work of elected representatives will be made much easier when discussing this issue. It will be possible for the management of local authorities to name all derelict sites within their area and to apply pressure, if required, to have them dealt with as provided for in this Bill. This provision will strengthen the hand of the local authority.

It will give the ordinary person better access to information relating to derelict sites in their own areas, an issue that might concern them because they live beside the derelict site or work beside one. That is an extremely important insertion in the Bill and I am delighted, as someone who has served on a local authority, to see it because it will strengthen the hand of the elected representative, the manager of the local authority and ordinary individuals who may have a problem in regard to sites in their area.

The legislation also refers to the power of the local authority to acquire derelict sites. Generally, the Bill confers power on the local authorities to do this but I do not favour local authorities acquiring sites just because they happen to be derelict. However, the legislation is strong enough to allow for local authorities to take other measures in regard to most of the derelict sites. I do not think that any of us would be anxious to see local authorities acquiring, willy-nilly as it were, sites just because they happened to be derelict and which would not be of any use to the local authority in question.

I want to briefly refer to the levies which can now be charged by local authorities to owners of derelict sites over a number of years. This gives teeth to the legislation because, without a penalty or financial implications of some kind for the owners of these sites, the Bill would be worthless. I am glad the Minister and the Minister of State take a similar view, that legislation of this kind would be worthless without financial penalties being imposed. Therefore, I am particularly pleased that up to a maximum of 10 per cent — depending on what the Minister may decide — of the value of a site can be levied by the local authorities in any one year. This will quite clearly spell out to the owners of such sites that the time has come for them to put their houses in order and that we will no longer accept a situation where sites are allowed to deteriorate to such an extent that they become derelict. If they decide to go down that particular road a financial penalty will be imposed which will, I hope, encourage them to ensure that the sites are kept clear and do not become an infringement on people's rights in an area as far as a clean and healthy environment is concerned.

I know the Minister recognises that there will be an occasional case which will involve hardship. We accept this can happen in any legislation which has a punitive clause. However, there is a waiver which can be utilised at the discretion of the local authorities and taken into account. The Minister is very fair-minded about this and recognises that individuals can have difficulties for a whole variety of reasons which mean they may not be able to respond in sufficient time to avoid a financial penalty. The Minister is to be complimented for allowing the waiver to be included.

This is a very important Bill which will strengthen the hands of local authorities and in a special way it compliments and reinforces the view of the Minister and the Minister of State in their intention to give back real, significant and substantial powers to local authorities and their elected representatives which we all recognise have been taken away or eroded.

I compliment the Minister and the Minister of State on this excellent legislation. I note that all sides of the House have warmly welcomed it.

Mr. Deenihan

I, too, welcome the Bill which follows a number of others from the previous Administration. It is another step in the right direction. If its provisions are enforced it should ensure that our streets and rural landscapes will be considerably improved, creating a better urban and rural environment for all our people.

There is certainly a new awareness among urban and rural dwellers of the importance of making our environment better and cleaner. Some progress has been made but we still have too many derelict sites in the private and public sector which are a blight on the countryside. At a time when we are trying to promote tourism more aggressively, it is a major drawback because when you compare our environment with that of most European countries we are sadly lacking. We are certainly at a considerable disadvantage vis-à-vis England, Germany and Northern European countries.

I welcome the powers the Bill will give to local authorities. The 1961 Act was used effectively by some local authorities, and this was referred to already by Deputy Burke. Cork Corporation implemented the 1961 Act very forcefully and got results. However, most county councils and local authorities did not implement the Act vigorously and, as a result, there are many derelict sites around the country. If more use had been made of the 1961 Act and if there had been a greater commitment towards its enforcement, there would hardly have been a need for the present Bill.

The Bill, by giving more powers to local authorities to tackle and control the problem, should be more effective than the 1961 Act. It should result in the elimination of many of the eyesores around the country. However, its implementation depends on how seriously the local authorities take it. Certainly their record in this respect is not great. If they are not serious in this regard the Bill will be ineffective. I welcome the commitment by the Government in this respect and there is a more rigorous policy now in regard to water pollution, for example, which has been effective. If the same philosophy is pursued in relation to this Bill there could be a major improvement. It depends on the goodwill of local authorities.

The Minister may mention the problem about financing local authorities in relation to carrying out the various directives in the Bill. Do local authorities have sufficient manpower to carry out a survey of derelict sites? What criteria would be used in deciding whether a site is derelict or not? Would an objective assessment be carried out or would the individual surveying the site decide? Perhaps this is already included in the Bill, but I would like the Minister to comment on this matter.

If a person cannot maintain their home at a certain standard it is possible that it could be considered to be derelict. This may strike fear into many people. I would like the Minister to outline the limits to which a local authority would be able to go in deciding what is or is not a derelict building and what resources would be made available to cash starved local authorities to implement the various provisions of this Bill.

I welcome the provision in the Bill which would enable the Minister to force local authorities to clean up their act. Local authorities are major polluters — I think 30 per cent of pollution is caused by local authorities. Because of cutbacks in the public capital programme the number of treatment plants being erected is smaller than that of previous years and this is the kernel of the problem. It is very important that the local authorities clean up their act. If we put pressure on the private sector to clean up their act it is only fair that the local authorities also do the same. Unfortunately, the local authorities are as culpable as private enterprise.

As I said, I welcome the provision which would enable the Minister for the Environment to direct local authorities to improve derelict sites in their ownership. In this regard I would like to refer to the many old single rural cottages which in some cases remain in the ownership of county councils in the west, the occupants of which have emigrated. In many cases no one has taken over the ownership of these cottages with the result that they have fallen into disrepair and have become unsightly. Some action is needed. I hope this Bill will place an obligation on the owners of unoccupied houses in the private sector to get rid of them, to knock them down, to maintain them or sell them because they should not allow them to become eyesores.

I am rather concerned at the number of dilapidated old housing estates in our towns and cities. I am aware that the Government operate a good scheme for the refurbishment of houses in our towns and cities given the constraints under which they have to operate, but we still have a long way to go before we rid ourselves of the large amount of bad housing around the country at present. Houses in which elderly people live, whose families have been moved out to live in newer estates, have been allowed to become run down. Nobody seems to care about them. These houses should be refurbished or the tenants should be rehoused. It may be very difficult to transfer elderly people from homes in which they have lived most of their lives to newer estates, but this is a major problem, as these old housing estates do not add to the appearance of our smaller towns and cities.

The house improvement scheme helped considerably to improve our housing stock. Under that scheme, especially in the countryside, many people were helped to maintain traditional style buildings which would otherwise have disappeared and been replaced by new houses. It is important that these buildings be preserved as they add to the attractiveness of the countryside. They appeal to tourists and Irish people alike. I ask the Minister to consider reintroducing some form of house improvement grant scheme, particularly for external repairs to roofs and walls. It is very important that we do this as in many cases people cannot afford to carry out the repairs required to make their homes look good.

Urban decay has been a feature of Irish life since the beginning of the century, especially in our larger cities. Even though the problem has been arrested in Cork, Limerick and, to a lesser extent, in Dublin progress is very slow. The Minister in his speech said great progress has been made in certain areas, for example around Christchurch. I travel here via that area most mornings and it seems that there has been a proliferation of derelict sites in that area during the past few years. It is absolutely ridiculous that this should be so. Perhaps it is not too bad for those who live in this country but tourists who use that route must get a very bad impression of Dublin. The same must be true of those who arrive by train and travel along the quays from Heuston Station. It is one of the most dilapidated stretches in the whole country. I appeal to the Minister to place special emphasis on that area through which many tourists pass, as its present condition must have a very negative effect on them.

It is very important that derelict buildings be redeveloped in accordance with the traditional architecture of the area. As far as possible, the front of the buildings should be retained with the rear of the buildings being replaced. There is nothing worse than seeing a modern building in the Sam Stephenson mould in the middle of period architecture which has stood the test of time and which still looks good — there are many such examples around the city — whereas buildings such as O'Connell Bridge House are as unsightly as some of the derelict sites scattered around the city. There appears to be a growing awareness that the front of a derelict building should be retained, especially if it is of stone. One such example is the present redevelopment of a building in Mount Street which retains the traditional front with the rear of the building being replaced. That type of development must be welcomed.

Regarding the success of the incentives for urban renewal let us not forget the previous Government introduced the legislation. I would like to thank the Minister for coming to Tralee to announce the extension of it to that town where it has made a major impression and been very successful already. We have a conference centre, and although that did not replace an existing building it is very welcome. Various schemes are in progress in Tralee and it is good to see scaffolding back and building going on there. Many building jobs in the town would otherwise be devastated. This scheme could be extended to include further urban areas around the country. Even in Kerry a case could be made for some of the bigger towns like Killarney, Listowel, Cahirciveen and Kenmare. I know if it is extended too much, revenue for the local council could be cut down; nevertheless the county council would lose no current revenue. Anyhow the advantages of extending the scheme would far outweigh the loss of potential revenue for the councils, create much needed employment and improve the streetscapes considerably. I would like the Minister to extend the scheme as he considers fit and appropriate.

I would like to mention some of the provisions in the Bill. It is a good idea to require the local authorities to maintain a register of all derelict sites in their areas. In that regard it would be very important to determine ownership of the sites. In many cases a solicitor or auctioneer could be fronting whoever the owner is. For example, nobody knows who is the owner of the Blasket Island. We know the people who represent them but nobody claims to own it. I am referring to the Great Blasket not to be confused with other——

Mr. Sheehan

Inishvickillaun.

Mr. Deenihan

It is important when drawing up a register that the real owners are identified. The Bill provides that the owners have to be informed beforehand. It is not good enough to inform the representatives of the owners of the sites. People should have explained to them why their building was being put on the register and many of them would respond and ensure that it would not go on the register. The register could be placed in the media, the local papers especially, to indicate where exactly the derelict buildings are. People should be encouraged to report derelict sites which may be off the main run and out of people's notice. Co-operation of the public and of councillors should be sought to ensure that all derelict sites are put on the register and the local knowledge should be taken into consideration.

The provision placing a duty on owners and occupiers of land to prevent it from becoming or continuing to be a derelict site is linked more or less to the register. In this regard we should have a public education programme starting in the schools. It is mainly adults who own sites and a public awareness and education programme run over TV could make people aware of the importance of preserving and conserving sites and of the damage that could be caused to the environment and the economy.

Some of us may not have studied the Bill too deeply but if people were aware of what is involved in this type of legislation they would respond accordingly. People generally and even Members of this House are unaware of many Acts that apply to their constituencies and constituents. If this Bill is to be successful it needs a public awareness campaign.

I welcome the new powers given in the Bill to local authorities to take action on derelict sites and to require information on ownership. The Bill will enable local authorities to acquire derelict sites compulsorily and if the matter goes to court the owner will have to be made known.

As somebody who has some interest in architecture, especially rural architecture, I am very supportive of this Bill. People should be educated to appreciate what we have and what we should hold. Unfortunately, many derelict sites here represent an age that is gone. Many of the buildings on them are from the 18th and 19th centuries. It is a pity that in a very irresponsible fashion we have destroyed much of the architecture of that period. A certain type of tourist comes to Dublin to admire its architecture. We have lost some of our best architecture including some old town houses used by the aristocracy of by gone days. Many of these buildings have become dilapidated beyond repair. I hope with such legislation as this we as a nation will develop a greater appreciation of our past.

I should like to thank the Minister, and his Minister of State, for their positive action in regard to the environment but we must not forget the last Minister for the Environment, Deputy John Boland, who did a lot of good work.

Mr. Sheehan

I welcome the Bill which is long overdue and I hope it eliminates the shabby buildings in all areas. The improvement in the appearance of our countryside, our cities, towns and villages is of paramount importance. We must aim to maintain the high standard our emerald isle is held in by our fellow Europeans. Far too often we have had a complete let-down on that high profile. I note from the explanatory memorandum that the Minister blames public authorities for the many derelict sites and buildings. That is true in many cases but the Minister must bear in mind that local authorities, due to a lack of finance, are unable to deal with derelict sites. Will the Minister give an assurance that local authorities will be provided with adequate finance to eliminate derelict sites in their areas? There is little use in introducing a Bill to deal with derelict sites if local authorities are not given adequate finance to implement its provisions.

Most of the derelict sites owned by local authorities have been earmarked for the building of council houses and the Minister should ensure that those authorities are given adequate finance to erect houses on those sites. There are thousands of young couples and young people on local authority housing lists but due to a lack of funds councils are unable to provide them with accommodation. I should like to compliment local authorities who are erecting modern type dwellings for their tenants.

Local authorities may find it very difficult to trace the owners of derelict sites and buildings and for that reason I would like an assurance from the Minister that he will not allow local authorities to move hastily in compulsorily acquiring those sites. They should explore every avenue to try to locate the owners of such sites many of whom emigrated to America, Australia, New Zealand and the Far East. It will be difficult to locate them but local authorities should do everything possible to trace them. Justice should be done in those cases. I hope the Minister does not use this legislation as a battering ram. He is being given a lot of power under the Bill and I hope he does not use the big stick of power to take over derelict sites. He should encourage local authorities to act with restraint before they compulsorily acquire derelict sites. I accept that compulsory acquisition will be necessary in many cases if we are to rid many of our towns and villages of derelict sites but where possible councils should try to reach an amicable agreement with the owner.

I have no doubt that the introduction of a rateable valuation system on such sites will lead many owners to sell them. A rates demand each year will spur those people into action. Will the Minister give the House details of his proposals for the huge tracts of land that adjoin our national primary roads? As one drives from Dublin to Cork, or along any national primary routes, one can see acres of land that were acquired for road realignment lying idle. If some of those lush acres of land were in parts of my constituency we would have many visible farms. However, that land is completely overgrown with weeds. If I had a farm adjoining that land I would sue the local authority under the noxious weed legislation because the seeds of nettles and other weeds blow into adjoining holdings. The Minister should give local authorities finance to clear such land of weeds.

Some of our semi-State bodies are responsible for derelict sites. In the constituency represented by the Minister of State, Bord na Móna have left large tracts of cut-away bog idle. That could be utilised profitably rather than being left to produce noxious weeds such as daisies and buttercups. High class masonry buildings in our cities, towns and villages should not be demolished and the Minister should make special grants available for the restoration of such buildings. The house improvement grant scheme introduced by the last Government helped the restoration of many derelict buildings. I appeal to the Minister to restore those grants. He should bear in mind that when the grants were available the building industry prospered. Fianna Fáil Members have often highlighted the importance of the building industry and told us that it was the greatest industry for creating employment. For that reason I cannot understand why a Fianna Fáil Government abolished house improvement grants. We were improving the condition of houses and restoring them for generations to come. I appeal to the Minister to reintroduce the house improvement grant. If the Minister does so I can guarantee that there will not be a derelict building in any town, city or village in the next decade. Those grants proved their worth in restoring the environment and in restoring dwellings, some of them unique stonebuildings which will outlast bricks and mortar dwellings, the type of building which will never be built again.

Will the Minister also use his good offices with the Minister for Finance to get special concessions for individuals to purchase and restore derelict buildings and sites. Concessions could be worked out with reference to the register which local authorities have to compile and produce to the Minister. The scheme that was used for the inner cities of Dublin, Cork, Limerick, Galway and Waterford could be used along with the register compiled by the local authorities. It is not asking too much to ask the Minister to make concessions available. Driving up the quays in Dublin this evening I saw a placard saying that it was cheaper to develop property in a certain area and telling people that they would get special concessions for developing buildings in the inner city. We saw what they did in Cork city where a huge area of derelict buildings has been restored because of special concessions given to developers under the Finance Act. The same concessions should be given to individuals and firms who are prepared to invest their money to restore derelict sites. This would circumvent a lot of the costly litigation that local authorities will have to endure under the criteria in this Bill.

I see that the local authorities are to be armed with two new effective weapons to combat dereliction. First, they can serve a notice on the site owner requiring work to be done and, failing compliance, they can enter onto a site and carry out the work with power to recover the cost. I cannot see that working in rural Ireland.

Minister of State at the Department of the Environment (Mr. Connolly)

I do not like interrupting, but the Deputy is looking at the wrong Bill.

Mr. Sheehan

No, the Bill I am looking at is the local government Derelict Sites Bill, 1988.

Mr. Connolly

We are dealing with the 1989 Bill.

Mr. Sheehan

The 1988 Bill is exactly the same.

Mr. Connolly

No, it is different.

Mr. Sheehan

It is exactly the same. No matter what way the Minister tries to whitewash it, he still will not sell it to rural Ireland. The Minister will only sell it if he agrees to my request tonight. The Minister should re-introduce house reconstruction grants and give sufficient money to the local authorities to develop lands they purchased years ago on the understanding that they would have enough money to develop them. A lot of local authorities have not developed building land because of lack of finance. For that reason I appeal to the Minister to do everything possible to make the task easier for local authorities who are willing and able to proceed with building programmes.

If this Bill is to be successful we will have to work with local authorities and with individuals and we will have to make finance available so that county councils can proceed with their building programmes.

Mr. J. Higgins

I welcome the opportunity to join in the general chorus of welcome for this measure which is, it is generally acknowledged, long overdue. A drive through any part of rural or urban Ireland will testify to that. I join with the general commendation of the Minister for introducing this Bill which we hope will be rendered effective in solving the problem it sets out to address. I pay tribute to the former Minister for the Environment and former spokesman for environmental affairs on this side of the House, Deputy John Boland, for the measure he brought before the House in 1988, the measure which Deputy Sheehan alluded to but which might not have the precise detail of the Government measure but which is largely parallel in content. It certainly is parallel in intent and motivation towards solving the problem we are addressing this evening.

I will not go into detail in relation to specific provisions of this Bill which will be addressed from all sides of the House on Committee Stage. As Deputy Farrelly, our acting spokesman this evening said, there are a number of reservations on this side of the House in regard to a number of its basic tenets and clauses. As we debate the various provisions we will be seeking to ensure that they are rendered watertight. It will be our hope that there will be no loopholes remaining and that the Bill will go on to the Statute Book as a milestone in eliminating one of our worst scourges, that is these abysmal derelict sites.

An impression all Members seemed to have was that derelict sites constituted largely an urban problem, that it was essentially a city problem with no relevance to rural areas. Yet a coast to coast tour of the country, a drive through any village or town will be ample evidence that it is a nationwide problem. So many derelict sites are a blight on our landscape. Indeed they are an indictment of us and our commitment to environmental matters that to date we failed to address the problem.

One of the best innovations ever in terms of bringing about an improvement in the overall national facade and environment and rendering our countryside attractive to tourists has been the proliferation of Tidy Towns committees. Every town now has its dynamic group setting about a general cleanliness campaign and another in relation to the restoration of villages and towns, their facades and grass areas, which they have done with considerable distinction. Indeed it is a source of pride to such groups that they have managed to leapfrog each other in terms of the competitiveness of producing the goods. Each year there are new areas, villages and towns emerging as victors, people transferring from the achievement of results in one category to others, with an enormous sense of local pride being engendered. However, one of the most demoralising features of that Tidy Towns campaign has been the inability of local committees to address the age old problem of dereliction. How demoralising it is for a community to landscape their gardens, restore their footpaths, have the local authority play their part by way of input into local development, enabling them to utilise the most imaginative shapes, fashions and designs on the facades of their villages and towns yet allowing one black spot — the derelict site — to affect the end result. Therefore it will be seen that it is not an urban problem only but a rural one also.

As I drove into the city along the quays this morning, as I looked objectively at Ellis Quay, Arran Quay and Ormonde Quay in the knowledge that this Bill was being introduced in the House today, I was forced to reflect on how the quays must appear to visitors, to people who may have just driven through the Phoenix Park, in all its glory and splendour and then descended onto Arran Quay. Ormonde Quay and Ellis Quay with their facades bordering one of the most beautiful rivers in Europe, the Liffey. Such facades can only be described as so pock marked and derelict as to constitute something equivalent to a mouthful of bad teeth.

I welcome the incentives offered by the Government in relation to the development of the inner city, the tax incentives available as inducements to private enterprise to move in and develop the inner city. We must encourage and engender positive action. However, we must be precise in relation to the provisions of this Bill. While we may all have a general notion as to what constitutes dereliction, we may well ask what is the precise technical term encompassed in this Bill. I welcome in particular the twin provisions introduced, that is the introduction of a register, the obligation placed on local authorities to remedy derelict sites and land and also the imposition of a levy on the owner of a site which becomes derelict. Those are two valuable provisions that must be implemented. However, it has to be said that when we devolve power on local authorities to enforce these provisions very often we find that the policemen themselves are the most culpable. It is my belief that when this register is drawn up we will discover that the greatest culprits in relation to land with a considerable element of dereliction will be the local authorities themselves or other State agencies. In anticipation of such an eventuality I would urge the Minister to give the necessary funds to local authorities, semi-State organisations and health boards to put their houses in order. One cannot convert the poacher to gamekeeper unless one provides him with the necessary resources.

I concur with the sentiments expressed on this side of the House in regard to the need not alone to introduce house improvement grants for the refurbishment and reparation of ordinary dwellings but a specific grant for the preservation of houses of special character. There are many stone dwellings throughout the country that have fallen into a state of dereliction or that are about to reach a state of repair beyond redemption requiring urgent attention. There is nothing more galling than seeing a house of particular character fall into disrepair, eventually being subjected to the one fell swoop of the bulldozer and converted into rubble to fill in a tiphead somewhere. Always I am aghast to see what might be termed priceless material in terms of fine quality cut stone, in the form of blue Bangor slates which are no longer available at any builders' providers being dumped as rubble, covered over by topsoil, obscured for posterity. It is my belief that there is much building material, such as cut stone, slates and traditional red brick that could be recycled for facades or for use on the entire structure of reestablished buildings in the old style. I would urge the Minister to investigate the possibility of recycling materials of that type.

It is a sad fact of life that we have departed totally from old style, traditional buildings. It is my hope that the fashion will go the full circle so that the old facades will be restored as a permanent feature over the next 20 or 30 years. It would be my hope that we will depart from the bland, boring type of structure that has become so much part of the prize-winning architecture of this city. I should like to see the reincarnation of the old designs, with the necessary prizes or incentives being offered architects to direct their ingenuity towards that end. I agree that we should be cautious in relation to CPOs but that when the decision has been made by a local authority to invoke the CPO, the whole process should be greatly expedited.

I concur with the sentiments of Deputy Deenihan that we have failed miserably in the educative process by not giving the necessary appreciation of what is old and good. Last night on television we saw a prime example of a person of considerable standing in the community being responsible for the demolition of an old, priceless church in the Minister's own constituency in the village of Kilmain. I can easily identify with the wrath of the local community and their determination to have preserved what was a very fine structure but which was felled without their knowledge.

I welcome this measure. It is a milestone in terms of the preservation of buildings of architectural merit and the demolition of buildings which constitute a danger in terms of their fabric and of removing from the landscape, once and for all, one of the sad blemishes that is so characteristic of modern Ireland.

Mrs. Taylor-Quinn

I welcome the introduction of this Bill. It is long overdue. In particular I welcome section 4 which extends the definition of a derelict site to include private dwellings. One of the problems facing local authorities up to now has been the difficulty of dealing with private dwellings in rural towns and villages. The introduction of this section is a step in the right direction.

Included in the wider definition is derelict land. Perhaps the Minister would take the opportunity when replying to explain in more detail what sections 11 and 12 really mean. Is the Minister talking about land specifically in cities, towns and villages or about land in the broader sense of the word? This needs to be clarified to this House.

It is ideal for local authorities to maintain a register, and perhaps they could categorise the different types of property. As the previous speaker said we have many valuable traditional type properties around the country which are of aesthetic value and historical significance. There is also the more common property which has traditional value peculiar to the Irish countryside, towns and cities. It is important to define the various categories so that priority will be given to the preservation of the more valuable historical ones.

It is unfortunate that when sites become derelict some very fine traditional frontages are not retained but knocked down, constituting a major loss to the general structure of our towns and villages. In the past much damage has been done. If this Bill does something to preserve what remains it will be doing a very good job.

The fact that the Bill puts an onus on occupiers is important, but I am concerned that statutory bodies, including local authorities and semi-State bodies who are supposed to implement the legislation, have been major offenders in contravening the legislation while pursuing other people who have contravened it. There is a duty on the Minister to ensure that they themselves put their own house in order before proceeding against anybody else.

In rural areas outside of Dublin there are many derelict dwellings. Many are derelict because of the social problems that have arisen in those areas, particularly in the west where there was a high incidence of emigration, and nobody at this stage knows who the owners really are. I wonder if the Minister has discussed with his counterpart, the Minister for Justice, what approach to adopt in such cases. Do they intend to set about establishing ownership or do they intend just putting a compulsory purchase order on and acquiring the property regardless of who the owner is? These are matters that must be considered sensibly because, for many people, leaving their homestead was a sad and emotional affair, and many had aspirations of returning. If some of these were to return to find the homestead had already gone into State ownership it could lead to some difficulties. Perhaps the Minister would outline what his Department intend to do in such instances.

The Bill excludes all other Departments and the Office of Public Works claiming that the Minister for the Environment would deal with his various colleagues in Government and, in the event of being unable to work out a satisfactory conclusion with those Ministers, would have the matter discussed at Government level. I wonder how practical it is for every single Department to have to work out with individual Ministers how they intend disposing of derelict sites owned by those Departments. That is a very loose provision which could lead to a certain amount of negligence or oversight. I would not be happy with that state of affairs. There is a need for everybody to be specifically accountable to somebody. Other Government Departments should not be exempt from direct scrutiny. Perhaps the Minister would, at the conclusion of this debate, outline in greater detail the reason for this exclusion as it has not been explained to my satisfaction. I am concerned about this because in my experience the statutory body itself is often the biggest offender. That is unfortunate and it is unfortunate that that statutory body should be imposing its will on private individuals while itself not complying with the legislation.

In rural Ireland the home improvement scheme was an extremely valuable one from the point of view of retaining our traditional farm homestead and village house. It was introduced because the Government of the day felt there was a need to draw more people into the towns and villages where people were leaving. The take-up of the scheme was far in excess of what the then Government envisaged. Like previous speakers, I urge the Minister to reconsider the introduction of a home improvement grant scheme. As Deputy Jim Higgins has said, it should be introduced primarily to retain the old type building, the old frontage and the general old type rural house.

Debate adjourned.