Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 15 Jul 1964

Vol. 57 No. 18

Local Government (Sanitary Services) Bill, 1964—Second Stage.

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

Minister for Local Government (Mr. Blaney)

This Bill has three main objectives. The first is to give local authorities adequate and effective powers to safeguard life from the hazards of dangerous places, such as deep water-filled quarries. The second is to provide more effective procedures for dealing with dangerous buildings. The third is to give a general power to sanitary authorities to enter into agreements with the ESB to abstract water from reservoirs provided by the Board.

Deep water-filled quarries which are inadequately protected have all too frequently been the occasion of tragic loss of lives, more often than not those of young children. Sanitary authorities already have power to protect the public from the hazards presented by dangerous places which adjoin streets or public footpaths. They may require owners to protect or enclose them or may, in default, carry out the works and recover the expenses from the owner. Local authorities, however, are not empowered to act in the case of quarries and other hazards not directly adjoining public roads, even though such places are dangerous to children and others who may gain access to them through private property. Sections 1 and 2 of the Bill propose to remedy this situation.

The definition of a dangerous place in section 1 includes the specific hazards already named in the Public Health Acts Amendment Act, 1907, together with other hazards readily identifiable by location such as quarries, pits and shafts. The definition is extended by the inclusion of the phrase "or land" in order to give it the widest application and so enable authorities to deal with dangerous spots located on rivers, canals, docks, harbours, cliffs etc. The naming of these latter items in the definition, however, would be undesirable as it would imply the possibility of action by the local authority over the whole of their extent. Such action would, for many reasons, be impracticable.

Section 2 will empower sanitary authorities to carry out whatever works are necessary to make dangerous places safe, or, at the request of owners, to carry out such works and obtain a contribution from the owners towards the cost. Where an owner opts to carry out the work, the sanitary authority may make a contribution towards the cost.

Local authorities have already been authorised in anticipation of this legislation to take immediate action with the consent of the owner, in regard to dangerous quarries situated in their areas. A circular letter was issued to all sanitary authorities last January, recommending that they should take immediate protective action in relation to quarries which are known to be dangerous; and that the owner's prior consent should be obtained on the understanding that the cost of protective works would be met in full from public funds. It was also indicated that the State would pay, by way of grant, a proportion, up to a maximum of 50 per cent, of the cost of approved works.

Substantial expenditure may be incurred by sanitary authorities in carrying out works under section 2. The land when reclaimed by draining and filling may be suitable for development by the local authority for housing, recreational or other purposes. There is some doubt as to whether a sanitary authority's existing power to acquire land would apply in all such cases. Section 6 gives a clear authority for acquisition.

Sections 7 to 15 deal with the procedure to be followed in regard to the acquisition, development or disposal of land acquired under section 6. The procedure is generally the same as that provided for in the Derelict Sites Act, 1961, which has proved generally satisfactory in practice. Compulsory acquisition will be effected by vesting Order. Notice of intention to acquire land must be given to the owner and occupier who may object to the proposal within a month. Where objection is made and not withdrawn the land may not be acquired compulsorily without the Minister's consent. The provision in the Derelict Sites Act that consent may not be given where the Minister considers that the owner should be given an opportunity to rehabilitate the site, is not being carried into the present Bill. It would be inappropriate in view of the element of urgency in cases such as unprotected quarries, where danger to life can only be removed permanently by costly works carried out by local authorities.

The second object of the Bill is provided for in section 3. The section codifies and re-enacts, with some important amendments, existing legislative provision in regard to dangerous buildings which is operated by Dublin Corporation under various local Acts. The section also extends the new powers to all sanitary authorities. The definition of a dangerous structure is drawn in wide terms to allow of freedom of action by authorities in the case of any structure which is a potential danger to persons. Dwellinghouses as well as other buildings are covered. In general the procedure follows the general lines of existing enactments. Notice is given to the owner of a dangerous structure requiring him, within a specified period, to make such structure safe and to terminate or modify any use being made of it. Power is also given to prescribe detailed conditions as to the manner of demolition of the building. If the owner does not comply he is subject on summary conviction to a fine of £100. If the owner fails to carry out the work, the authority may apply to the District Court who may order the owner to carry out the works or authorise the sanitary authority to do the job.

Special powers are also given to the local authority under section 3 to carry out such work as is necessary to make a structure safe in the interests of the safety of any person, without prior notice if necessary. One of the most important additions to the powers of local authorities generally is that they will now be enabled to prevent the reoccupation of premises which they have caused to be vacated. Section 3 also strengthens the powers of the local authority to recover costs and expenses from the owner. It increases substantially fines for failure to comply with notices and empowers the District Court to prohibit the repair or letting of the structure, or the carrying out of any works on the site on which the structure stood until the amount due in respect of works carried out by them is paid to the local authority.

The section will also enable authorities to provide alternative living accommodation for persons who have had to vacate dwellings as a result of action under the section. Alternatively they may give grants to such persons to enable them to obtain other living accommodation. Provision is also made in the section for the payment of grants, at the discretion of the sanitary authority, in cases where they are satisfied that hardship has been caused to persons who had carried on a trade or business in a dangerous structure and who have been required by the authority to leave the structure. The new power will apply retrospectively to 1st June, 1963, so that cases of hardship which have occurred in the past year can be catered for.

The third main purpose of the Bill is to set out in section 4 under which general authority is given for the making of agreements between the ESB and sanitary authorities of the kind authorised by the Liffey Reservoir Act, 1936, in relation to Pollaphouca Reservoir between the Board and Dublin Corporation. That agreement enabled the Corporation to take an agreed amount of water per day for the purposes of the Dublin Water Supply. It contained provisions relating to the prevention of the pollution of the water in the reservoir; the level of water to be maintained in the reservoir; the point of abstraction and the rate of flow of water in the river downstream.

The consent of the Minister for Local Government will be necessary to an agreement reached pursuant to section 4. With a view to safeguarding fishery interests, the section provides for consultation with the Minister for Lands before this consent is given. The Minister must also have regard to any liability of the Board in regard to compensation water.

The sanitary authority will be required to give a month's public notice of intention to make an agreement and to specify particulars of the proposed agreement in the notice. It will be open to persons who object to the proposed agreements to put their case to the Minister who will bear such representations in mind before coming to a decision in any particular case. An agreement when sanctioned will have the same force as a proposal under the Water Supplies Act, 1942. It will give the sanitary authority a right to abstract water subject to claims for compensation from persons alleging damage by reason of the authorised abstraction.

Section 4 is designed specifically to meet a legal difficulty which has arisen in regard to the abstraction of water by Dublin County Council from the ESB reservoir at Leixlip. After protracted negotiations between the county council and the Board, agreement on terms was reached, but the Board were advised that they had no legal power to authorise the abstraction of water on such a scale from a reservoir provided by them and that such abstraction might be liable to be stopped by injunction. Section 4 will give the necessary statutory authority for the proposed agreement.

Sections 16 to 21, which follow the same general line as the Derelict Sites Act, 1961, provide for general matters such as inspection of land, penalties for obstruction, giving of documents under the Act, negotiations, expenses of the Minister, etc. Section 22 is the usual repeal section. It provides for the repeal of certain provisions dealing with dangerous buildings which will become redundant if the Bill becomes law.

Mr. Fitzpatrick

The three objects of the Bill as outlined by the Minister are, to render safe derelict quarries, pits, wells, reservoirs, etc.; secondly, to render safe dangerous buildings or structures; and thirdly, to give power to local authorities to negotiate with the ESB for the abstraction of water from ESB reservoirs. Those three objects are highly desirable and worthy of support.

However, it is no harm to look at the existing law, to ask ourselves why this Bill has become necessary and if, in fact, it is necessary. It must be admitted that there have been numerous fatal accidents by children and others falling into quarries which are dangerous allurement to children. It is also a fact that buildings in the form of dwelling houses and other structures have fallen on citizens in the cities of Cork and Dublin with fatal results.

The third object of the Bill is necessary to overcome some legal difficulties which have arisen, and which make it difficult for the ESB and local authorities to enter into agreement for the abstraction of water from reservoirs. There is not much necessity to deal with the third object at any length because I think it is non-controversial and everyone agrees with it.

Let us ask ourselves whether children got lost in quarries, and whether buildings fell on citizens, because of lack of statutory authority to render the quarries harmless, or make the buildings safe, or whether those calamities befell citizens of the country because the law as it exists was not enforced. Is there statutory authority at present to render quarries safe? In most cases, yes. Whether a quarry, a dump, a shaft, or a piece of land is dangerous and abuts and adjoins a public thoroughfare, all down the years there has been ample authority vested in local authorities to render them safe. When the Minister is replying, I should like him to tell us whether, in fact, all quarries, dumps, shafts, reservoirs which adjoin public roads have been rendered safe by the local authorities. I am afraid they have not.

What is the position regarding structures? Have the local authorities power under existing law to demolish dangerous buildings in our cities? I would say in practically every material case the answer is "Yes", because it is admitted that the law as it stands enables local authorities to demolish dangerous buildings adjoining any public street or thoroughfare. Has that law been observed? The answer is that it very definitely has not, because some of the things that have been responsible for the introduction of this Bill happened in the cities of Dublin and Cork, where buildings adjoining public streets collapsed on young children in the city of Dublin, and on adults in the city of Cork, and killed them.

I cannot give better evidence that what I say is correct than to inform the House that, during the past 12 months, the law, as it exists and has existed since 1907, as amended subsequently, has been invoked in this city to demolish unsafe buildings, not by the dozen but by the hundred. Those buildings have been demolished and rendered safe and those buildings could have been demolished and could have been rendered safe many years ago under the law as it stood. That cannot be denied.

I concede that where such public buildings were situated entirely on private property and did not adjoin the public road or the public street, the law was not sufficient. I am not aware of any fatalities caused by buildings situated exclusively on private property. The authority which I say enabled local authorities to render these structures safe was the Public Health Act, 1907, the Local Government (Sanitary Services) Act, 1948, and the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1931.

It is abundantly clear that the Minister, in his supervisory capacity, and the local authorities concerned have failed in their duty to the citizens of this State. Can the Minister give us any assurance that this new measure, when it becomes law, will be enforced? As it stands at the moment, it is purely a permissive measure, with the possible exception of section 12. All the other sections say that the local authority may inspect buildings, may serve notice, may demolish buildings, may bring people to court, may get orders. I doubt, in the light of sad experience, that permissive legislation of this nature is sufficient.

The Minister says that all local government legislation, broadly speaking, is permissive. There is one section in this Bill, section 12, which says that when a local authority acquire land, they shall, with all convenient speed, proceed to render it safe and take steps to ensure that it will not harm local amenities. That is an obligation which is placed on the local authorities. If it is possible to place that obligation on them, it should be obligatory on them to carry out their duties under existing law and under the law as proposed in this Bill to inspect buildings and to make sure they are safe.

It is not so much the introduction of this Bill and the placing of it on the Statute Book which will protect the citizens against the type of calamity that has befallen them in the past as the enforcement of it by the Minister and his Department. The Minister says that power is taken in this Bill to provide houses for people who have been displaced from dangerous buildings. With the greatest respect to the Minister, I say that that is nothing new. I say that that power already exists. I say that there is an obligation on local authorities, whether in the city of Dublin or in any urban area throughout the country, to rehouse people who are living in unfit buildings.

Surely a building which is dangerous to the limbs of people is unfit for human habitation? Yet, in the city of Dublin, even at the present time, there are thousands of people living in buildings which are dangerous not alone to their health but positively dangerous to their bodies and their bones.

I shall deal with a few sections of the Bill in a general way and I can then deal with them in more detail on the Committee Stage. Section 1 is the definition section. It says that "dangerous place" means an excavation, quarry, pit, well, reservoir, pond, stream, dam, bank, dump, shaft or land, and there is no mention in that definition section of canal, dock or river. The Minister resisted in the other House amendments to add to the definition a canal, a dock or a river, on the ground that such addition was not necessary and that the definition as it stands is adequate to include these. The Minister was so advised. Other people, speaking in the Dáil, said they had doubts that the definition was wide enough. They said that, by the inclusion of various places such as ponds, dams, banks, pits, quarries and the exclusion, for instance, of "canal", a court might, and quite possibly would, hold that if the Legislature had meant to include a canal, it would have written it into that definition, and I think it would. If there is any doubt about it this is the place to correct it.

The Minister said that legal advisers seem to lean over backwards to warn local authorities about particular faults in relation to enforcing enactments of this sort. He saw fit to say that he thought the legal advisers should devote their attention to finding ways and means of enforcing the measures rather than pointing out the particular faults. I say, with the greatest respect to the Minister, that in regard to all these legal advisers who warn the local authorities of these particular faults and who warn them of actions they may leave themselves open to, if they take steps under an Act, which it later transpires are not justified by the Act, it is in this House, and in the Lower House that we should guard against these particular faults and that we should strengthen these measures and make sure that they do, in fact, mean what we intend them to mean.

That definition is too wide. The very same definition goes too wide in another sphere. It says:

"dangerous structure" means—

(a) any building, wall or other structure of any kind, or

(b) any part of, or anything attached to, a building, wall or other structure of any kind,

that, in the opinion of the sanitary authority in whose sanitary district it is situate, is or is likely to be dangerous to any person or property.

"Any person" is a very wide phrase. This Bill could be invoked to make a man, residing two miles from the public road, close up a well in his own backyard because naturally the well would be a potential danger to the man's own child. The man's own child is a person. I think the Minister's intention is to protect members of the public who might be attracted towards those dangerous places. The word "person" in this context is too wide. I dealt with the point that the measure is only permissive.

Section 2 should be strengthened to at least impose on local authorities the obligation to carry out inspection. A very excellent point was made in the Lower House by somebody who suggested that, when a new building is being constructed, there should be an obligation on the local authorities to insist that there are no dangerous quarries or dangerous places in the immediate vicinity. That would not be a very onerous obligation to place on local authorities. It is usually in such places as quarries adjacent to new building schemes that these fatal accidents have occurred.

Section 3 is one of the most important sections in the Bill but it is a section which is not too easy to understand. I think I am correct in saying that there are, for all practical purposes, three parts in it. The first part says that the local authority can serve notice on the owner or occupier of a dangerous building requiring him to make it safe. The owner may make it safe or he may not. If he does not make it safe I think he is guilty of an offence. If he does not make it safe the local authority can bring him to court and get an order compelling him to make it safe, if the court see fit to grant such an order. Subsection (2) of section 3 confers upon a sanitary authority the right to go into a house which, in the opinion of that authority, is dangerous and to demolish that house, without notice to the owner or occupier. This is a very far reaching subsection. The subsection, in my respectful opinion, should not be necessary in an Act of Parliament which does not deal with a state of emergency created by an act of God, such as an earthquake, an act of an enemy, such as bombing or some other unforetold disaster.

It is necessary in this particular measure that we are dealing with now because, through failure to enforce the law as it stands, a situation has arisen in this city where houses are likely to collapse at a moment's notice. That is the only reason which could justify subsection 2. It is a subsection which I, with the greatest reluctance, agree to give to the Minister because I consider it is necessary in the particular circumstances. It is a reflection on the Department of Local Government and on the local authorities concerned that in 1964 it is necessary to give the local authorities the right, in normal times, to go into a man's house without notifying him and to knock his house down and level it.

There may be a shortcoming in subsection (2) of this section. I know it is very technical. In a later section it is stated that officials may go into the house and remove people from it. Subsection (2), drastic as it may be —it gives to sanitary authorities the right to go in and knock down a house—does not empower a sanitary authority to remove the person from it, without a court order. I assume, if the person wanted to be completely obstructive, and insisted on staying there, this provision—I may be wrong —is not wide enough to give the sanitary authorities power forcibly to eject him from it without a court order. If they cannot do that I presume the section would, in fact, fail because they could not knock down the house without removing the man from it.

I cannot speak too strongly about subsection (2) of section 3. As I say, I reluctantly give it to the Minister and the local authorities. It is a reflection on our society that it is necessary. Provision is also made in section 3, as amended in Committee, in relation to compensation to the owners of small businesses who are ejected from dangerous buildings but there is no provision made in regard to occupiers of purely residential premises which are demolished because they are dangerous.

I shall tell the Minister, on Committee Stage, of a case I know where a man, whose family before him had been in occupation of a house for 100 years at a very nominal rent, had his house condemned by the local authority who got an order to eject the tenant from the house on the grounds that it was unsafe and had been condemned. That man will not get a penny compensation although he and his family before him were there since the 1780s—I shall get the exact date—at a very nominal rent and had paid considerable rents. Now he does not get one penny compensation although the condemnation of the house and the ejectment of the tenant therefrom in this particular instance will probably leave the house worth several hundred pounds to the landlord concerned. Is it sufficient compensation for that tenant to rehouse him? He could not be ejected from the house under the Rent Restrictions Act. He would be entitled to a new tenancy in it under the Landlord and Tenant Act. The least he should be given is a new tenancy on the site with the right to go and build on it if he likes. But that is not in the Bill either, and I submit it does not give him this right.

There is another point to which I should like to refer briefly. Elsewhere, the Bill states that the local authority shall have power to recover costs and expenses incurred under the Act. I wonder whether we have something new here. I wonder when we speak of costs there whether we mean costs incurred by the sanitary authority, or costs awarded by a court of competent jurisdiction. Very often the courts will not award costs to the local authority if it is thought that there are good reasons for not so doing. This measure provides that once a public authority incurs costs, whether it is an order for payment of these costs by a court of competent jurisdiction or not, they can recover them under this Bill. If that is so it is bad.

There is another matter to which I should like to refer. Section 5 confers on an aggrieved person who is affected by an order made under section 2 of this Bill, the right of appeal to the district court. It is an agreement with that right. I believe a person should have the right of appeal to the court but subsection (3) of section 5 says:

A decision of the District Court under this section shall be final and unappealable.

I think that is unsound. It has not been amended in Committee. I think it is a bad provision. The order which may be subject to the appeal here could affect land or property having a very considerable value. District courts are held in remote parts of the country and their object is to dispense summary justice, to dispense rough and ready justice on the spot. Very seldom counsel appear in district courts. If counsel has to be brought to a remote district court in the country he would have to be brought at a special fee. It would make the business very expensive. Cases are heard in district courts and tried usually on questions of fact and people know that they invariably have the right of appeal to another court. I think this right should not be taken away from them here. The right of appeal to the circuit court should be retained in favour of any citizen, whose property or whose person is affected by a district court order. Circuit courts are very formal tribunals in which junior counsel invariably appear and senior counsel quite frequently appear.

I think it is a very retrograde step to provide that a person shall have appeal in this case but his appeal shall be only to the district court. Circuit courts sit in each county in Ireland in at least one town, and sometimes two and sometimes three towns, three times a year. There is no danger of any undue delay and this particular appeal deals with unsafe places, and not with dangerous structures.

There is another question to which I should like to refer. I take it that under section 6 the sanitary authority has only the right to acquire land which is unsafe. I take it it is not intended to give the sanitary authority the right to acquire the site of a dangerous structure. That is my reading of the section but I do not know whether I am correct or not.

Section 8 deals with compulsory acquisition of land and gives the aggrieved person the right to appeal to the Minister. I say that right should be the right to appeal to the district court with an appeal to the circuit court. It does not say in section 8 whether the Minister must hold an inquiry before giving his decision. I think there is no obligation on the Minister to hold an inquiry. A person who is aggrieved by one of those sections finds himself confined to an appeal to the Minister for Local Government behind closed doors without any right to be heard in person, to produce evidence or to have an advocate there on his behalf. This will give little satisfaction.

Section 13 provides that a sanitary authority which acquires land and finds that it does not require it for its own use, can offer the land to another sanitary authority. I see no objection to that, but if the other sanitary authority does not acquire it it can be sold at a public auction to anybody else. It would be a good idea to put into that section a provision that it should be offered to another local authority first and if they did not want it that it should be offered next to the person from whom it was taken. There is a precedent for that in the Railways Acts. That is all I wish to say on this measure at this stage. I shall argue all these points in more detail on the Committee Stage.

Professor Jessop

I wish to say a few things on the general objects of the Bill, with particular reference to section 3, which proposes to deal with the problem of dangerous buildings. We have all had this problem brought forcibly to our notice during the past few years when buildings have begun to collapse and in one case to kill people in so doing. This Bill will reduce the risk of people being killed by buildings in a dangerous condition by giving the local authority powers to have them removed and then to take down or perhaps repair those buildings.

In many instances, it is a case of destroying those buildings entirely because they have long since gone beyond any possibility of economic repair. The section I refer to—a new one—gives the local authority the power to prevent people from going back into buildings in cases where that might involve further danger. The protection we seek to give to those unfortunate people really only deals with half of the tragedies concerning the families living in such buildings. Only a half mile from where we are sitting at this moment there are some very fine 18th century Georgian buildings. But there are two families camped on the doorstep of one not so fine Georgian building, their sheets are stretched across the doorway to form an awning under which is their furniture, and here the members of those families are sleeping, in chairs and on mattresses.

In subsection (10) of section 3 the Bill proposes to give sanitary authorities power, if they think fit, to provide other living accommodation for an occupier of a dwelling who has left the dwelling in pursuance of a requisition under the previous subsection. I am sure the appropriate authority in Dublin are taking steps to rehouse the families I have mentioned and the large number of others in similar circumstances, but I think this Bill should contain a specific direction which would bring to the attention of the sanitary authority the equal urgency of rehousing as of having those people evacuated and kept out of those buildings, if necessary with Garda assistance, as is laid down in subsection (9).

I should like the Minister to tell us what really are the intentions of the Department with regard to the obligations of sanitary authorities in this respect. Is there any manner of assisting them to get this problem tackled effectively in a much shorter time than they appear to be able to accomplish it at the present moment?

Mr. McAuliffe

I welcome the Bill, though I have a feeling it has come too late in view of the many tragedies that have occurred. There have been too many tragedies—houses falling down and killing the occupants, children being drowned in dangerous quarries around this city. They have been responsible, more or less, for the Bill being brought before the House. If the Bill gives powers to local authorities to take steps to prevent such tragedies in future, it is a good Bill.

However, in the definition section I notice the Minister has avoided such things as harbours, rivers and canals. Perhaps he felt that if he included harbours, rivers and canals he would be giving local authorities a job they could not possibly carry out. As the Bill stands, it will involve quite a considerable amount of extra work for local authorities. It will certainly mean the employment of more engineers to help the local authorities decide whether a building is structurally sound or not. It will also mean the employment of more health inspectors. When it comes to the provision of alternative accommodation for those now living in unsound buildings, I am afraid many local authorities will be faced with a very difficult task indeed.

For example, in Westmeath last year only five houses were built by the local authority. Another scheme in preparation must await a compulsory purchase order for a site. My point is that there are terrible delays in the house building programmes of local authorities. Numbers of our people are living in houses about to fall despite the fact that the local authorities have been warned the buildings will fall when there is a period of bad weather. If local authorities are to tackle this job properly and effectively, all this red tape must be cut out, particularly the delays at present implicit in the securing of compulsory purchase orders.

If we are to make a real attempt to solve the problem caused by the existence of so many bad and dangerous buildings, we must be prepared to give more powers to the local authorities to do their job and not hold them up by so much red tape in the Department of Local Government. Apart altogether from the physical problem involved when house building plans are held up, there is the financial element: the holding-up of a housing scheme nearly invariably means that the original estimated cost per house has increased considerably by the time it is eventually built. Prices of materials, the cost of wages, have usually gone up in the meantime. I believe the local authorities will find themselves in grave difficulties when they try to carry out all the work the Minister intends them to do under this Bill.

Mr. Blaney

A number of the points made during the debate query the need for this legislation. On that, I wish to repeat what I have already said: I have not introduced this legislation because I felt I had nothing better to do, but because local authorities have pressed me to do so. It has arisen because of real need for it in some cases, and in others because the legal advisers so ably defended by Senator Fitzpatrick, or a few of them, seem to have been trying to find ways of not doing things rather than of finding ways within the law to do what is intended by the law.

If the few short sections in the Bill can clear the way of the few who take that unusual interpretation as against the many who take the other, then our time here will not have been wasted. There have also been complaints that this legislation is merely permissive. In regard to almost anything affecting local authorities, the general pattern is that it is permissive. While local authorities are operating in the manner in which they are operating in this country, I see no real reason and no good case has been made as to why laws should be obligatory rather than permissive. In the cases we have under discussion, much help it would be to put an obligation on a local authority who if they thought they should not do a job did not do it. I wonder by whom and in what time these jobs might be carried out even though an obligation in law existed. If we are to treat local authorities in the manner which at other times Senator Fitzpatrick would feel they should be treated, the idea of obliging them to do these things rather than giving them the power which they feel they lack at the moment to do them, would be adopted.

No one at any stage feels frustrated more often than the Minister for Local Government in regard to permissive legislation so far as local authorities are concerned. Even so, Ministers for Local Government have been very slow to take the obvious way out, that is, the solution being suggested by Senator Fitzpatrick tonight, to make them do these things. We can take them, like the horse, to the water but we cannot make them drink. I do not think there is any necessity to oblige them to do the things that are being made permissive under this Bill. They want these powers. In some cases they have found the existing powers inadequate and have been asking for them and I have been endeavouring to give them to them at an earlier stage than might have been the case through the general Sanitary Services Bill on which work has been proceeding for some considerable time in the Department and which will take a little longer before it comes before the Oireachtas.

Mr. Fitzpatrick

Is it not a fact that local authorities exercised powers during the past 12 months that they had not exercised or tried to exercise for 20 years before that?

Mr. Blaney

Some local authorities are quite satisfied with the powers they have and some others are not because they have been warned by their legal advisers that they have not got them. These are the exceptions and we are trying to deal with exceptions in this case.

Mr. Fitzpatrick

I do not want to interrupt the Minister but the leading case on this subject did not use these powers for 20 years until houses fell and killed people. Then they found they had powers and that they should use them and they did use them.

Mr. Blaney

Of course, the Senator did not go to any roundabout to place the blame on the present Minister for Local Government.

Mr. Fitzpatrick

On the Department.

Mr. Blaney

The Minister for Local Government of today is being blamed for what has been neglected for the past 20 years. Tot them all up.

Mr. Fitzpatrick

We are told time and again that the Minister must accept responsibility for his Department.

Mr. Blaney

Not for the Ministers of other Governments, surely. God forbid that I should have to carry that burden.

Mr. L'Estrange

Ministers for Local Government in the future may have some burdens to carry.

Mr. Fitzpatrick

The Minister has been in Local Government since he left the Department of Posts and Telegraphs.

Mr. Blaney

And he is still there, much to the Senator's dissatisfaction.

Mr. L'Estrange

And that of the people of Kildare and Roscommon.

Mr. Blaney

Do not forget Cork.

Mr. L'Estrange

And Dublin NorthEast.

Acting Chairman (Mr. Sheldon)

Let us deal with the Local Government (Sanitary Services) Bill.

Mr. L'Estrange

Where did the letter go?

Mr. Blaney

It might come home nearer to the Senator than he thinks.

Mr. L'Estrange

Our consciences are quite clear.

Mr. Blaney

You have not got any.

Mr. L'Estrange

You certainly have not.

Mr. Blaney

The question of including canals, rivers, harbours and such things in the definition has been raised by Senator Fitzpatrick, as it was raised in the Dáil. One good reason for not including these is that we do cover in the term "or land" any dangerous places that there may be on part of a canal or river or harbour, and so on, whereas if we put in canals, and rivers and harbours, it might well be interpreted, and I am sure it would be by some of those who like to interpret these things in the most awkward way, as meaning that if there was one stretch that was dangerous, the whole canal should be protected by some sort of fencing that nothing could get through.

In addition to that, I should say that most of the specific things that are included in the definition are carried over from the earlier Acts and we have felt that their omission from this Bill might be regarded as, in fact, excluding them, so we have carried them in. That is why there is the list that is there. In regard to the complaint about those that are being left out, I may say that they are omitted for the very reason that they might be regarded as matters that would have to be treated as a whole whereas only some small part of them might be dangerous and the phrase "or land" actually covers such danger points on these bigger objects.

Then, there was the question, which was raised before, on several occasions, as to the courts being brought in and that justice can only follow their intervention. I agree with the interpretation that law, as such, practically always follows, if followed to its logical conclusion, but not always justice. In regard to the case mentioned by Senator Fitzpatrick, the provision in section 5, where there is no appeal from the verdict of the district court, is really a repetition, in a sense, of section 8 of the 1962 Sanitary Services Act and also section 7 of the Fire Brigades Act of 1942. I should say, in conclusion, on that point that in this regard the local authority really are only moving in in order to make the particular place safe, and at their own expense, that is, at the expense solely of the local authority concerned. By and large, since it is a matter of safety and, possibly, safeguarding the lives of our citizens, I do not see why there should be all these legal formalities and legal arguments and these counsel, both junior and senior, with all their attendants.

Mr. Fitzpatrick

If the Minister had his way, he would abolish the courts and both professions and the lot.

Mr. Blaney

There is a good case often made for abolishing part of the profession. It is usually made by members of the said profession themselves but far be it from me to suggest that they should be abolished because we would miss them for one reason or another, not necessarily always in court. However, the Senator and his colleagues may play the one tune about the usefulness of the courts one day and have no difficulty whatsoever on another occasion in writing them down and describing them in terms that even I would not use about them.

Mr. Fitzpatrick

They must be pretty low.

Mr. Blaney

Taking it overall, the points that have been raised in this regard have been really a rehash of what has been drawn out in the Dáil, not just debated in the Dáil, really stretched out for days.

Mr. Fitzpatrick

The Minister will abolish the Seanad next.

Mr. Blaney

In fact, the Minister has no such intention, as the Senator should know and need not have any fear in that regard. I would not dream of doing it.

The other few points raised here were made by Senator Jessop and by Senator McAuliffe. Senator McAuliffe was looking for more powers for the county councils. Senator Fitzpatrick, on the other hand, as I said earlier, was looking for more obligations to be placed upon them, in other words, giving them less power and more orders. Senator McAuliffe was much more in line with my way of thinking and with that of the majority of people, that is, that we might, if we could, give them more power. Of course, the main thing is to give them enabling powers to do the jobs that various enactments make possible for them. So far as that is concerned, no local authorities, to my knowledge, are at the moment or have been for quite a few years past in the position of having to complain that they were not enabled to do the jobs as given to them to do by permissive legislation, by reason of any lack on the part of the Department or the Government, particularly in relation to that very important ingredient, namely, finance. We have been supplying the finance consistently and are continuing to do it. I think the local authorities themselves are quite satisfied that if there is a job to be done, the law enables them to do it and we in the main supply the money to meet the bill. The local authorities, by and large and in general, are doing their work quite well. That they do a little more of it more quickly is the only wish I might express here.

Mr. McAuliffe

I would not agree with the Minister at all on that point. The local authorities are hampered every day of the week in connection with house building and everything else.

Mr. Blaney

If Senator McAuliffe really thinks they should have more power I take it that at the same time he would dispense with the very important formality that must be gone through of providing them with the money for doing this building work. If that were dispensed with I would say to Senator McAuliffe: let them do their work in their own way. However, if they are building houses and the State is paying for it there must be supervision of the manner of spending the money. While that is so they cannot get away with the idea that they can do the job with money drawn from another source and which has to be accounted for in a different manner.

The question of there being interminable delays has been mentioned here by the Senator. I do not agree with that at all nor do I agree that if there are delays they are of the making of the Department of Local Government. I would suggest to the Senator that he go back to the local authority, from which I have no doubt he has drawn his experience, and check up thoroughly as to how much of the delay is caused by that local authority the responsibility for which is very often placed on the shoulders of the Department of Local Government.

Mr. McAuliffe

The delays were caused by the Minister refusing to sanction the tenders that were submitted for the houses.

Mr. Blaney

If I find tenders that are exorbitant I will not sanction them, and I do not care who puts them up. There is no justification for Senator McAuliffe's suggestion that if tenders are too high when they come to me they should be allowed through merely because the council of the county have at that stage got around urgently to doing something they should have planned and programmed years ago. There should not be this urgency if there were proper planning within the local authority who are now complaining. Furthermore, in regard to the local authorities who send these over-priced tenders to the Department of Local Government, if they were allowed to go through with these tenders, would they be prepared to throw the extra money into the kitty that will enable them to rent these houses to the needy members of our population at a figure that these poor people can afford?

Mr. L'Estrange

A smaller house cost £150 more afterwards in our county.

Mr. Blaney

The answer is that members who make these criticisms seldom have the backbone to stand up in their councils and advocate taking more from the rates in order to subsidise rents to house the people who are less well able to house themselves.

Mr. L'Estrange

It costs £150 more afterwards to build a smaller type of house.

Mr. Blaney

Senator L'Estrange would have a figure to put on it. However, let Senators who are members of local authorities bear in mind that exorbitant tenders will not be sanctioned by me while I am Minister for Local Government. Any softening up is only an inducement to people to raise their prices still higher, at a time when we are short of building contractors and workmen, in the hope that they will get the higher price if they wait.

A Senator

There were no houses built for four years because the Minister would not sanction them.

Mr. Blaney

The Senator is talking through his hat. If no houses are being built the fault is yours because you are not doing it as you should.

Mr. L'Estrange

We built as many as 350 houses a year.

Mr. Blaney

You had nobody for them.

Mr. L'Estrange

Recently there were 17 people looking for one cottage.

Mr. Blaney

Now you have people looking for houses and seven years ago you had houses looking for people.

Mr. L'Estrange

If the Minister built enough houses in the last five years there would not be the situation we have had of the houses falling down and killing people.

Mr. Blaney

Why did your Minister and your Government, who were capable of doing so much of over-building to the extent that people were not there to go into the houses, according to the boast of your own Leader, not see to these houses before they became so dangerous that they are now falling down? What were you doing then?

Mr. L'Estrange

You would not expect them to see the danger eight years ago. You could not see it last year.

Mr. Blaney

I would not expect them to see anything.

Acting Chairman

I want to hear the Minister on the Bill and no more of this wrangle.

Mr. Fitzpatrick

Just one word in this regard. We built 1,500 houses to your 270.

Acting Chairman

That can be discussed on the next Stage of the Bill but not now.

(Interruptions.)

Acting Chairman

That goes for Senator L'Estrange also.

Mr. L'Estrange

We can make reference to the Boyle river.

Mr. Blaney

At least it will not be contaminated by the Senator being dipped in it which I heard he would be.

Acting Chairman

Let us deal with the Bill.

Mr. Blaney

One finds it difficult to do so having been provoked to the extent I have been provoked not alone by Senator L'Estrange but by a bevy of the Senator's colleagues in order to see that what one misses the other will say.

Mr. L'Estrange

We shall not beat you on a vote tonight.

Mr. Blaney

You certainly will not. It is not the first time or the last time you will not be able to beat us on a vote. To get back to Senator Jessop and some little sanity in the debate, I think his query was—I am not sure if this is correct—how we could ensure that effect will be given to the terms of the proposed legislation.

Professor Jessop

That these people should receive alternative accommodation quickly, not just as the authority so wish.

Mr. Blaney

One of the considerations is that a number of the people who are of necessity evacuated from dangerous buildings are no more in need of assistance in housing themselves thereafter than the most well off in the House who are listening to me at this moment. To put an obligation on the local authority to house such people would not be justified in the circumstances. What the local authority may do to find accommodation for those who do need alternative accommodation and who are not able to provide it themselves is a matter which, as the House is well aware, has been engaging the attention of the Dublin Corporation for a considerable time and not without some success. That they are continuing to try to find ways and means of expediting the provision of further housing accommodation is, I think, also well known.

I am satisfied that anything they can do at the moment they are doing it. I shall continue to be satisfied that they will persevere in their efforts to find a solution to any such problems that may arise. I want to repeat that not all the people who are evacuated as a result of dangerous buildings operations are entitled to be housed by the public housing authority or at public expense. Many of them are well able to house themselves and the fact that they have to leave a dangerous building is no reason why the public should have to meet the cost.

I think that is all I have to say and as we shall probably have a full discussion on the Committee Stage, the only plea I make is that if it is necessary to go through the Bill line by line and word by word I have no objection, but I would again point out that this measure was intended to be an urgent one. It is an interim measure pending the full codification of the sanitary services in a Bill which is in course of preparation. If it is to serve its purpose as a separate Bill then I would ask that, when we are dealing with it again, no matter what time it may take, we should sit long enough next week to have it finished.

Question put and agreed to.

Committee Stage ordered for Wednesday, 22nd July, 1964.

The Seanad adjourned at 11 p.m until 3 p.m. on Wednesday, 22nd July, 1964.