Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 8 Nov 1989

Vol. 392 No. 8

Derelict Sites Bill, 1989: Committee Stage (Resumed).

SECTION 13.

I move amendment No. 23:

In page 10, between lines 45 and 46, to insert the following paragraph:

"(d) direct the local authority to take such steps as may be necessary so as to ensure that a development objective or objectives for the purpose of reserving land for roads or parking places or for any of the purposes of reserving or preserving land indicated in Part IV of the Third Schedule of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act, 1963, does not result in any land subject to any such development objective becoming or continuing to be a derelict site,".

My reason for proposing this amendment derives from the intent of the legislation, which is designed to bring to an end the problem of dereliction, particularly in our cities. It confers on the local authorities a series of powers which are welcomed by all sides of this House with regard to properties in private ownership which are in a state of dereliction.

One of the problems, particularly in Dublin — this has been a problem in other parts of the country such as Cork — is that the Dublin Corporation development plan has made a major contribution to dereliction within our city. It was not uncommon for the plan to contain long-term road widening objectives that the corporation think — I emphasise "think"— might, possibly, perchance implement in 20, 30, 40 or 50 years' time. From inquiring into the matter, it is quite clear that if the corporation's road engineers think they want a small bit of land on a street in the city, it is not unusual for them to simply mark the entire portion of the street down for long-term road widening. The impact this has is to cause serious urban dereliction. It means if property falls into disrepair, the owners see no purpose in investing in their property because they do not know, even if they do make such an investment, whether, within a couple of months, a compulsory purchase notice might be served. It might not be served for ten or 15 years. Nobody knows, but there is little point in conferring power on local authorities to take proceedings regarding dereliction against the private owners of property if on occasion the local authority is the cause of urban blight itself. This amendment is designed to deal with that problem, it is designed to ensure that where a local authority prescribes objectives in a development plan those objectives are realisable within a reasonable period and that where an objective is inserted in a development plan — for example, long-term road widening — that that is not repeated willy-nilly in each further development plan regardless of the possibilities of its implementation or, indeed, regardless of whether there has been a change of policy within the local authority.

I would urge the Minister to consider this amendment as we now seem to be reverting to the position we were in when Governments have majorities, that Ministers now take the view that they simply rule out any amendment proposed by Opposition parties for the sake of it. If the Minister agrees with the difficulty I describe as requiring a resolution but disagrees in any particular way with the substance of the amendment for any technical reason, I would invite the Minister to consider tabling his own amendment to deal with this problem on Report Stage.

In conclusion, I would be interested in not merely hearing the Minister's view of the technical drafting of the amendment but his view as to how we overcome the problem I describe in the contents of the Bill we have before us, which I do not think addresses that problem. If the Minister has an alternative solution to the means with which we can address it that could result in a different type of amendment being incorporated, we would obviously be pleased to hear of that.

The first thing I should like to say is that it is not the practice to rule out amendments from the Opposition except when I am convinced or advised that they have no substance or that they would not add anything of significance to the text. As I have said previously in relation to this amendment, I understand Deputy Shatter's attitude and I share his concern that the objectives of a development plan should not give rise to dereliction. That is the fundamental issue as far as I am concerned. It would frustrate the purpose of planning legislation if that were so, since all development plans are required by law to embody development objectives for the development and renewal of obsolete areas.

This amendment is proposing that the Minister should have power, under legislation separate from the Planning Acts, to direct a local authority not to operate the Planning Acts in a contradictory manner. Surely the Planning Acts should have sufficient coherence in themselves to prevent this from happening. If they do not have that coherence, should we not be amending the Planning Acts — amend them directly to remedy what might be perceived as a deficiency? The effect of the amendment put forward by the Deputy could be to confuse the status or the validity of development objectives in development plans all around the country with possible consequences for the validity of planning refusals based on these objectives and for planning compensation. If a Minister were to issue a direction envisaged in this amendment it would mean that every relevant development objective could come under scrutiny as to its validity. The courts would have to be called on to judge whether one particular development objective could conceivably result in land becoming derelict. Contrary to the long tradition of the courts, dealing only with points of law in planning matters, this would involve the courts in making a practical planning assessment as to the likely impact of any particular planning policies. I do not think the Deputy would wish that to be the case. Because that is the likely consequence of what he is suggesting — it would not be beneficial to the thrust of what we are trying to achieve — I would ask the Deputy to reconsider and perhaps to withdraw his amendment.

I think this amendment has a lot of merit, if only to put down a market to local authorities not to embark upon grandiose road plans which can never be fulfilled within a reasonable period. Deputy Shatter has referred in a broad sense to dereliction caused in Dublin by such plans. I do not think it is contradictory to have such a provision in this legislation vis-á-vis the existing planning and development legislation. The Minister is not obliged to exercise it. It is an enabling power. It gives him another category under section 13 whereby he can direct a local authority to reverse the process of dereliction which their grandiose and over-expansive road schemes have brought about. We are all aware of examples of these and indeed, they are on the record of this debate already. I would invite the Minister to consider, either now or on Report Stage, retaining some such specific provision. I am not aware that in the confirmation of development plans for individual local authorities, which have to be approved ultimately by the Minister for the Environment, they have been significantly altered in respect of major road plans. Dereliction has definitely been caused by such road plans. If this additional provision was in the Act, the Minister may not wish to use it at this point in time but his successors may well welcome the opportunity and, indeed, his foresight in providing it.

I would like to agree with what Deputy Quinn and Deputy Shatter have said on this amendment. We all know of sites which have been left derelict where reservations have been made for roads. It seems to me that this is the appropriate Bill to deal with that problem. I do not understand the Minister's comment that it should be dealt with by way of amendment to the Planning Acts. This is a Bill dealing with dereliction. Road reservations give rise to dereliction and it is appropriate that it should be dealt with in this Bill.

I welcome the Minister's response that he is open to amendments. Perhaps my unfriendly attitude to the Minister, and his likely reception to amendments, was dominated by the stonewalling approach we had from the Minister for Health last night — I am not going to re-run that debate — but that was a classical example of how this House should not do its business. I would hope that the Minister will not be following in the path of his colleague on this legislation or, indeed, on any other legislation that comes before the House.

We are all in agreement on both sides of the House that we do not want to see local authorities, as Deputy Quinn so rightly puts it, producing grandiose road development plans that have no prospect of being implemented and inserting them into inter-development plans and keeping them in being for years to the detriment of the urban area that it is alleged they will impact upon. I do not think it is correct to say — and I am sure the Minister from his own experience would acknowledge this — that our current Planning Acts do resolve this problem. Unfortunately, our current Planning Acts have been a partial catalyst to the problem by virtue of the fact that in reality development plan reviews, although in theory they should take place every five years, tend to be in force for a minimum of ten years because of what is involved, particularly in regard to urban areas such as Dublin city or county.

Clearly, we have a problem in the city of Dublin. The Minister has seen that problem. There are parts of the city of Dublin where dereliction is due solely to development plan objectives for road widening purposes that will never ever be implemented. There is no guarantee that when the new development plan is prepared for Dublin city all the problems in that area will be removed. If the Minister accepts that we have had a problem — and everything we have seen in the last 25 years has made it clear that that problem is not in any way resolved by the Planning Acts which are currently in existence — this amendment is designed to give the Minister a means of requiring a local authority to deal with that problem and a means of directing a local authority to take steps to change its approach where necessary.

I recall that when this amendment was first tabled last spring I made the point that it conferred a discretionary power on the Minister. It does not require the Minister to interfere in the workings of a local authority in the generality of their work. It is a discretionary power, just as are all the other powers under section 13. The Minister can direct a local authority to serve notices or to take steps in circumstances where the Minister believes that such a directive is necessary to fulfil the objectives of the Act. It is quite possible that the Minister may not invoke this power under section 13 but it would give him and his successors a useful legislative, statutory base for resolving problems of dereliction which derive directly from the actions of local authorities.

In that sense I invite the Minister to accept this amendment. If he believes that a more appropriate approach would be to incorporate a provision in the Planning Act, I would invite him to accept this amendment now and if he is agreeable to bringing forward a more comprehensive amendment or a different provision having the same impact in the planning compensation legislation all of us would be quite happy and would agree that such a provision could repeal this amendment. In the context of the planning compensation legislation, we appreciate that the Minister may have been subject to some considerable criticism on the publication of that Bill because of its inadequacies, but he was willing, unlike some of his colleagues, to take on board many of the criticisms made and many of the constructive proposals put forward on Second Stage. The Bill will be substantially amended on Committee Stage and no doubt will be a far better Bill than the original. This House was allowed to perform a legislative function in regard to that Bill and I would ask the Minister to adopt the same constructive approach to this Bill.

I have no desire to delay this Bill and I should like Committee Stage to be completed today. The passage of the Bill was interrupted by the general election and other problems. This is an important amendment and if we do not confront the problems of dereliction caused by the direct actions of local authorities we will leave a major gap in our law. This is the first time for many years that we have tried to solve problems in this area and I doubt if there will be another such Bill before the year 2000. If we do not get this Bill right we will leave problems which we would all wish to see resolved.

An interesting remark was made about grandiose road plans and the possibility of those plans creating dereliction. I would always have regarded reservations for road development as a normal procedure necessary for proper planning and future infrastructural development. Reservations are part of the development plan process and always a matter for prolonged debate by the local authorities. Reservation has always been the subject of public notice and individuals and bodies have been entitled to have their opinions heard. Reservations for roadworks have always been dealt with in a very democratic way.

I should like to think that even reserved land for such purposes which had been cleared through the planning processes with full public debate would be kept in a tidy condition. It is incumbent on the road authority seeking to have a reservation put in place. All this should be set within the planning process.

The Minister has wide powers under section 7 of the Planning Act, 1982, whereby he can issue special policy directives on planning. That would seem an extensive power which could deal with many of the matters raised by Deputy Shatter. One must consider the powers of the Minister under this legislation in addition to section 7 of the Planning Act, 1982. Under section 30 (3) the Minister may, if he so wishes, direct local authorities to take such steps specified by him to prevent land continuing to be or becoming a derelict site. That is quite an extensive power. The explanatory memorandum states that specific steps can be taken to prevent any land owned or occupied from becoming or continuing to be a derelict site. Adding to existing legislation the provisions of section 13 of this Bill, we have a good framework for dealing with reserved land and we can prevent it from becoming derelict. The fears expressed by Deputies are not well founded in this regard.

Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 64; Níl, 75.

  • Ahearn, Theresa.
  • Allen, Bernard.
  • Barnes, Monica.
  • Barry, Peter.
  • Belton, Louis J.
  • Bradford, Paul.
  • Bruton, Richard.
  • Byrne, Eric.
  • Carey, Donal.
  • Connaughton, Paul.
  • Connor, John.
  • Cotter, Bill.
  • Creed, Michael.
  • Crowley, Frank.
  • Currie, Austin.
  • D'Arcy, Michael.
  • Deasy, Austin.
  • Deenihan, Jimmy.
  • De Rossa, Proinsias.
  • Doyle, Joe.
  • Dukes, Alan.
  • Durkan, Bernard.
  • Enright, Thomas W.
  • Farrelly, John V.
  • Fennell, Nuala.
  • Ferris, Michael.
  • Finnucane, Michael.
  • FitzGerald, Garret.
  • Flanagan, Charles.
  • Gilmore, Eamon.
  • Gregory, Tony.
  • Harte, Paddy.
  • Higgins, Jim.
  • Higgins, Michael D.
  • Hogan, Philip.
  • Howlin, Brendan.
  • Kavanagh, Liam.
  • Kemmy, Jim.
  • Kenny, Enda.
  • Lee, Pat.
  • McCartan, Pat.
  • McCormack, Pádraic.
  • McGinley, Dinny.
  • Mac Giolla, Tomás.
  • McGrath, Paul.
  • Mitchell, Gay.
  • Moynihan, Michael.
  • Nealon, Ted.
  • Noonan, Michael. (Limerick East).
  • O'Brien, Fergus.
  • O'Keeffe, Jim.
  • O'Shea, Brian.
  • O'Sullivan, Gerry.
  • O'Sullivan, Toddy.
  • Quinn, Ruairí.
  • Rabbitte, Pat.
  • Reynolds, Gerry.
  • Ryan, Seán.
  • Shatter, Alan.
  • Sherlock, Joe.
  • Spring, Dick.
  • Stagg, Emmet.
  • Taylor, Mervyn.
  • Yates, Ivan.

Níl

  • Ahern, Bertie.
  • Ahern, Dermot.
  • Ahern, Michael.
  • Aylward, Liam.
  • Barrett, Michael.
  • Brady, Gerard.
  • Brady, Vincent.
  • Brennan, Mattie.
  • Briscoe, Ben.
  • Browne, John (Wexford).
  • Burke, Raphael P.
  • Callely, Ivor.
  • Clohessy, Peadar.
  • Collins, Gerard.
  • Connolly, Ger.
  • Coughlan, Mary Theresa.
  • Cowen, Brian.
  • Cullimore, Séamus.
  • Kelly, Laurence.
  • Kenneally, Brendan.
  • Kirk, Séamus.
  • Kitt, Michael P.
  • Kitt, Tom.
  • Lawlor, Liam.
  • Lenihan, Brian.
  • Leonard, Jimmy.
  • Leyden, Terry.
  • Lyons, Denis.
  • Martin, Micheál.
  • McDaid, Jim.
  • McEllistrim, Tom.
  • Molloy, Robert.
  • Morley, P.J.
  • Nolan, M.J.
  • Noonan, Michael J. (Limerick West).
  • O'Connell, John.
  • O'Dea, Willie.
  • Daly, Brendan.
  • Davern, Noel.
  • Dempsey, Noel.
  • Dennehy, John.
  • de Valera, Síle.
  • Ellis, John.
  • Fitzgerald, Liam Joseph.
  • Fitzpatrick, Dermot.
  • Flood, Chris.
  • Flynn, Pádraig.
  • Gallagher, Pat the Cope.
  • Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
  • Harney, Mary.
  • Haughey, Charles J.
  • Hillery, Brian.
  • Hilliard, Colm.
  • Hyland, Liam.
  • Jacob, Joe.
  • O'Donoghue, John.
  • O'Hanlon, Rory.
  • O'Keeffe, Ned.
  • O'Kennedy, Michael.
  • O'Leary, John.
  • O'Rourke, Mary.
  • O'Toole, Martin Joe.
  • Power, Seán.
  • Quill, Máirín.
  • Reynolds, Albert.
  • Roche, Dick.
  • Smith, Michael.
  • Stafford, John.
  • Treacy, Noel.
  • Tunney, Jim.
  • Wallace, Dan.
  • Wallace, Mary.
  • Walsh, Joe.
  • Woods, Michael.
  • Wyse, Pearse.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies J. Higgins and Flanagan; Níl, Deputies V. Brady and Clohessy.
Amendment declared lost.
Section 13 agreed to.
SECTION 14.

I move amendment No. 24:

In page 11, lines 9 to 13, to delete subsection (3).

Section 14 enables the Minister to require any statutory body, in consultation with the appropriate Minister to whom such body is responsible and where he is satisfied that land in the possession of such body is not necessary to the performance of its functions, to dispose of any interest that the body has in any derelict site included in the Derelict Sites Register. Under the provisions of subsection (2) the Minister must give notice of a proposed direction to a statutory body so that any objections of the latter can be considered.

The intent of the section is fully accepted. Indeed, there is little purpose in having legislation which allows local authorities to deal with the problems of the private property owner whose land is derelict but which leaves a position obtaining in which Government Departments and other bodies can hold land that falls derelict and hold it indefinitely. In a sense, this is another side of the problem with which I endeavoured to deal in the previous amendment, which was dereliction caused by local authorities, whereas here we have dereliction caused by State bodies.

I was concerned that subsection (3), as drafted, was far too wide. Subsection (3), in so far as its provisions would give a State body an "out" from allowing the Minister to exercise these powers would in fact defeat the intent of the section. Subsection (3) reads:

The Minister shall not give a direction under this section unless he is satisfied after consultation with the appropriate Minister that the land to which the direction, if given, will relate is not being used by, or is not, or is unlikely to be, required by, the statutory body for the performance of its functions.

If the subsection read: "... if given, will relate is not being used by or is not required by the statutory body for the performance of its functions" I would have no major objection to it. But the words used in this subsection — which, in a sense, allow another Government Department to tell the Department of the Environment: "We are not using the land at present. It is not required by us at present but it is likely that in five or ten years' time we might have use for some particular site or some particular building"— I believe render this subsection inoperable. In the real world we all know that Government Departments — and I do not mean any disrespect to any of those working in any Department — in this context like to hold on to what they have. The permanent staff of Government Departments do not easily give up buildings the Department have had in their possession. There is always the view that the Department might expand further, that they might get additional areas within their remit. They have the view: "Perhaps we may not need this building now but it is likely, for example, if there were a change of Government, we would need the building".

In proposing that this subsection be deleted I reiterate that, as drafted, it is far too wide and defeats the intent of the main provisions of the section. I would be interested to hear the Minister's comments on what I am saying. If the Minister were prepared to say that he would consider an amendment to this subsection on Report Stage, we would be prepared to accept that assurance and not push this amendment to a vote. But, as drafted within the section, it is self-defeating and will render the section largely ineffectual.

I think this subsection is reasonable but I have listened carefully to what the Deputy said. This amendment would dispense with the requirement that before giving a direction to a statutory body to dispose of their interest in a derelict site, the Minister must be satisfied that the land involved is effectively redundant to the performance by the statutory body of their functions.

The reason for incorporating this requirement in subsection (3) is that section 14 could otherwise result in directions which might run counter to the intentions of the various statutes dealing with statutory bodies. The section as it stands seeks to balance the will of the Legislature, as expressed in these statutes, with the requirements of this Bill. The amendment would discard any consideration of the purposes for which various pieces of legislation have empowered statutory bodies to acquire and use land, and allow ministerial directions under section 14 to be framed in isolation from these purposes.

I would remind Deputies that, whatever the shape of section 14 and whether a ministerial direction is given in a particular case or not, all statutory bodies will be fully subject to the general duty on landowners, under section 10, to prevent dereliction. They will also be subject to any remedial measures which a local authority may require under section 12.

Section 14, enabling ministerial directions to be given to statutory bodies to dispose of their interest in land, is a parallel to the compulsory acquisition provisions set out in sections 15 to 20, which are applicable to privately owned lands. These CPO provisions, as is usual in this area of law, contain many restraints designed to respect the rights of the existing landowner. Subsection (3) of section 14 is designed to enjoin similar respect for the intentions of other legislation regarding land in the ownership of statutory bodies, having regard to the public investment involved and the possible loss to public funds which could arise if land were disposed of which was still necessary for that body's functions.

We should show some respect for legislation affecting other bodies. I would not like to think that a Minister would like to be able to ride roughshod over statutory bodies in that they have enshrined in legislation passed by this House powers which are available to them for the purposes of their own developments and progress. To comply with what Deputy Shatter has said would seem to be going too far in this regard.

Perhaps we should avail of this opportunity to make rapid progress. On the section, I should just like to say that this really is the nub of the problem so far as I am concerned. I would equally argue that one or two of the subsections could be left out as they reinforce one another. The operative words in subsection (3), and I am not particularly excited by Deputy Shatter's amendment, are "the Minister shall not give, unless he is satisfied". If a particular Minister for the Environment is not satisfied that a statutory body seriously needs the land in question then he can proceed to give the direction.

The real problem, and I think we have had it repeatedly here, is that the main offenders in regard to substantial site dereliction in urban areas, whatever about rural areas, are statutory bodies and unless the Minister of the day is prepared to use the teeth which are contained in this provision then the problem is not necessarily going to go away. For the purposes of making laws, I am reasonably satisfied, within the constraints of any legislation we have to enact in this House, and having regard to the relationships between different Government Departments and statutory bodies, that, taking sections 14 (2) and (3) together, there is enough balance between the two to enable a determined Minister to proceed with a direction and at the same time give a statutory body reasonable protection before they are finally ordered to do what they might have to do.

Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted and 20 Members being present,

I want to respond to Deputy Quinn, who made a very fair and reasonable contribution. I agree with the Deputy that statutory bodies can and do create and generate dereliction. We are all aware of that. The interesting thing about this is that the Minister will be empowered to direct a statutory body to sell only if particular lands are derelict. They can circumvent all of that by maintaining their land in a non-derelict state, and that is the whole purpose of this. The important principle enshrined in all of this is that authorities and statutory authorities, as well as individuals, have rights and those rights are established in law. When they are enshrined in legislation we should respect them. In effect, whether the statutory body wishes or does not wish to comply with whatever the Minister may want them to do it will not be a matter between the statutory body and the Minister but between the Minister and the Minister responsible for that statutory body. That is the critical point enshrined in this provision and it makes it watertight.

Question, "That the words proposed to be deleted stand", put and agreed to.
Section 14 agreed to.
SECTION 15.
Question proposed: "That section 15 stand part of the Bill".

With regard to a local authority having power to compulsorily acquire any derelict site situated within their functional area, I wonder what the description of a derelict site would be. It seems to me that much of the dereliction is related to the front and back gardens and often the side gardens of houses let out in flats which are not looked after by the owner who is not the occupier. That is a terrible problem in many parts of this city. In some cases cowboy operators have houses in which they do not live converted into multiple flats and it appears that they can ignore the High Court, Dublin Corporation and get away with that. One of the greatest problems with dereliction in Dublin is the derelict state of certain houses. I am not referring to houses which are unoccupied but to multiple flat dwellings. They are in a terribly derelict state, disfiguring the streetscape in many cases while the owners live in the comfortable suburbs of Foxrock and so on. They do not live in those conditions but they require others who live adjacent to or in their property to do so.

The Minister should consider compulsorily acquiring derelict houses and taking the power to compulsorily acquire the gardens, side, back and front, of certain houses if they are disfiguring the city. The question of what is a site in this regard should have a broader interpretation. We should have the power to tell the people who leave their premises in that state, and who live in nicer suburbs, that they cannot do this and it will not be tolerated. The power should be extended to include the compulsory acquisition of houses left by owners in a derelict state and which take from the value of the property of the neighbours, often where the neighbour is the sole dweller or is residing in his or her home. In many instances those owners get a handsome profit from their houses. There are many examples of that dereliction in the city but particularly in Rathmines, where there are many flats. In the middle of very nice streetscape one finds derelict houses, multiple flat dwellings returning a handsome profit to the owner who lives in a nice fashionable suburb but leaves people living in terrible conditions in those multiple flat dwellings and adjacent houses.

We should have the power to compulsorily acquire those houses if people are making profit from them and if they are destroying the city from the point of view of tourism, the environment and affecting those living in the multiple flat dwelling and adjacent to them. It is time we took those people on and put down a marker that the condition of those houses is not acceptable. One of the biggest problems in residential areas is dereliction. There are many multiple flat houses in a derelict condition and they are not looked after by their owners, who are making a handsome profit. I should like to ask the Minister to refer to this issue on Report Stage.

Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 16.
Question proposed: "That section 16 stand part of the Bill".

The amendment tabled by Deputy Gilmore to section 17 deals with the issue I wish to raise. My problem relates to local authorities who may be unable to contact or serve notice on an owner or owners. Are they effectively stopped from proceeding to acquire the property compulsorily?

Will the Minister elaborate?

There is provision in the Bill whereby a local authority can serve notice on an individual if the individual is known. If the individual is not known there are procedures whereby they can acquire the property compulsorily. They will, under other arrangements in the Bill, have to pay compensation into court, or the fund of suitors, like other unclaimed moneys, so that they will have discharged their total liability in the matter if they do not know who the owner is. They will have ownership under the compulsory acquisition powers available to them.

Subsection (1) states:

A local authority intending to acquire any derelict site compulsorily under this Act... shall (b) serve on every owner, lessee and occupier (except tenants for a month or a period less than a month) of the land a notice in the prescribed form stating their intention to acquire the derelict site compulsorily under this Act,

I am referring to rural dereliction rather than urban dereliction and I made the point on Second Stage. There are numerous houses around the country that are steadily disintegrating into a state of dereliction but the cost of acquiring them is prohibitive not because of the purchase price but because of the difficulty of trying to contact the ten or 12 people who own the property. As I said on Second Stage, they may stretch from Brisbane to Boston. The Minister will be aware of properties in his own constituency which are held jointly by members of families who are scattered across the globe. If a local authority cannot comply with the section, are they effectively prohibited from proceeding?

No. I think the quickest way to respond to that is to refer the Deputy to section 7 (2), which, I think, caters adequately for the problem there. It might not be possible to identify a person in the normal way and the notice can be pinned to the property without naming the individual owner concerned. That is the reason, recognising the difficulty that might arise in the circumstances the Deputy referred to, which is the case in many of these derelict positions, more in provincial Ireland now than in the city, where people have gone away and nobody seems to own anything. In one case in my constituency the local authority had to pursue not as good a modus operandi as is outlined here and it took quite some time to get possession of the property. We believe this will make it easier under section 7 of the legislation. As to the Deputy's suggestion, we would have difficulty in making this enforceable, but I think we have cornered that aspect.

Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 17.

I move amendment No. 25 in the name of Deputy Shatter:

In page 12, between lines 17 and 18, to insert the following subsection:

"(5) The comments of the local authority (if any) to the Minister on the objection raised to the compulsory acquisition of a derelict site referred to in subsection (4) shall be communicated by the Minister to the objector who may, within 21 days after receipt of such comments, reply to what is stated in the said objection to the Minister and furnish to the Minister any other documents and particulars of relevance in the context of any such reply.".

It is a technical amendment which is intended to democratise, so to speak, the procedure for compulsory acquisition. As I said, I believe in giving the local authority this power, but there should be safeguards. We live in a democracy and everybody should have the right to know precisely the view of the local authority in this matter. It would be reasonable for the Minister to communicate to the objector within 21 days after receipt of such comments from the local authority the views of the local authority together with any documents which are relevant in so far as the local authority's reply affects the objection. It is not a major consideration but I think it would strengthen the Bill and help to democratise the whole process.

I can accept the amendment——

——but I am anxious to make sure its wording is consistent with the rest of section 17. If the Deputy would agree, I can have the draftsman put the proper wording on it to take on board the sentiments expressed in the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 25a:

In page 12, subsection (5), line 22, after "site." to insert "The Minister shall make his decision within 6 months from the date of the application.".

With your permission, Sir, I propose to take amendment No. 25b with this amendment.

This is expediting matters. It seems that the real clout in this Bill is the giving of powers to the local authority to compulsorily acquire the derelict sites. Presumably that power will be exercised by local authorities only very much as a last resort, presumably after a local authority had pretty well exhausted themselves in serving notices and attempting to get the owner or occupier of a derelict site to take measures to put it right.

There are two areas in which the provisions of section 17 water down considerably the powers of local authorities in this respect. First, the procedure as I understand it is that, after a local authority serve notice on the owner of a site that they intend to purchase it, the owner of that site may then lodge an objection to that. That then puts the onus back on the local authority to state a case to the Minister for the Environment that the site should be compulsorily purchased. The problem, however, is that no date is set. There is no limit set within which the Minister may give his decision on that matter. We have many examples of local authorities putting cases to Ministers for the Environment and it drags on for a considerable time before the Minister makes a decision. That would give considerable lattitude to the owner of a derelict site and would leave it open to that owner to believe all he has to do is to lodge the objection and by whatever means arrive at where the Minister for the Environment either delays making a decision or puts it on the long finger. The amendment I am proposing would require the Minister for the Environment to give his decision within six months, which is, I think, a generous period for the Minister to consider all the matters relating to it and to make a decision on it.

The second amendment in my name under this section deals with what I consider really contradicts section 13 of the Bill. Section 13 allows the Minister for the Environment to direct a local authority to serve notices on the owners of a derelict site to take certain measures to end the dereliction of that site. Let us say the owners of that derelict site do not comply with those notices which have been served on them, ultimately at the direction of the Minister for the Environment himself. Again, should the local authority decide to compulsorily purchase that site, the owner lodges an objection. Again there is ambiguity as to whether that site will eventually be compulsorily purchased. It should be quite clear in the Bill that, where the Minister himself has initiated it and has directed the local authority to serve the notice, in the event that that notice has not been complied with and the local authority subsequently decide to compulsorily purchase the site it should not be open to the Minister to refuse the permission to the local authority to go ahead and compulsorily purchase that site.

In relation to the first part, I would not be keen to agree to a six month period on the grounds that it could be done more quickly than that. I think six months is too long. In most of these cases before it gets to that point a substantial amount of time has been taken by the local authority to deal with it. I would not like to see the six months put into this on the grounds that normally then you would not have a decision until six months' time even though the indication is "within six months". As the Deputy knows, in most cases six months will be regarded as the period. Has the Minister any idea of the average time in which action would be taken in cases like this?

I can appreciate Deputy Gilmore's desire as set out in his amendment to have CPOs dealt with more speedily. I think that is the thrust of it. As a matter of administrative policy, I support fully and share the aspiration enshrined in his amendment.

In response to Deputy Stafford, the average time for processing this type of CPO under the 1961 Derelict Sites Act has been about four or five months. Certainly it has always in our experience been less than six months. I think the reason for that is that no oral hearing is required in a CPO under derelict sites legislation. That is why it is a much shorter process than is normal in general CPO situations. Ministerial consideration of a proposed CPO to which the landowner has objected involved an important exercise of administrative justice and the fairness of the process could be compromised in particular cases by an inflexible time limit if we were to agree to it.

If the courts were to find subsequently that the Minister had failed to consider adequately important information because of the presence of the time limit you would seek to place on him, it could and probably would set aside the decision. I would ask the Deputy to consider that aspect. Our experience has not been what the Deputy considers it to have been. What he seeks might very well hinder rather than improve what he is seeking to have enshrined in the law.

In view of what the Minister has said, I do not see any difficulty with the amendment. If the average time for the making of a decision is four to five months, surely an amendment imposing a time limit of six months can be accepted.

I do not consider either that there is anything unreasonable in this proposal. We are dealing with a situation where sites have been left derelict, where local authorities will have served notice on the owners of those sites that they are derelict, where the owners will have been given ample opportunity to put matters right, where the local authority following a decision to compulsorily purchase the site will have served a further notice on the owner and where the owner has the right to object to that. Ultimately we are talking of the appeals stage of what we all know to our cost is a very prolonged process. Failure to provide for a finite period would leave the Bill very deficient. We are talking of a six month limit at maximum. I urge the Minister to accept the amendment. It would not appear to cause any great administrative difficulties.

It would involve something that is essential to the whole process. The process is not very long anyway so far as derelict sites legislation is concerned. The CPO powers exist for many purposes in local government and related law but in no instance does a time limit, such as is proposed in the amendment, operate. Against that background I must be reluctant to take the amendment on board. Why introduce such a provision in this area when it is not in any other area? If the amendment were to be accepted, what would happen if the Minister were to fail to make a decision within the six months? Would the CPO fail? That is what I must ask myself. Is it the intention that the CPO would automatically take effect as proposed by the local authority? If that is what is intended a landowner could argue, and with some justice, that he had been denied a fair hearing of his objection because of the Minister's failure to meet the six month deadline. That would defeat in another way the purpose of the amendment. In these circumstances, it is unreasonable to talk of introducing such new arrangement for CPOs. It is not necessary for the purpose of achieving the desired aim of the legislation.

On a point of order, you indicated that you wished to avail of an opportunity to make a statement to the House. Perhaps you would like to do that first.

Top
Share