Housing Bill, 1965—Committee Stage (Resumed).
NEW SECTION.
I move amendment No. 23:
Before section 56 to insert a new section as follows:
"(1) A housing authority may, by resolution, decide to provide such and so many houses (or building sites) as may be specified in the resolution, in any area or within a specified time and the manager of a housing authority shall give effect to any resolution passed under this section."
This is a simple amendment and its purpose is to aim at speeding up housing by advanced site planning and keeping various schemes in line with changing requirements such as the movement of population and other things that may require much more advanced planning than we have.
I am afraid we cannot accept the amendment. We had similar amendments on Committee and Report Stages in the Dáil and we are satisfied that the elected representatives are the people to decide on housing policy, and that extends as far as the acquisition of sites and the planning of local authority programmes over a period of years are concerned and the manager implements council policy. I take it what the Senator is saying in this amendment is that the elected representatives are the people who should go out and acquire sites and decide on policy.
What, in effect, we mean is that power should be given to housing authorities to acquire sites in advance of what at the moment would appear to be their housing requirements. Very often we come across the problem in local authorities where the members feel there is a necessity for a number of sites for the erection of a number of houses. The officials will not see eye to eye. There are certain specific conditions laid down and the medical officer of health must be able to ensure that there are a number of people in that area who require houses. If, for example, there are 20 badly housed people in an area who would appear to the medical officer of health or to the local authority to be badly housed, that is the number of houses that can be built in that year—that number and no more. No provision is made for anything that might happen in the next five to ten years. No provision is made for the advanced acquisition of sites for people who may require houses if that number of houses have been completed.
Surely we have already discussed in the Bill the question of the assessment of the housing needs for areas. Local authorities will have power to acquire land for future housing and building programmes. The difficulty here is, I think, that, as a result of a resolution passed by the council they will erect a number of houses in an area or some member of the council does it or the manager does it on their behalf. Is that not so? Up to now the council might decide to build ten houses. The officials would investigate the applicants and needs of the people in the area. They may decide to the satisfaction of the council that six houses are sufficient to cater for the needs at that particular time, and the council might decide to go ahead with the six.
It often happens. You have instanced the case where the local authority are in agreement with the manager that there are sufficient houses. I want to state the case that where the elected representatives are not satisfied that a sufficient number of houses are being erected and I do know of a specific case where in 1959, after four years of up and down to the Department of Local Government, it was decided—in spite of the wishes of the elected representatives of that area —to build 20 houses on a site where we felt 28 to 30 houses should be built. But in the long run—as one member of the local authority mentioned, half a loaf is better than no bread—we agreed to the 20 houses. The 20 houses were erected and tenants were appointed to these houses early in 1960. In 1964 it was agreed to build the other eight houses, and the eight houses built in 1964 cost as much as 12 of the first 20. I want to emphasise this—which I think is a very important point—that those 20 houses were erected in this particular village as a result of the number of applications received for them in that village. Over 60 people applied for these houses and it was as a result of the number of applicants that it was decided to acquire land and go ahead with the second scheme but we were precluded from erecting any more than 20 houses in that scheme until four years had elapsed. It is to prevent that kind of thing happening that I would respectfully request the Parliamentary Secretary to accept this amendment of ours.
It would appear from what Senator Fitzgerald has said that the manager is separate from the council. In the first instance, the council adopt a programme, passes a resolution and give certain instructions to the county manager. If he falls down on his job, they have the remedy in their own hands.
Some day if the Parliamentary Secretary ever has a moment he might look at the Dunboyne file on the 1956 scheme. He will find that what I am saying is correct —that the 20 houses were all the Department would sanction on that particular site and yet four or five years afterwards they sanctioned the building of a further eight and those eight cost as much as 12 of the original 20. If the 28 altogether had been built and if the people had been housed altogether it would have been a much more economic scheme and eight people would have been housed much earlier than they were.
This was fairly fully discussed in the Dáil and we still have not changed our minds about it. We still think the elected representatives have all the power in their own hands. They can direct the managers to lay emphasis on a particular area, to ensure the housing needs are met, in their policy in relation to the acquisition of sites and have all these things taken into consideration. If the county manager falls down on his job then they have the remedy in their own hands.
I do not think the county manager failed in his job in this particular instance but if the Parliamentary Secretary can say to me he is prepared to influence the officials in the Custom House that the elected representatives and the officials in a local authority or housing area are the best judges of their business, I shall be quite satisfied that this amendment has served a useful purpose. It is the officials of the Department of Local Government I am getting at, not the county managers.
We are dealing with this as it affects the local authorities so it is the local authority officials with whom we are dealing as against the Department's officials. There is no sense in dragging in the people of the Custom House. In the first instance the Senator referred to the engineers and the chief medical officer but we think that in their own examination of the applicants they chose a site so the Department of Local Government had nothing to do with it except that now they have set down certain headings under which the programme can be properly drawn up.
Do I understand from the Parliamentary Secretary that the housing authority, with the manager, are the final arbiter in determining the number of houses to be built on a particular occasion?
This amendment concerns county managers.
But the Parliamentary Secretary, by his intervention, conveys to me that it is for determination completely by the local authority with the manager. Apart from the availability of finance we had difficulties—before the present financial crisis —regarding the curtailment by the Department of the number of houses necessary. I shall cite the Blarney incident in particular. Deputy Corry is the expert in this regard and his comments would be worth hearing regarding the whittling down by the Department, not by the housing committee or by the manager. It would be unfair to the local authorities now for anybody to allege that they were the final arbiters. It was a matter for decision between the housing authority and the manager. We have had so many sad experiences in all good faith of having arrived at what we thought was a genuine assessment of the housing needs but when it came to the Custom House we found that only a fraction were declared as being desirable.
Section 55—that is the section with which we dealt last week—gives the local authority power to draw up their programme and they can decide, as we hope they will, on the future programming of their housing needs in their own area. If there is an area likely to be developed as a result of a number of industries then it is up to the local authority— if they are aware of such industries— to programme for it. As far as the Department of Local Government are concerned they would come into it only on the question of availability of capital to carry out the programme.
I think subsections (1) and (2) of this amendment cover it very well because subsection (1) ensure that:
A housing authority may, by resolution decide to provide such and so many houses (or building sites) as may be specified in the Resolution, in any area or within a specified time and the manager of a housing authority shall give effect to any resolution passed under this section.
and subsection (2) ensures that:
If it appears to the manager of a housing authority that the number of houses (or building sites) proposed to be provided pursuant to a resolution passed under this section, in any area, is insufficient, he shall make due provision for such additional houses and shall inform the members of the housing authority accordingly.
This is combining the two—the manager and the local authority—and if they, in their wisdom, feel that provision should be made for so many houses or so many sites that that should be implemented. I have instanced the case of the housing scheme in Dunboyne to illustrate that where the manager and the housing authority, the elected representatives, were at one, they were still frustrated by the officials in the Department of Local Government.
The Senator is going outside the scope of the amendment.
The amendment has to do with the manager of a housing authority and the local authority. Is the amendment withdrawn?
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
SECTION 56.
I move amendment No. 24:
In subsection (2), line 46, to delete "may" and substitute "shall".
My object in putting down this amendment is to change the section so as to make it mandatory upon the local authority to do certain things, with an escape clause, if they so resolve, instead of making it merely permissive. At present subsection (2) of section 56 reads:
A housing authority may, in connection with dwellings provided, to be provided or which in the opinion of the authority will in the future require to be provided under this Act, provide and, if they think fit, maintain in good order and repair roads, shops, playgrounds, places of recreation, parks, allotments...
I think this is too weak. It is saying that a housing authority may provide these things and, if they think fit, they may even maintain them in good repair, and so on. It seems to be a rather flabby way of ensuring that these things will be provided where they are necessary. With your permission, Sir, I am taking my three amendments, Nos. 24, 25 and 26, together. I am simply transposing the word "may" into "shall" and omitting "if they think fit". Obviously, there might be cases where a particular item would not be necessary, and in amendment No. 26 I am inserting the clause "unless by specific resolution one or more of these amenities be deemed by the authority to be unnecessary".
In other words, I am asking that the Act shall say that it shall be clearly considered the thing to do, to provide not merely houses but also recreation grounds, parks, playgrounds and so on, that this shall be the rule rather than the exception, and that we shall not be content to say that the local authority may do these things if they think fit. I suggest that we should say the local authority shall do these things unless by specific resolution they deem one or more of these amenities to be unnecessary.
The past record of local authorities was not always good in this regard. I remember that for many years the playground in the Kimmage housing scheme appeared only on the maps of the city architect and not in Kimmage. About 15 years after the scheme was completed these recreational facilities were finally provided. This contains a kind of implication, an implied pattern of life in the community that is being provided with such a housing scheme. Unless, as well as houses, it be deemed normal and natural to provide for such things as shops, playgrounds, swimming pools, parks, and so on, and unless this is considered normal and virtually mandatory upon the local authority, they tend to put these things on the long finger.
I suggest to the Seanad that they should look at Dublin and consider it in comparison with other towns of this size. In relation to swimming pool recreational facilities, Dublin is an absolute disgrace in Western Europe. Therefore I feel we must word this section more strongly, and not be content to say that the local authorities may do these things if they think fit. We should specifically demand that the local authorities shall do these things unless by specific resolution they deem one or other of these amenities to be unnecessary in a particular instance.
I have a good deal of sympathy with the idea behind these amendments, but I doubt if, as they are drafted, they do more than provide a peg on which to hang an argument.
A good argument and, therefore, a good peg.
It may be a good argument but it is shockingly bad drafting if I may say so, because if these amendments were accepted you would have the odd situation that it would be mandatory on the local authority to provide and maintain shops in good order and repair, unless by a resolution they decided that shops were not an amenity which was necessary in the district. That would be going rather far. It could hardly be said that shops were not a necessary amenity, or that sites for churches were not necessary. I do not think anyone could envisage that a local authority should have to provide shops, playgrounds, sites for places of worship, factories, offices, and so on, and not only provide them but keep them in good order and repair.
I can see what the Senator is getting at, and I have a great deal of sympathy with it. Some method should be found to speed up the provision of proper facilities in new housing areas, but I suggest this is not the way to do it, because the local authorities would be faced with one of two absurdities. They would either have to provide these things, or pass a resolution saying that a site for a place of worship was not a suitable amenity in a district, which might be going rather far, or that shops or factories and offices were not necessary. I can see what the Senator wants to do and I think the provision of these facilities should be speeded up, but I suggest not by way of these amendments.
I should like to support the amendments with the same reservations Senator Sheldon has expressed. If there is a real need for shops they will almost certainly emerge, and roads will be provided and kept in some sort of repair, but playgrounds, places of recreation, parks and so on, are in a different category. They are more likely to be neglected unless something is specifically laid down. Perhaps some reference might be made in the amendments to their being provided within some period of time after the housing estate has reached a certain stage of completion. Under the amendments the housing authority might be put in a position of having to put up playgrounds, and so on, even before the estate had reached the stage where they were necessary. I wonder if the Parliamentary Secretary would have another look at the section. As Senator Sheldon says, the amendments might make the whole position rather difficult. I am certain that Senator Sheehy Skeffington is right in urging that it should not be left entirely to the discretion of the local authorities to provide such things as recreation grounds, playgrounds, etc.
Like Senator Sheldon, we have sympathy with the view behind the amendment. Unfortunately, no distinction is made between an urban and a rural area, and if we accepted the amendment as it is, every local authority in the country would have to pass a resolution that all these amenities were not necessary even when they were building one single county council cottage. Again, if the amendment were accepted the county councils would be obliged to provide all these amenities and to maintain them unless they passed a resolution. In view of that we feel we could not place this obligation on local authorities. This is something you cannot legislate for. Local authorities have a certain amount of discretion as it is. If you put this on them as a statutory obligation they either do the work or they have to decide, by resolution, not to provide those amenities. As Senator Sheldon says this could be misrepresented in many ways in relation to other facilities. Therefore, we cannot accept the amendment.
I accept the Parliamentary Secretary's objection. In relation to rural areas it is true that if you build just one or two houses it might not be necessary to put up shops or anything else. Nevertheless, future rural housing development might well lie in community centres. This has been done very successfully in Holland. Most rural housing areas there are grouped around recreation halls and playgrounds. The effect of this is that social amenities are available in rural communities. I feel perhaps that something which would help local authorities to recognise that the building and provision of houses is something more than just putting up houses is very desirable. The whole social structure of community living should be taken into account by local authorities.
Senator Sheldon's objection is sound at least in one respect. This to some extent would be met by dropping my amendment No. 25 which asks that the words "if they think fit" be omitted. Some form of motion should be put in which would make it necessary to provide at least certain social amenities. A shopping centre is surely a necessary social amenity in nine cases out of ten. I do not feel that people in outlying housing areas are well served by shops. It might well be a good idea if the local authorities were to own or at least be landlords of shops, and keep them in proper condition. In any event I would rather see the onus put on the local authorities to decide that particular amenities were not necessary. I do not want to delay the Seanad further and with leave I should like to withdraw my amendments, leaving myself open, perhaps, on Report Stage, to introduce a changed or improved version of them.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 25 and 26 not moved.
I move amendment No. 27:
To add to the section a new subsection as follows:
"( ) Sites provided or to be provided under this section and section 57 (in areas where sewers are not available) shall be large enough to accommodate a septic tank, having regard to local soil conditions."
This is to ensure that sites of sufficient area will be provided because I have a feeling in some instances that the quarter acre suggested by the Minister in the circular might not be enough to enable a person building a house to comply with the regulations with regard to the distance of a septic tank from an existing house or road or that kind of thing. It is with a view to getting an assurance with regard to that that we put down this amendment.
In dealing with the amendment as it is the sites should be large enough to accommodate a septic tank having regard to local soil conditions. In this connection you might have to give them a two-acre site.
The Parliamentary Secretary is stretching his imagination.
It is quite possible that the lay-out of a site might be such that it is not possible without such a large site. Those of us who are members of local authorities have come across this kind of case. The required distance was laid down by the chief medical officer of health. If you were to allow this amendment you would have to take into consideration other things besides septic tanks. The question of a septic tank is something that will have to be sorted out. As it is at the moment there are a number of cottages throughout the country that cannot provide septic tanks on their own sites and be the required distance from the main road or their own house. There is a question of change necessary. It is necessary that there should be the 60 feet distance from the house or public roadway. In some local authority areas the medical officer will allow a lesser distance. We are not prepared to accept this amendment. In relation to septic tanks this can be done administratively rather than by statute. There is no guarantee that what would prevail on one site would prevail on another. The same conditions cannot prevail throughout the whole country. With regard to future sites we would hope there would be no question of septic tanks having to be provided subsequently as it would be Government policy and indeed local authority policy in any future housing scheme that they would be fully serviced so the question of a new septic tank would not arise.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 56 agreed to.
SECTION 57.
Question proposed: "That section 57 stand part of the Bill."
I am opposed to this section because it seems to me that it is no part of the function of local authorities to provide sites for private builders or building speculators. The local authority and the corporation do all the hard work, lay drains, put in roads and lay on all the other services. After having done all this hard and unprofitable work they are then prepared to hand over to private enterprise so that the cream can go into private hands. I do not think it is part of the function of local authorities to do the preliminary drudgery work for private enterprise. If private enterprise wants to go in for building work it is better that they should develop the sites themselves. This work should not be done at public expense and then handed over so that private enterprise can make a profit.
Senator FitzGerald in his speech on the Second Reading made a valuable point and gave figures to prove that in Northern Ireland there is far greater emphasis on building by public authorities than by private enterprise. This section is going in the wrong direction. It is trying, at public expense, to take a good deal of the hard work out of building by private enterprise leaving the profit in private hands. There is still a field for private enterprise to engage in building but I feel that when local authorities have developed sites they should do the building. They should not have the right to hand over the job to private enterprise after they have done the hard work themselves and thus allow somebody else to take the profits from it.
I disagree with Senator Sheehy Skeffington's amendment because some two years ago one county council in this country provided serviced sites in order to encourage individuals to build houses for themselves. They provided serviced sites at £100 each, and it can be truthfully said that the scheme was very successful and people who would otherwise have waited for the county council to build houses were able to engage a contractor of their own and build quite nice houses for themselves. This is what it should be. Many people find difficulty in acquiring suitable housing sites. They have not got the same powers of acquiring land as the county council. From my own experience we have had eight or ten houses built in Portlaoise which possibly would not have been built by private individuals were it not for this scheme. I should like to see the Minister going a step further and perhaps encouraging the councils to develop this line of thought by giving them some kind of grant as an incentive to encourage people to build their own houses. In addition, from the county council point of view roads, sewerage and water facilities will be provided to the council's satisfaction. It has been the experience in the past, when a council took over some of these schemes, that many of the roads were not completed with as much care as would be taken by the council's own staff. What is provided for in section 57 is nearly ideal, and I would like to see much more of it throughout the country.
I should like to endorse Senator McDonald's remarks. Sometimes we reach the stage where some of these applicants that come before local authorities, having obtained the approval of the members of the authority and of the manager, find that due to the rigid adherence to strict examination in the Department they have not been approved for the provision of local authority housing, and that class of person find in recent years, particularly if they are close to industrial development, that the initial costs of the provision of a serviced site are a very great obstacle in embarking on what we should at all costs encourage—the ownership of houses by this category of people. This section gives an opportunity to the housing authority to organise in an orderly fashion a site with the amenities necessary so that such people will get a reasonable opportunity of acquiring a site with the least expense involved not alone to the person concerned but to the various housing sections dealing with grants of various kinds.
I support the retention of the scheme for that reason. We could depend on the good sense of the local authorities that they would in exercising their responsibilities obviate the development of what Senator Sheehy Skeffington fears, namely the abuse of this section by developers to the extent that it would be inimical to others and to the public finances. The provision should be retained so that local authorities may in the exercise of commonsense avail of it for the purposes outlined.
Relative to the provision of roadways we have frequently come up against difficulties where schemes have been developed and tenants of the houses concerned who are at the stage where they are faced with heavy financial responsibility in furnishing their homes and meeting the commitments involved in getting a house are faced with the roadways problem. It would be very helpful if the councils were prepared to take over those roadways once they were brought into proper condition. In many instances they have not recourse to the rural improvements scheme grants. Could the Minister make an approach to the Minister for Finance to permit the payment of rural improvements scheme grants in those areas where they are not yet applicable for bringing those roadways into the condition where they will meet the requirements of the council engineers for take over and maintenance for the local authorities? We all know instances where people are making an effort to make their homes presentable and face appalling difficulties relative to the service of these roadways because the developers have failed. It takes the utmost pressure on the part of the local authorities, where they can exercise this influence, to get them to bring the roads into some reasonable condition. It is a very heavy charge on the residents in those areas if they have to embark on the considerable expense involved in bringing the roadway to the condition where it could be taken over by the local authority.
I would ask the Minister again to look into this consultation with the Minister for Finance to see whether the scheme of rural improvement grants could not be extended to cover these categories. There are not very many of these cases, but they entail a considerable hardship on those people, who are ratepayers and taxpayers.
Would it be permissible under this section for the local authority themselves to provide sites as a part of or even the whole of the local authority contribution towards the grant? I would think that would be the way it could work in certain cases, that the local authority might provide housing sites.
(Longford): We cannot lose sight of the fact that the housing authority are the county council, which are also the road authority and the sanitary authority. No matter who builds the houses the responsibility for providing roads is on the road authority, which are the county council, and the responsibility for sewerage facilities and water services is on the sanitary authority. Where contractors are building houses for private people on sites provided by the local authority sometimes the contractors competent to build houses are not competent to build roads, and an attempt by people not equipped to build roads properly can be very poor.
This creates a headache for the road authority afterwards, and also for the people who are compelled to live along these roads. It is a good thing that the county councils should create a situation whereby sites can be developed and roads made so that private people can, with the aid of grants and other facilities, provide their own houses. I belive that the house, a home, is a thing that is private and personal, and the intention and purpose of all legislation should be to create a climate or a situation whereby as many people as it is practicably possible will erect their own houses. They have a sense of achievement, of responsibility, of pride and of self-help. If we had more and more people getting out of the idea of relying on the local authorities to house them, we would have more and more people with a sense of responsibility. On the other hand, I do not think it would be good to go further than is absolutely necessary in this matter, pointing out again, of course, that there is no help like self-help.
The retention of this section is most important if housing is to get its full impetus. The section means that people will be able to get sites and have those sites developed cheaper because a housing authority can acquire four or five acres and the development of such an area will be much cheaper——
To whom? To the building contractor or to the tenants?
Cheaper to the person who has to pay the contractor. Three out of four people who build their own houses do so with the aid of borrowed money. The purpose of the Bill is that everybody will be housed, no matter how poor, and giving an impetus to people to build their own houses means that the local authority will have more money left, larger funds on which they can call in order to house the poorest, the people who have most claim on the State for housing. It also means there will be more orderly development. If a council acquire an area and there is development for 30 sites, the council would charge each person one thirtieth of the entire cost. The section will also provide that the houses must be built to a certain standard, that they must fit in with the general surroundings and that they must be in accord with the plans for adjoining houses. There will be no loss to the State. Take the ordinary person in a town. Say two people wish to build houses. They cannot acquire sites or they cannot acquire sites to which there is a road. On the other hand, if there is a site for 20 houses, it will be found that 15 or 20 people will wish to build houses there. If the building of houses is to get maximum impetus, if it is to be done in an orderly manner and if the maximum amount of money is to be left to house the most needy, then this section is essential.
Senator Nash in a general way has covered the real purpose of this section and the associated sections, 44 and 88. I have no doubt these sections will to a large degree do what those in favour of them have suggested. They will encourage local authorities to acquire larger tracts of land than may be required for their own housing needs. In so doing, they will purchase it at cheaper rates per site than the rates at which individuals could purchase the land in single sites. For the development of a group of houses, the cost will be much less than if each individual site were developed at different times by different individuals. As well, the additions thus provided to a town or an area will be better planned than could be ever hoped for if building occurred haphazardly, bit by bit.
The demand for some provision of this nature has been fairly evident on the part of local authorities and in recent years I have been advocating that they should acquire land for eventual use by private individuals. Any reluctance they showed was caused by the feeling that they would be expected to carry too much cost if they were to make a useful contribution in this direction. At any rate, the sections concerned have been sought by the local authorities and are very much welcomed by them. I submit they will do a great deal of good in the manner I have mentioned, together with the undoubted advantage and attraction these provisions will have for people to build who might not otherwise be able to attempt building because of the extraordinarily high cost of single sites, plus the extraordinarily high additional cost of developing such individual sites.
This should mean that in many towns people who might not otherwise attempt to build houses—they were scared off by the exorbitantly high cost of acquiring and developing individual sites — will now be inclined to build their own houses. This is a power being given that will be of great value to all concerned. Furthermore, under section 88 which provides the power to dispose of these building sites, conditions will be laid down by way of regulation and direction as to how the sites are to be disposed of, including the terms of disposal. I envisage that these regulations will take in not only the manner in which such sites will be disposed of but the terms and the cost. They will, therefore, carry no bonuses to anybody who might hope to make money from building on those sites.
The regulations will enable local authorities to sell the sites at much less than their original value to people whom they wish to encourage to build. This will ensure that those who do not need this assistance will not get it at the cost of the taxpayer and the ratepayer. The incentive is to people who need sites fully developed by the council at bargain prices and with a subsidy from the Central Fund. In this fashion we will help those who most need our help and withhold it from those who do not require it or, indeed, who might even abuse such encouragement by making money for their personal benefit at the expense of the taxpayer and ratepayer. The three sections I have mentioned will give this power we did not have in the past.
It seems to me from what the Minister has said and indeed from the point of view expressed by the Senators who have spoken, that there is a general assumption that the section refers to the provision of sites to private people who will then buy them. The section does not say that. It states:
A housing authority may provide sites for building purposes on land acquired or appropriated by them...
The Minister encourages me by saying that regulations will provide and see to it that there is no abuse. But, as the section stands, it will permit a local authority under the terms of this section to provide a whole acreage of sites to a local gombeen man with local influence and allow him to acquire land that had been compulsorily acquired from his neighbours and which had been appropriated by them at a cut price, perhaps even at a price below that which the local authority paid for it, and then develop it and rent the houses to a large number of people and, perhaps, slap on ground-rents as well. Possibly this is not envisaged, and may not be possible under the regulations the Minister mentions. But the section as it stands permits the provision of sites not merely for the worthy private owner—the case for him is obvious and has been well made —but also for the speculative builder. "A housing authority may provide sites for building purposes on land acquired or appropriated by them", and so on.
I am entirely sympathetic with what Senator McDonald says about the private individual but I feel that very often a private individual will get a fairer "do", as it were, from the local authority as a landlord, and such letting could well be extended, than from the private landlord living on his rent.
Senator McDonald also mentioned that if the council are to do the initial site work it will be done better and more satisfactory. I think he will agree, however, that, as Senator O'Reilly pointed out, this has to be done to the council's satisfaction anyway, so that the mere decision either to do this, or not to do it, is not really relevant at all. It is not relevant to the satisfactory manner in which the site is originally developed. There is nothing, as I see it, in this section to prevent a speculative builder acquiring these sites and putting a ground rent on them or even selling the houses and then slapping on a ground rent of £15 or £20 a year. This may be prevented by regulations, but it is not prevented by the section to which I am opposed. I feel also that these ground rents would give an inflated land value out of all proportion to the service done by the private builder particularly when this land has been compulsorily acquired by the local authority in the first place. The value is largely added to the land by the local authority, and under this section, unless there are strong safeguards provided in the regulations, the profit arising from this added value will go into private pockets. This seems to me to be bad.
Senator O'Reilly has stressed the value of the private ownership of houses. I think perhaps he went too far when he said that the tenant, the non-owner, has not the same sense of responsibility towards the property as the owner of the house. I feel in making a generalisation like that Senator O'Reilly has not been fair.
I do not want to be unfair.
The Senator may not intentionally be unfair to tenants of local authority houses and corporation and county council tenants, where admittedly you will get some people who are abusing the houses, but the big majority of these houses are admirably kept. I do not feel that merely to be a tenant of a local authority house instead of owning a house would necessarily mean that the houses would not be kept at such a high standard.
I do not follow what Senator Nash said about being more orderly if the local authority step aside and allow private——
More orderly development might——
I agree but this section says the local authority do not do it. They can hand over. They just ensure drainage, sewerage and roads and then stand aside.
That is the development I am referring to.
If it is intended to do all the layout and design of the houses, gardens and parks this will then provide a more orderly development than if the authority stops half way and hands it over to the private individual, as the section allows.
Finally, the Minister says it will cost less perhaps to the local authority if they can, as it were, pass on the sites, once they have done the initial work, to somebody else. It will cost less perhaps to the local authority, but it may well cost more to the person living in the house. He may have to pay not only an economic rent to the local authority or something like it, but he may also have to pay an excessive profit plus a ground rent, so it may cost less to the local authority, but more to the people for whom in theory, at any rate, such houses are being built.
I would contend, therefore, that where the site is actually acquired or appropriated, in the words of the section, by a local authority it should be fully developed by the local authority to the point of providing the house on it, and in that case ultimately, from the point of view of the individual, the cost will be less, and the planning and harmony greater. If there are regulations which will modify the bad effects of the section as it still stands, I shall welcome them. I should just like to ask the Minister before I consider whether I shall withdraw my opposition to this or not, by whom does he envisage these regulations will be made—by the Minister under this Act or by the different local authorities? He has mentioned very wise regulations which might be made. I should just like to know by whom?
By the Minister governing the payment of the subsidy and relating to the payment of the subsidy in respect of these sites. That is, the subsidy under section 24 would be regulated by the Minister on the general terms I have already indicated here.
This is a satisfactory answer, provided the regulations made under this power are of the kind the Minister has in mind. I feel that we as a legislative Chamber are being asked to pass a section which we are told will be all right because under another section the Minister has power to make regulations that will prevent it being abused.
The Senator would seem to have a very poor view of county councils.
I feel, perhaps, we could put down an amendment on Report Stage that would satisfy the Minister. There are some 20 regulations the builder must undertake to fulfil. Generally the houses are sold on a lease of 99 years and the authority must be satisfied with the type of house and everything else.
On the question of playgrounds, have the local authorities power to use such land acquired for houses for playgrounds, especially playgrounds adjacent to the larger schools in built-up areas? I have such a case in mind and I feel it is most desirable that when schools provide 600 pupils they should have adequate facilities for recreational purposes. I would ask the Minister if it is in order for a housing authority to allocate what they acquire as a housing site for a school playground?
Yes. In so far as this section is concerned in the last few lines of it the local authority may do development works on lands for playgrounds and such matters. The last few lines of this section sets out what they may do.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 58.
I move amendment No. 28:
A housing authority may, by resolution, direct a county manager to acquire, on behalf of the authority, from time to time, a minimum number of building sites in such urban and non-municipal town areas as may be specified in the resolution and the manager shall comply with such direction.
With your permission, a Chathaoirleach, I shall take amendments Nos. 28 and 29 together. This is an amendment to ensure that the building of houses and the acquisition and development of sites can go ahead, pending the implementation of the Planning Act. It may not be the experience of any other councillor here but I have a feeling that in many areas the Planning Act is being used as a reason for sites not being acquired and developed because people in the planning office have not made up their minds as to what the particular area will be used for; whether it is to be a residential area, an industrial area, a green belt, a park or something like that. While this is happening land which could properly have been acquired for housing is passed out of the hands of local authorities and is not now available. Local authorities should be encouraged to go ahead and acquire land and further develop sites for the provision of houses.
The matter raised by Senator Fitzgerald relates to a large degree, to the actions which may or are being taken under the Planning Act. The development plan itself would dictate for some considerable time to come the pattern of the growth of any area, particularly the built-up areas and while it is not by law required to be produced finally until October, 1967, it is in existence now. In practically every planning authority in the country there is what we call a provisional plan and the provisional plan is an outline of what we expect the general development plan to contain. The reason for this interim plan is that naturally, in the period while the overall plan is being prepared and finalised it was seen that it would not be possible to just stop everything. Neither would it be possible to allow everything to go ahead so this provisional plan is in fact —as its name indicates—a provisional interim plan which is the general guide by which local planning authorities determine where certain developments may or may not take place. It should, without any doubt, make it possible for the same planning authorities to acquire sites. Certainly it should leave them in the position that they are not debarred from acquiring sites for their own development plan, which will not necessarily emerge for another year or year and a half. In that sense the fears expressed by Senator Fitzgerald, while six months ago might have carried a great deal of weight, are much less well founded now than they were then. The provisional plan now in operation in these areas does enable local authorities to acquire, with a fair knowledge of what they are doing, sites for any purpose in the future, including housing sites.
I have the feeling the Minister is depending on the planning schemes for the implementation of this Bill. Yet it seems that the planning schemes will not be ready for years upon years as far as I can see. Take Dublin County Council—they have provided in Balbriggan 30 sites for persons who wanted to build their own houses and have another 38 sites in preparation. As soon as the money is again available these sites will be made available for applicants. In the adjoining town of Skerries we have a situation in which there is no land at all. This is also the case in Santry, Malahide and Swords while, as I mentioned on Second Stage, in Rush they were given some land by the Land Commission but only a few acres of that land was available. This was on the Kenure Estate which I mentioned where land went abegging at less than £300 an acre, the only complaint apparently being that there was too much land available in that location. I think every town should have considerable advance land arrangements for sites. This is surely a very good social object. The requirements are changing so frequently that paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of subsection (2) of amendment No. 29, we suggest, are absolutely necessary, if we are to keep in line with increasing and shifting populations.
Perhaps I should have said a little more on this. Section 77, with which we shall be dealing later, deals with advance acquisition and under that particular section it is revised for this very purpose of acquiring land for houses in the future. This section would take care of the fears expressed by Senator Miss Davidson. Also, to add to the precautions—if you like to call them that— which will be there when this Bill becomes an Act is the provision that, when programming, this is something which would be required from all councils in the future under this Housing Bill. Building programmes will have to be devised and under section 77 the acquisition of land in advance of projected needs is dealt with there and it gives power to do that prior to acquisition. This, together with the programme which will be drawn up and the power contained in the section, should in my estimation, remove any fears in the mind of any member of the House as to the adequacy of the power which will be there empowering local authorities to do these jobs, to do them properly, to plan them properly and to take the action required by way of land acquisition to ensure that their programmes ultimately are carried out. This not only means that we can deal with the programming of actual building of houses by the council but we will also have power to acquire land for sites which may be used by others than the council. It will not be the want of power in the Bill which will cause any of our local authorities to fall down on this matter. The power will be adequate. It is a question of the performance and, of course, the money.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 29 not moved.
Sections 58 and 59 agreed to.
SECTION 60.
I move amendment No. 30:
In subsection (1), line 50, before "in" to insert "and publish".
This is a very short amendment to provide that it shall be the duty of a housing authority not only to make a scheme determining the priorities for the allocation of houses, but also to publish that scheme. It is of vital importance that if there is a scheme of priorities, the public shall know it, that the people involved, prospective tenants and so on, shall know it. I am not suggesting that the local authorities might forget the order of priorities they have decided upon, but I am suggesting that it is healthier in a democratic community for everyone to know just precisely upon what principle the allocation of houses and the establishment of priorities are being decided. Therefore I propose that the words "and publish" should be inserted in the section.
I can see the point of the amendment in that I think the fear of the Senator is that while the authorities may make priorities they may not be seen to be made or understood to be made. None of us connected with this matter, least of all the local authorities who will make the priorities, would have any objection to publication in the slightest degree. The difficulty I see is that a scheme of priorities so drawn up can be quite a lengthy matter. If they are well and truly drawn up they will probably stand for years. If we required them to be published in a newspaper they would appear only once. The newspaper might be seen, or it might not be seen, and even if it were seen it would probably disappear over the years and a copy would not be kept for future guidance.
If there is to be some method of publication I think it would be better if it were done by way of printed pamphlet or booklet. This could be made public on request at any time by anyone. It could be kept up to date and reprinted if necessary. I am thinking in terms of Dublin city where there are 10,000 applicants for houses. This figure will be diminished by the provision of houses, but there will be a continuing body of people concerned year by year, and, therefore, something that will be available to them from year to year would be better than a single publication by way of public announcement. If the Seanad wishes, on Report Stage I can bring in a suitably worded amendment to provide for this type of publication. I do not know whether there would need to be some small charge—this is something we might like to think about—to cover the cost of this publication, and to obviate a possibility of people continuously looking for copies even though they were not really interested, and not caring for their copy in the knowledge that if they dirtied one copy they could get a clean one for nothing. I suggest that something on these lines might be better than a single publication in a newspaper by the local authorities.
I should like to thank the Minister for the way in which he has received this amendment. My notion was not just publication in a newspaper. I felt that a notice in the office or on the office wall would be quite enough, where people could see the priorities upon which the local authorities worked. The word "publish" is capable of wide interpretation. I do not think it would be necessary to have a handbook. There could be a notice posted on the wall like the bye-laws of a company, or the licensing regulations in a licensed premises. If the Minister were prepared to accept the words "and publish" that would not commit him to a newspaper advertisement. It simply means to make public.
I do not think we could deal with it without some form of amendment. It might, indeed, be a better idea to put an obligation on the local authority to have it pasted up and available at all times.
Available for inspection.
Something in that form might be better.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 31:
In subsection (3), page 40, to delete paragraph (d).
This seems to me to be a vitally necessary amendment. I am asking for the deletion of paragraph (d) of subsection (3). Subsection (3) provides:
In making or amending a scheme under this section the housing authority shall have regard to the following primary objectives:—
Among the primary objectives there is one which seems to me to be highly objectionable and, in fact, questionable upon social and medical grounds in the light of modern medical practice and knowledge. The subsection states as one of the "primary objectives" the "segregation of persons suffering from pulmonary tuberculosis".
If a person is suffering from pulmonary tuberculosis and is positive and can spread infection, he should not be at home. He should be receiving hospital treatment. That is the practice, and that is what would be encouraged and, indeed, so far as possible, insisted upon. If a person has had pulmonary tuberculosis—as I have had some 30 years ago—and has recovered from it, and is no longer a menace to the population, in that regard at any rate, it is obviously wrong to suggest that he must be placed in a "segregated" portion of a housing estate. I hesitate to use the word "ghetto" but it looks rather like that. It is out of date to suggest that a person suffering from pulmonary tuberculosis should be segregated as a "primary objective" in the allocation of houses. Perhaps that would have been legitimate 20 years ago but not today. I do not think this is by any means necessary. On the contrary, I think it could be quite harmful. I do not think that this provision would really be used, but if it were used it could have most unhappy consequences for such people and their families.
There are two interpretations of this subsection to which Senator Sheehy Skeffington takes exception. One is that there shall be certain houses in an estate which shall be available for families where someone is known to be suffering from tuberculosis—segregation, in fact, of the people in the community. That is probably the objectionable aspect which he sees. It would be thoroughly objectionable, of course. The other possible interpretation is that one reason for giving a family a house in an estate like that would be to allow them to have a separate room for one member of the family who happens to have tuberculosis. It need not necessarily be generally known amongst the community that that is the situation in that family.
If a number of people had applied for houses and the list was being reviewed, and in that list there was a family one member of which was suffering from tuberculosis, and if for one reason or another he could not go into hospital the situation would certainly be made better if he could be given a separate room and would thus be segregated from the rest of the family. I do not know which of those two interpretations the Minister intends in the section. If it is the first interpretation I would certainly support it but there are circumstances in which people still remain with their families even though they are suffering from tuberculosis which might be open and infectious at that stage.
The Public Health Acts give authority to the Health Authorities to almost compel people with open tuberculosis to go into hospital but there are very few health authorities who are willing to take advantage of that power because putting people into hospital against their will for any reason is very bad for the disease from which they are suffering. If you could provide, for the purpose of allowing people suffering from such a disease, for separate accommodation and if that was the intention of the section I would certainly support it. I think it would be very bad if there were certain houses in an estate that were known to be special houses for people suffering from tuberculosis.
I want to say straight away that there seems to be some misinterpretation on what is intended here. In order to put it in a somewhat better way I should mention that the present law carries with it regulations known as the Management and Letting Regulations and they give priority to people suffering from tuberculosis in certain circumstances. These regulations have been laid down for quite a long time and constitute the law at the moment. In such cases, all things being equal, an applicant or a member of his family suffering from tuberculosis can get priority over other people in similar housing conditions. We are not going quite so far in this particular measure as we have been going in the past. We are saying that there are four primary priorities to which the local authorities must have regard in drawing up their letting priorities for any housing scheme. The one which it is suggested should be removed is one of four. Regard must be had to all four priorities. We do not want, at least in the sense that has been suggested here, to separate them from all other people and make it a sort of ghetto into which we would put them. It is rather in conformity with practice in the past that there should be recognition given to the fact that this disease is still a prevalent disease. In fact, it is the most prevalent infectious disease at the moment. We want to provide, where we can, that when we are housing such families that it should be possible for the person suffering from this disease to have a separate room. I should say, in that regard, for the last year for which I have figures that 2,178 cases of this type of tuberculosis were notified to the health authorities and that there are at present 15,193 cases on the register of local authorities. The bulk of that figure are in their own homes.
Most of those would no longer be open, positive cases.
It is not a question of dealing with this in a medical or scientific way.
There is a big difference.
We are far from the point where this disease would no longer be a problem disease. It is still a problem disease and in the history of housing legislation it is being dealt with in a sympathetic way. This is being done in order to help those people, particularly their families. They are given priority lettings and bigger houses so that the person suffering from the disease can have a separate room. We are giving a somewhat watered down version of the law here by saying that this is one of four categories to which priority should be given. We are saying that regard must be had to those priorities with regard to lettings. It is on that preference and in that context that this whole thing is intended. As I have said in the past there was even more direct legislation with regard to this. I think this regulation should be left there. It has served its purpose in the past and probably has helped us to reduce the incidence of the disease. I think this should be left there so that it will continue to reduce the wiping out of this disease.
The Minister has disillusioned me to some extent. I thought we had got to the stage that anybody suffering from active tuberculosis, with the facilities we have provided by medical authorities and local authorities, would go into hospital. I know the disease is still infectious and something needs to be done but I must say I understood we had reached the situation where anybody affected with tuberculosis would be given the strongest possible advice to go into hospital and be treated there. We have special hospitals suitable for the treatment of such disease. Some of them are practically vacant now. It is a pity that we in the Seanad would not indicate that the ideal treatment for any case of open tuberculosis was to have it treated in hospital. I must admit that the Minister has convinced me that this would possibly still be necessary. I should like to voice my opinion that the sooner the disease is obliterated the better.
I should not like it to be taken from what I have said that we are in any way condoning that the institutions provided for the treatment of this disease are unsuitable or that they should not be used. I know from my own personal knowledge that quite a number of those people have already had hospital treatment. In fact, it seems to be the pattern of the treatment of this disease, particularly when the infection is not so severe, that people suffering from it spend a short period in a sanitorium and after that they go home again and remain on the local authority register. They attend clinics and are usually on tablets and other treatment. In other words, the great majority of those people have had hospital treatment and are receiving further treatment while they are at home. Those are the people we should have regard to particularly with regard to priorities in the matter of housing.
I think the word "segregate" should be changed and some other word provided.
We shall try to find a better word. I know the present word is somewhat misleading.
I should like to thank the Minister for his explanation, which satisfied me entirely as to his intention. It is quite a good intention, but I think we all agree that the wording is unfortunate and that a better wording might be found. I, therefore, wish to withdraw my amendment, and perhaps on Report Stage I might refer to the matter further.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 60 agreed to.
SECTION 61.
I move amendment No. 32:
In subsection (1) (c), page 41, to delete all words from and including "or" in line 5 to the end of the paragraph.
This amendment advocates the deletion of certain words dealing with the disclosure of circumstances of poverty so great that assistance from public funds under the Health Acts or the Public Assistance Act has had to be sought. In the more reasonable atmosphere of today's approach to the problem of poverty and destitution such a disclosure is uncalled for, particularly in fixing rents chargeable. I should like to see references of that kind removed from legislation.
While one could subscribe to the sentiments expressed by Senator Miss Davidson the effect would be to debar the local authority from finding out information on this form of income. We would be positively taking this opportunity away from them. While in the general sense it is possible that they may not have to have recourse to this provision, nevertheless it would be wrong to bring about a situation wherein the local authority could not obtain this information.
Surely the authority would already have that information on their books. It is a punishment to a person to have to put it on a form.
I should like to support the amendment. It seems to me that any funds such people are getting from public assistance will only have come after a full investigation of means and will have been regarded as the absolute minimum necessary or allowable, and thus ineligible to be counted as contributing towards the rent that would be fixed.
Possibly it has been oversimplified, but the health authority and the housing authority are not the same body even though in many cases their membership could be exactly similar. Dealing with the matter as suggested by the amendment would prevent the housing authority from obtaining this information. They would have no right to obtain it even though membership of both bodies might be common.
Any funds under the public assistance scheme would be irrelevant to the calculation of rents, because whatever is given under such a scheme would be given only after a stringent means test had already been applied, so that therefore it would be unjust to regard them as capable of helping an old person to contribute to the rent.
I support the amendment because I have the feeling that this is going to be used as a means of calculating the rent in the same way as income from employment. An old man might be receiving disablement benefit of £1.5.0 a week and his son might be working at £10 a week, and then the income coming into the house would be calculated as £11.5.0. That would mean that he would be paying a rent based on £11.5.0 rather than on the £10 that the son was earning.
The point about it is that the information is required for the adjustment of the rent. It is immediately assumed that the adjustment will always be upwards. If you want to have a clear assessment of the rent-paying situation in any particular case, the first thing you have to have is the entire background in regard to income from whatever source so as to see what exactly the situation is of this particular family or individual. Then you can base your figure depending on the overall picture.
Surely the Minister would agree that if a married son were appointed tenant of a local authority house his income only should be taken into consideration when the rent is being calculated. Would it be fair, if that son were maintaining his mother, who was in receipt of old age pension, that her old age pension should also be taken into account by the local authority in determining that the rent should be increased because he was maintaining his mother who had the old age pension? I can agree with the Minister 95 per cent of the way, inasmuch as you must have the income coming into the house, but it is not right that he pays the rent because his son may be maintaining an aged mother or father in receipt of old age pension, disability pension, home assistance or anything of that kind.
The point has been overshadowed here that this matter of the mother being maintained by the son when she is in receipt of the old age pension has already come to be dealt with in the differential rent schemes, and it, together with other such similar benefits, have in many schemes that I have seen been ignored and disregarded, so that nothing we are doing here is proposing to change that. Rather the practice has been in the direction advocated by the Senators. What we seek here, nothing more and nothing less, is that in the determination of what should be paid the local authority can get all the information it requires. What it does after it gets it is not what we are dealing with now. That is another day's work. I want to keep this so that they can know the full picture and act with justice to the tenants.
Would the Minister not agree that it is the easiest thing in the world, if a local authority or a housing authority have appointed tenants to houses, for the authority to know that they are paying home assistance to any residents in houses, and if they feel that there is an old age pensioner in the house or somebody receiving social welfare benefits or any other kind of benefit they can get that information from the Department of Social Welfare? I do not think it is right that the people should be worried in this way so that the local authority may use it in assessing the rent.
This is not what we are dealing with. We are dealing with the amendment proposed to delete part of subsection (c) of subsection (1). The section lays down that the housing authority in determining the rent may require the person to whom they are letting the house to furnish particulars on a number of matters, and subsection (c) refers to particulars of any assistance, benefit or allowance received by or on behalf of the person or a member of his family residing with him from State funds or under the Public Assistance Act, 1939, the Health Acts, 1947 to 1960, or from any other source whatsoever. It is the requirement on the person to furnish this information that is being deleted, not what may be done after the information would have been received.
They will do two different things altogether. This is a manner of getting the full facts of a case and, having got them, we do not say or lay down in this section in the slightest degree what will be done with them. What we are providing is that the entire circumstances will be known in the best and most accurate way possible. The amendment seeks to lessen the garnering of the informations. I wish to point out that informations may be got but they need not always be accurate. There may be inaccurate informations and I suggest it would be far better to go for accurate informations under the law. Then, it would be established beyond yea or nay that those were the facts. What we do afterwards is a matter that will be dealt with in another provision.
The last phrase is most comprehensive—"from any other source whatsoever". We are concentrating on two items of a comprehensive investigation.
What I think is objectionable is getting people to write down on a form what the authority themselves must already know because the home assistance officer knows whom he is calling on.
I appreciate the point but I should like to remind the Senator that things have changed somewhat in recent times. For instance, the Dublin Health Authority now are a completely different body from what they were some years ago and from what similar bodies are in some other areas. In Dublin and Cork, the personnel of the health authorities are completely different, the executive are completely different, being drawn from a much wider area than heretofore. If they are all from local councils, they are not all from the one council. Therefore, these informations are not available to the general comprehensive health authority. Therefore, it is not true to say we are seeking information they already have. In some instances that may be so but the tendency is, where there is a number of big areas, towards completely separate health and housing bodies and this will spread instead of diminishing. In future years, it may be that health authorities will be completely separate bodies from housing authorities and that they will not have the knowledge county councils now have available to them through their health officers.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 61 agreed to.
SECTION 62.
Amendments Nos. 33, 34, 35 and 36 may be discussed together.
Government amendment No. 33:
In subsection (1), page 41, after "be," in line 38 and before line 39, to insert the following:
"and
(c) there is a statement in the demand of the intention of the authority or Agency to make application under this subsection in the event of the requirements of the demand not being complied with,".
The purpose of these amendments is to ensure that the procedure adopted by local authorities and the National Building Agency for the recovery of possession of houses or property occupied by trespassers will be reasonably simple and also fair to the trespasser. Under this proposed provision the authority or Agency will serve a demand for possession on the trespasser indicating that if he does not give possession they intend to apply to the district court. If they do not get possession, they will apply to the district court which will issue its summons. On hearing a case, the court will then issue its finding for possession if it is satisfied the procedure has been followed. Under the section as it stood, the trespasser would have to be served with a demand for possession and if he failed to give up possession with a notice of the authority's or the Agency's intention to apply to the court. This notice is now being dispensed with. Recovery from a trespasser was a more difficult and lengthy procedure than recovery from a legitimate occupier. The trespasser was put in a more favourable position than the legitimate occupier in cases where recovery for possession was sought.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 34:
To delete subsection (3).
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 35:
In subsection (4), lines 15 and 16, to delete "notice required by this section has been duly given" and substitute "demand mentioned in the said subsection (1) has been duly made".
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 36:
In subsection (6) (b), lines 40 and 41, to delete all words from and including "sufficient" in line 40 to the end of the paragraph and substitute "a sufficient statement for the purposes of paragraph (c) of the said subsection (1)".
Amendment agreed to.
Section 62, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 63.
I move amendment No. 37:
In line 51, to delete "rooms" and substitute "bedrooms".
It seems to me that in reading this section, in line 51 the words "the number of rooms" are not sufficient. This is in connection with the definition of overcrowding. The section reads:
A house shall for the purposes of this Act be deemed to be overcrowded at any time when the number of persons ordinarily sleeping in the house and the number of rooms therein either—
(a) are such that any two of those persons, being persons of ten years of age or more of opposite sexes and not being persons living together as husband and wife, must sleep in the same room, or
(b) are such that the free air space in any rooms used as a sleeping apartment, for any person is less than four hundred cubic feet (the height of the room, if it exceeds eight feet, being taken to be eight feet, for the purpose of calculating free air space),
and "overcrowding" shall be construed accordingly.
The point I wish to make is that instead of having line 51 referring to the number of persons ordinarily sleeping in the house and to the number of rooms, bedrooms should be specified because we do not want to define the house as not being overcrowded because there are two boys sleeping in the bathroom, a girl sleeping in the kitchen, somebody sleeping in the hall and somebody sleeping in the parlour. As the section is phrased, as long as you have enough "rooms" to go round it does not matter whether there are people sleeping all over the house. I feel that a house would be overcrowded without necessarily breaking the terms of this section, even if there were people sleeping in the bathroom, in the kitchen, in the scullery and in all downstairs rooms. I feel "bedrooms" should be used here to avoid misinterpretation of what is clearly in the Minister's mind.
Taking Senator Sheehy Skeffington's reading of the section as it stands, one could establish a case on the grounds he has made, but what we have to remember is that this overcrowding definition is required for and relates to payment of subsidy. Therefore, it is, if you like, the yardstick which will be used by the public authority and the central authority to decide whether overcrowding exists and whether a subsidy is payable at a higher or lower rate or at all.
In this way it would stretch things a little too far to expect or anticipate in any way, or even think, that the local authority or the central authority officers would condone a situation where on a visit to a house it was alleged that overcrowding existed and it was said that there were people sleeping in the bathroom and the hall and that the bedrooms as such could not be said to be overcrowded according to the section. I think also the acceptance of the amendment and the substitution of "bedrooms" for "rooms" would bring about a certain confusion in another direction where there is likely to be greater danger and that would be in the administration of the matter by the local or central authority. That is, if we had the amendment accepted here we could, for instance, in relation to a bedsittingroom, containing an alcove or a kitchenette, regard that room as not being a bedroom. That being so, no matter how many people you put into it it can never be overcrowded. So, the acceptance of the amendment by clearing up, if you like in a theoretical sort of way, the objection the Senator has made would, without doubt, create in regard to bedsittingrooms a situation which none of us would wish to obtain. In other words, if you put in "bedrooms" for "rooms" and think in terms of bedsittingrooms they could be regarded as non-bedrooms and not concerned with sleeping space, or otherwise these rooms could not be regarded as overcrowded even though half a dozen people are sleeping in them.
If we look at the situation and the reason for this overcrowding definition and keep in mind what it was intended for, I think the dangers that are seen there will not arise at all for the reason that it is not a person or persons living in the house who would be interested into getting us to believe they were not overcrowded. It would depend on whether the particular house was overcrowded or not. This is a case where subsidy is or is not payable, depending on whether the house is overcrowded or not. Overcrowding under the section is something there can be no doubts about and there is no danger of overcrowding being condoned by the public or the central authority on the basis that they would regard sleeping in the corridors or in the hall or bathroom satisfactory as sleeping space in the true sense.
I am satisfied the Minister's intentions are of the best. Nevertheless, this definition of overcrowding in Part IV which deals with "overcrowding or unfit houses", might relate to a family seeking accommodation on grounds of overcrowding. They might find themselves being told: "You are not overcrowded as to sex, because the number of people of different sexes having to sleep in the same room is not excessive, in view of the number of rooms you have."
The section says:
A house shall for the purposes of this Act be deemed to be overcrowded at any time when the number of persons ordinarily sleeping in the house and the number of rooms therein either—
(a) are such that...
and the local authority not wanting to reconsider a particular family, or being unable to do so, might argue: "You have enough rooms to prevent this type of overcrowding; why can you not put the boys in the parlour?" I feel this is a lowering of living standards. I recognise that the definition of a bedroom may be difficult because the bedsittingroom mentioned might be a perfectly legitimate use of a parlour that is not otherwise used. I am a bit unhappy, nevertheless, that it is simply a question of the "number of rooms". One should not regard it as normal that the parlour would also be a bedroom for some of the family and that this would prevent the house from being deemed overcrowded. I am afraid some families in this country are overcrowded in reality which would not be regarded as overcrowded according to the present definition of this section.
There is another feature also. The misuse of this particular section would be by the persons who hoped to gain from it. They would be the people who would hope to get rehousing as a result of a definition or examination which according to the definition indicated that they were overcrowded according to law. If we are to change this and make it "bedroom", I can see then that those who would have the best of a particular vested interest, who would then be the occupier of any house, could in effect, decide that one or two bedrooms used as such now should be converted into a sittingroom or another diningroom and then make out that they are overcrowded according to law though they have an ample amount of living accommodation. Then they could point out and say under the law—we are in number and in sex and in age so and so and we have only two bedrooms— despite the fact that they have three or four livingrooms. This would be legitimate and probably could be upheld and they could claim this to their advantage if they wanted a different house in a different area. This could be done by a person who was going to gain from it, whereas the dangers pointed out by Senator Sheehy Skeffington are dangers that in my estimation cannot and will not arise for the reason that those who would be determining what the law implies or intends would be people who have no personal vested interest. They would be on an objective investigation as to whether overcrowding exists or not according to the spirit and intention of the law. Therefore, the danger of their doing these queer things—they could possibly squeeze in and still be within the law—does not exist but it could exist in the reverse in that the occupiers could, for their own personal gain and their own motives, bring about a queer situation if we change the law and agree to the amendment. They would have motives in that they would have something to gain. The public or civil servant has nothing to gain in misinterpreting the law.
That is so; the public official has nothing to gain except perhaps the pleasure of dragging his feet. The public official, however, sometimes seems to derive immeasurable joy from dragging his feet. I can see technical difficulties in this connection. There is a case with which I was familiar, among hundreds of cases which came before a local Council of Action branch of the Pearse Street Labour Party and Trade Union movement. It was a case of a family of seven living in one room in Corporation Buildings in Railway Street. The children ranged from a girl of 23 to a boy of 16. They were all sleeping in one room. Their aim or ambition was to get a second room which the corporation finally conceded to them. Subsequently the men slept in one room and the girls in another. It took six months to get this second room. That was many years ago, and I have no doubt that public officials have since advanced greatly in general saintliness and behaviour, but I think many tenants applying for rehousing on grounds of overcrowding would even today find that public authorities and public officials do not act with quite that alacrity with which the Minister seems to credit them. I feel a bit unhappy, therefore, about the use of the word "rooms" but I think the Minister has a point that if we did change it to "bedrooms" it would present certain technical difficulties. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, but I hope that, in the interpretation of this, the public authority will be anxious to rehouse people where there is genuine overcrowding and will not use this section simply to say—"Oh, you have got enough rooms, you could put the boys in the parlour".
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed: "That section 63 stand part of the Bill".
In practice I am not too happy about this section because we find when it comes to rehousing that what the ordinary person would deem to be an overcrowded house would be one where you have two and three families living in a small three-roomed house—a house originally designed with two bedrooms, a kitchenette or kitchen and livingroom or parlour. The most usual of these cases is where married members of the family return from England and, successfully finding work at home, have nowhere to go and are taken in by their parents. Very often one finds up to 20 people living in what was originally a three-roomed house. The fact that the local authorities turn down these families for rehousing because they do not earn the higher rate of subsidy creates an extraordinary situation. I feel the system whereby town commissioned houses and subtenants of town commissioned houses do not rank for the two-thirds subsidy is something which certainly needs to be corrected. For that reason this definition of overcrowding can be left vague. I should like to see the distinction between town commissioned houses and local authority houses dropped.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 64 agreed to.
SECTION 65.
Question proposed: "That section 65 stand part of the Bill".
I should like to repeat a question I asked on the Second Reading on subsection (2) of this section. This again deals with overcrowded houses. Subsection (2) says:
(2) Where the owner of a house is causing or permitting the house to be overcrowded, the housing authority may, if they think fit, serve on such owner a notice in writing requiring him to desist from causing or permitting such overcrowding and specifying the period, being not less than twenty-one days beginning on the date of the notice, within which, or the event after the occurrence of which, the requirements of the notice are to be complied with.
We have been told on several sections here of practical difficulties. I should like to ask how does the owner of a house suddenly "desist" within 21 days from permitting his house to be overcrowded? What does he do; what is he expected to do?
This will be entirely related to the tenementing of houses and the continuance of that practice. It is particularly related to the situation where people will have been taken out of tenement conditions, where overcrowding was remedied, where they had been rehoused and the owner continues to refill the house, as it were, to the same capacity as that which had already been relieved. It is to prevent overcrowding and to prevent the recreation of conditions which may already have been relieved by the housing authority which is intended here.
I have every sympathy with the intentions, but the practical problem remains. If a scoundrel of this type is told he must stop permitting overcrowding this means he has to get rid of some of his tenants, and, in the process of law, this could take three months— six months if he has a good lawyer— and he is required by this section to do it within 21 days. I do not see how he can do it, but I grant that he should be forced to try.
The following subsections (3) and (4) deal with the making effective of the law in this regard.
These deal with penalties which fall upon him if he does not. But supposing, with the best will in the world, he decides to get rid of a due proportion of his tenants, he could do it only by a process of law, and I doubt if he could get an individual tenant out within 21 days. The lawyers here might perhaps tell us if I am right in that.
The Bill says "not less than 21 days". It is not "within 21 days" but "not less than 21 days".
Could it not be stated that by serving a notice to quit and taking legal action in the matter he is ceasing to permit overcrowding? He caused the overcrowding when he allowed these people in; he permits it by allowing them to remain.
That is always assuming his notice to quit is valid and that he has the right under the law to evict these tenants, which he may not have.
Once he stops doing his best to permit them——
I would contend that this is all right once Senator Yeats is on the bench.
I am sure there would be other people with equal commonsense on the bench.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 66 to 75, inclusive, agreed to.
NEW SECTIONS.
I move amendment No. 38:
Before section 76 to insert a new section as follows:
"(1) A housing authority may acquire by agreement any land situate within or without their functional area although the area or tract of land offered for sale by auction or by private treaty is in excess of the reasonable requirements of the authority for immediate and further need, and, having reserved sufficient land for immediate and further needs, the housing authority may dispose of any surplus land.
(2) A housing authority may acquire land which is not suitable or convenient for the purposes of this Act provided that the land is acquired with a view to an exchange of that land for suitable land.
(3) The power conferred on a housing authority under this section shall be in addition to their powers to acquire land under section 82 of the Local Government Act, 1946.
(4) This section shall come into operation on the passing of this Act."
The purpose of this amendment is to enable local authorities to acquire land in an area where land is difficult to acquire. One often hears of land going on the market adjacent to a town or village. It may be in excess of the amount of land required by that local authority but the owner of the land is not prepared to sell a portion of it. He is prepared to sell all or nothing. In these circumstances, local authorities are precluded from acquiring or purchasing that land because it is much in excess of their requirements. The purpose of this amendment is to enable a local authority to acquire all the land in that particular area for sale and, having established what they require for their own houses—for the provision of houses and for the provision of sites in that area—could then dispose of the excess land which they did not require.
The amendment would appear to enable a housing authority to acquire land, by agreement, in excess of reasonable requirements for the immediate and future needs; to enable a housing authority to dispose of surplus land; to enable a local authority to acquire land for the purpose of exchanging it for other land; and the powers in the amendment would be in addition to those already in section 82 of the Local Government Act, 1946.
Section 82 of the 1946 Act is the section we rely on primarily to do the things that are sought to be done in these amendments. In that section there is power for the local authority, with the consent of the Minister, to acquire by agreement lands, "which in their opinion they will require in the future for the purposes of their powers and duties notwithstanding that they have not determined the manner in which or the purpose for which they will use the land."
This is a pretty wide section, and that is the law as it now stands. I should add that subsection (4) of the same section provides, "...a power conferred on a local authority by any Act to acquire land for a particular purpose shall be deemed to include a power to acquire land which the local authority do not require immediately for that purpose but which in their opinion they will require for that purpose in the future."
The subsection which we are talking about it regarded as conferring powers of compulsory acquisition of land not immediately required so long as there are reasonable grounds for believing that the lands will be used in the future. The powers we have in the 1946 Act, and the powers we derive from many other Acts, put beyond any question the need for any further elaboration of the law to enable local authorities to acquire any land that the members of a local authority would ever hope to need, that is, assuming they had not all gone over the top at the same time, or that they had not all gone out the window on the same morning. That is the way I see it. I do not think there is any doubt in the world but that the power is there.
We have ample power. It is the performance and the money which are the real kernel of our problem rather than a lack of power. The fact is that the amendments are catered for already, and the motive underlying them is catered for in a number of Acts which give us more than adequate power for land acquisition without specifying what we want it for, how it may be finally used, or what year we may need it in. Taking it all round there is power, and power to spare, without adding more in this way. If it should ever come to pass that it is found that what I am saying is short of what really is the situation, and that there is a lack of this power, in whatever capacity I am in at the time I will support the elaboration of the law making the power as wide as I have now said I believe it to be. I believe it is wide enough at the moment, and if any fault is found with it in the future, that will be another day's work.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 39:
Before section 76 to insert a new section as follows:
"(1) Before allocating any land for the purposes of the Land Acts the Land Commission shall inform a housing authority of the area and location of such land and the manager of the authority shall place any such communication before the next meeting of the authority.
(2) Whenever a housing authority informs the Land Commission that the authority needs land in any specified area for their powers and duties and certifies that all or part of the land in the hands of the Land Commission is suitable, the Land Commission shall first make an allocation of suitable land to the housing authority before allotting the lands for the purposes of the Land Acts.
(3) Whenever any local authority has land surplus to their needs that local authority shall, before disposing of the surplus land, offer the land to the housing authority."
The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that where the Land Commission acquire land they will inform the local authority in that area, and that if there is a need for sites for housing in that area, some of the land will be made available to the local authority to enable them to provide houses. I may say in passing that my local authority have had experience of the co-operation of the Land Commission. When we requested the Land Commission to provide a site in one village they did so. When the Land Commission acquire land close to a town or village the local authority should be able to exchange or barter another piece of land for land adjacent to the town or village. In that way the Land Commission could help the local authority to provide more sites.
This matter was discussed on Committee Stage in the Dáil. I said I agreed with the sentiment and the intention of the amendment, and I undertook to have a look at the matter with a view to amending the section, but the trouble in regard to subsection (3) of the amendment—to start with the last one first — is that it is not appropriate to this Housing Bill at all. We would not be in a position in this House to dictate to the Land Commission any more than we would be able to dictate to the health people or any other body, in local government or housing legislation. Senator Fitzgerald has indicated that the Land Commission were not unreasonable in their dealings with his local authority. The situation at present is that the Land Commission notify the secretary of the county council—and, in fact, they must —when they are acquiring and taking over land. That is in relation to valuation.
No, but the local authority through the secretary are in a position to know what lands are being acquired by the Land Commission. The investigations I have made since this matter was raised in the other House indicate that the Land Commission co-operate with the local authorities in matters such as this and to such a degree that I do not think the amendment suggested is really necessary at all. I would go further and say that if it came to the point where the Land Commission behaved other than in the manner in which they have behaved up to the moment, and if the land could not be taken over by agreement, it could be taken over by compulsion. This would be something which the Land Commission would like to avoid if at all possible. This is something which is not likely to occur. If it did happen the local authority would know, if they did not get co-operation from the Land Commission, they could acquire the land if it was necessary to provide much needed housing.
I do not think this is ever likely to happen but if it did the local authority could get the land by compulsion. They would then get the land which they could have got with the co-operation of the Land Commission. That is the blackest picture of the matter and I do not envisage it happening. The county councils know of this land because they are informed by the rates authorities when there is a change. They are notified because of the redistribution of the various amounts of valuation and rates. All in all, we get the information and, having got the information, we make our requests to the Land Commission. History up to the moment is that they co-operate and, in the last analysis, if that happy state of affairs should for any reason cease to be the case, then we can direct the local authorities to take the step I indicated. In the last analysis the local authority will still get the land even though they have not got co-operation from the Land Commission.
As I have already said, I do not think that is likely to happen and I do not feel because of those things that we require this amendment. I want to say, with regard to land held by other associated bodies like the health authority and so forth, that we are in the course of preparing a circular to issue to our local authorities to bring to their attention the desirability of contact with those other bodies whom they know hold land which could be used for housing purposes. We are sending a general circular on the line which would bring about possible acquisition by agreement of certain land, which those bodies own, and which they do not want, but which the housing authorities might need. We are sending this circular out so that we will have an appraisal of the land held by semi-State bodies and other similar bodies so that this will be investigated and where it is desired by one body but not necessarily by the other that steps can be taken to clear up this situation. We know there are lands idle by one public body which would be needed by another.
The Minister has been very specific in his explanation but he indicated that local authorities will always know when land is going and they can acquire the land. The Minister indicated that the rates office would inform them of the change of ownership. Amendment No. 39, subsection (1), states:
Before allocating any land for the purposes of the Land Act the Land Commission shall inform a housing authority of the area and location of such land and the manager of the authority shall place any such communication before the next meeting of the authority.
The point I am trying to get at here is that the manager of the authority would, on receiving information in the rates office that the Land Commission had acquired certain lands in any particular area, inform the local authority that the Land Commission had acquired land in that particular area. In that connection in my county we have never been informed by the manager that land was acquired. The land that has been acquired by the Meath County Council from the Land Commission has been acquired because of the activities of the members of the local authority who brought it to the notice of the officials and asked them to start investigating to acquire this land. As the Minister is aware, some of that land has been acquired but it has all been acquired in a way which reflects great credit on the co-operation that was received from the Land Commission and the officials of the local authority. I hope the Minister does not feel that I am insinuating that we should go after the Land Commission and take land off them. We should inform the Land Commission that we have a problem in that particular area where they have land and they will co-operate with us in the provision of sites.
I am not quite clear what the Senator is getting after but it seems to me that he is suggesting that there is a danger of the communication from the Land Commission never coming to the notice of the elected body. When the Land Commission notify the manager of the change in ownership of land is the Senator saying that unless this is further publicised by being brought to the notice of the elected members that they will, in certain circumstances, not be notified of the communication by the Land Commission?
That would be correct. It would not be known by all the local authority representatives. It would be known by those in the area who might not be as actively conversant with the matter as the local authority representative from outside the area.
Is this the kernel of the Senator's complaint?
I have in mind in the same circular, which I have already mentioned, that we will direct that such information as that which will come to the knowledge of your secretary or manager, from the Land Commission, will be put before your full council. We will direct that that be done in the circular which has not yet gone out. It is still in the course of preparation.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 76 agreed to.
SECTION 77.
I move amendment No. 40:
To add to the section a new subsection as follows:
"( ) A housing authority may be authorised to acquire land by agreement or otherwise for the purpose of facilitating the acquisition, by agreement or otherwise, of land under tillage, within or adjacent to an urban area, non-municipal town or an area serviced by water and sewerage."
This amendment is really something on the lines of the other amendments which we had. This is designed to enable local authorities to acquire land, by agreement or otherwise, which they might not require but it would enable them to swop it for land which would be inside a serviced area, for example, where there was water and sewerage and where it is possible to provide a housing scheme. This would enable a local authority to acquire a site which is serviced in many of our villages because you could say to the owner: "If you give us that site and the two or three acres there we will give you four or five acres one mile or a half mile outside the town which is outside the serviced area and which because it is not serviced it would prevent the local authority from developing it and providing houses on it."
The very quick answer to this amendment is that it is not terribly clear what the amendment intends to do. Housing authorities have full power to acquire by agreement or compulsorily land required for the purpose of any of their powers, functions or duties. Whether the land is under tillage or not is immaterial as far as the powers of the local authority are concerned. They have ample power. We have already been discussing what power they have. What probably is in mind is that it might bring about a situation wherein instead of acquiring land from a man they could give him land of equivalent value, and particularly that they could give him more acres even at a different location which would be of little value for building or any other council purpose but might get the farmer to part more readily with his land than he would for money. If we tried to put any such thing into legislation goodness knows what organisations, we would have down on our heads, because we would become landbrokers rather than local authorities. If we do not have something in the law it is more likely that many things similar to that which we might wish to write in could be done if we did not specifically write in what we might do. As sure as we write in what we could do we will have all the legal advice saying "you cannot do anything fringing upon it".
I have no doubt of what is in the mind of the Senator, and I also have no doubt, as a member of a council as I once was, that this particular type of operation, without being written in the law, is capable of being done, but far be it from me as a Minister to put it into the law that it can and should be legal to do it and that we should make it a point in the law that we should do it. The danger of writing such a thing in here would be that some councils would become real landbrokers, not, possibly, always for the benefit of the powers, functions and duties of the local authority, and there would be a lot of trouble created by transactions that could then be put on foot. The difficulties we now have and criticisms made about the Land Commission making allotments would be nothing to what might arise if the council began in their own way to make allotments and to have exchange deals as between one lot of land and another. You would be in for very great trouble and possibly we could have abuse of it. Where there is a genuine case and where this is the only way to get over the problem an exchange of one parcel of land for another is not beyond the ingenuity of the Senator and many others in our local authorities throughout the country. It is not impossible of being done if the case is a good one in which the council as a whole are fully agreed that it would be a proper thing to do.
I would not put this in the law at all. I would be against putting it in. We have ample powers and ample ingenuity when the occasion demands, but to write it in would have its dangers. To leave things as they are leaves it possible to lessen the danger of abuse.
The Minister has made a very good case for the amendment but I can see his reason now for not writing it in. There is a very good case for it but the Minister is afraid to write it in. He also says that he knows that this is capable of being implemented. It is because I also know that it is capable of being implemented that I wanted to have it written into the Bill. Being capable of being implemented and being implemented are two different things, because, as the Minister explained, he was a member of a local authority and he knows the difficulty you can have if you go to an official and ask him to give so and so down in the town, who has two acres of excellent building site serviced with everything right, four acres half a mile outside the town. He would say that that would be inequitable, that he could not do it because there was nothing in the Act that would enable him to do it. The same official would be prepared to give this man two acres half a mile away, conveniently ignoring the fact that he would be getting two acres of land beside water and sewerage. It is for that very reason that I wanted it in to strengthen the hand of a man like the Minister.
This is getting back to another matter on which in another context I am having special intructions prepared to go out to councils. It has to do with the absolute inflexible uniformity with which officials dealing with land acquisition are inclined to relate values, which is entirely wrong. This inflexible uniformity of price per acre has brought about more compulsory acquisition proceedings than need have arisen if there was a real effort made to evaluate lands being acquired for whatever purpose the council needs them at their real value, rather than saying, "it is £100 an acre" whether it is rock and heather or really top grassland, or an acre out in the middle of a field which leaves two halves on either side of a new road useless, or some taken as a strip along half a dozen fields. There appears to be an inflexible uniformity, over the years, applied particularly in another sphere of activity of local authorities, and I am having a circular instruction prepared dealing with this matter, that there will have to be a more realistic approach and a better attempt at proper evaluation of land being acquired. This is not only to give the landowner a fair deal but also to cut down on the unnecessary compulsory order proceedings that arise directly in many cases from inflexible application of uniform prices of lands being acquired regardless of location or quality. While it arises in another set of circumstances, it equally applies to the substance of what Senator Fitzgerald has said. We might widen the instructions by also making reference to land for other local authority purposes, asking that proper values be made of all lands related to use value, whether it is good land or bad and so forth. If we did this it would have the effect that four acres could be the equivalent of two acres for the purpose of exchange in the future.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed: "That section 77 stand part of the Bill".
Part of this section relating to the fact that the authority may acquire land by compulsion leads me to comment on the very cumbersome procedure which compulsory acquisition as we know it is. A local authority requiring a certain portion of land for immediate building requirements seek to acquire it but find that the owner will not sell. A CPO is entered into and there is the slow, tedious, long drawn-out method of procedure. I cannot, therefore, understand why, in a case like that, an arbitrator cannot be immediately appointed to get over this slow procedure and bring the matter to a conclusion quickly in order that the local authority may get on with the work. It has happened that acquisition has taken as long as two years. It could be done much more quickly and to everybody's satisfaction if an arbitrator could be appointed immediately.
This section enables the housing authority to acquire land which is not necessarily immediately required for building, and I should like to welcome the section. I think it is a good one. I suppose the time has not come yet when we can go as far as Fintan Lawlor a hundred years ago, when he wanted to nationalise or municipalise all land, which is what I should like to see. If a county council or a local housing authority were to use the powers granted under this section, they might well have a very positive effect on the planning of the country.
If Kerry had done this in relation to the land around the Lakes of Killarney, the local authority would have found themselves in a position of greater power when certain building took place about which they found they had no real powers at all. The same would apply to Cork County Council in relation to Whiddy Island when the whole landscape can be destroyed and a major target in an atomic war can be put up without any local power over the land when it was sold by private interests. This section is a good one because in a small, restricted field it places public interest above private greed and even private property and private ownership. It gives a slightly increased enabling power to local authorities to acquire land ahead of need. I welcome this and look forward to an extension of the principle in the community interest.
I agree with the Senator who has taken issue with the time lag and the cumbersome method of CPO, but this sympathy stems entirely from looking at the thing from the local authority viewpoint which must be balanced by the viewpoint of the person from whom the land is to be acquired. Unfortunately, we must have procedure that gives a fair opportunity to the landowner, no matter how little sympathy we might have with him or with his stand against the local authority. We have got to deal with all the people from whom land may from time to time be acquired compulsorily and adopt a procedure to ensure that their rights are not violated.
This, in turn, at times creates a situation wherein the time it takes can be wearisome to the local authority. The system, in practice, is probably more long drawn out than in theory it could be. The causes of this rather lengthy operation are something I do not think we can deal with here today. I should like, however, to point out that the time lag could be speeded up quite a bit and this does not need any change in the system, the regulations or the law. The procedure we must retain even if we may at times feel somewhat annoyed and irritated by its delays. The delays need not be what they were in the past if we all do our own end of the job a little more expeditiously. We must leave it there and whatever else we may do we must safeguard the rights of the individual from whom we are taking property. Though we may irritate a local authority, we must remember the land belongs to the people and we must be very careful not to violate their right of ownership. However, if we can expedite the procedure we should try to do so.
I feel Senator Sheehy Skeffington produced a very unfortunate instance in support of his case when he referred to the necessity for control in relation to the development in Whiddy Island. In this instance, the local authority had all the powers necessary if they decided to use them, if, in fact, they were foolish enough to decide so to use them that they would hamper this development. The land is of little value to the companies concerned if the harbour authority, in this instance Cork County Council, were not known to encourage the development which is about to take place there.
Every care was exercised and I should not like it put on record that there was dangerous exploitation in relation to Whiddy Island and its environment. There was close co-operation between Ibernia—the local tourist association—the Cork Economic Council of which I happen to be a member and the local authority, and full cognisance was taken of every possibility. Every care was taken to ensure that far from creating any difficulties or reducing the amenities that exist, this development will enhance the position in that area. The powers were already in the hands of the local authority who were extremely gratified at the indications of the establishment of this industry——
Time will tell. If the Senator had been as closely involved in the frequent and lengthy consultations between Cork County Council, the manager of the Cork Economic Council, the manager of Ibernia and the others involved, I think he would be completely satisfied that this is one of the greatest developments that has taken place in the south of Ireland. The effect will be that the Cork Housing Authority will be involved in further development in that region in consequence of the Whiddy Island development because there will be a degree of employment where at the moment all eyes are on foreign shores because our nationals have to leave to get employment abroad.
I can assure the Senator that nobody will be more surprised than I if in the years to come anything should result from the establishment of this concern to detract in the slightest degree from the guarantee we have that the utmost care will be exercised in the carrying out of the buildings so that nothing will be done, even temporarily, to damage the amenities of Bantry Bay.
Will the buildings include a temple to Mammon?
It is better to have Mammon at home than Mammon abroad.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
The point raised by Senator Sheehy Skeffington has been adequately dealt with.
Question put and agreed to.
Business suspended at 6 p.m. and resumed at 7.15 p.m.
Sections 78 to 87, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 88.
Government amendment No. 41:
In subsection (1), line 38, before "or appropriated" to insert "or under this Act" and in line 39 to delete "or under".
This amendment does not involve any change of substance from what was originally intended. It was put down to clarify the intention. By virtue of section 121 (5) "under this Act" will recover the disposal under the Bill of land acquired under any enactment repealed by the Bill. If section 88 were left as it stands some doubt might arise as to the power of housing authorities to dispose under the Bill of the land acquired prior to its enactment.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 42:
In subsection (2) (a), page 59, line 44, before "or appropriated" to insert "or under this Act" and to delete "or under".
Amendment agreed to.
Section 88, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 89 to 97, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 98.
Government amendment No. 43:
In subsection (5), page 65, line 5, to delete "may" and substitute "shall", in line 6 before ", require" to insert "which is subject to and charged with the future payment of an annuity (other than an alienation or subdivision of a class specified by the Minister for the purposes of this subsection)", and in lines 7 and 8 to delete "purposes of this section" and substitute "said purposes".
The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that county councils will require payment to them of such sums as may be approved by the Minister where they consent to the alienations or subdivision of a vested cottage by the purchaser. Under the section as it stood it was discretionary on the authority to require payment. The amendment will enable sales or transfers of cottages to members of the family or to the householder and the purchase will be effected without any requirement of payment to the local authority, as at present.
Is there a prescribed proportion of moneys admitted? I think it is one-third, is it not?
If the annuity is to continue, it is one-third.
It "may" be one-third or "shall" be one-third?
Not less than one-third.
I might also mention the intention of considering on Report Stage a further amendment to this section declaring that sales effected without consent shall be null and void.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 98, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 99 to 105, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 106.
The Chair suggests we take amendments Nos. 44, 45 and 46 together.
I move amendment No. 44:
In subsection (1), lines 43 and 46 to delete "good structural condition" and substitute "good structural repair and sanitary condition".
This, to my mind, is a very important amendment because the section brings about a very big change in the law as it stands with regard to local authority vesting of cottages and putting those cottages into good repair. I am not satisfied that sound structural repair is a proper way in which to hand over a cottage. It is too vague and is a very big change from what was contained in the 1936 Labourers Act, when we consider that for a long number of years an organisation known as the Cottage Tenants Association campaigned for the right of tenants to purchase or vest their own cottages. Eventually, as a result of their efforts, the 1936 Labourers Act was introduced and while this was a much maligned Act in many ways, it did serve a very useful purpose.
One of its most useful purposes was section 18 which states:
Whenever a board of health proposes to make a vesting order in respect of any cottage which is not in good repair and sanitary condition, such board of health, before making such vesting order, shall carry out on or in such cottage all works which shall be necessary to put such cottage in good repair and sanitary condition.
When we examine that against the section which will replace it in the 1965 Housing Act, we find there is a great difference. I am not happy that merely to hand over a cottage in good structural condition to a tenant is conferring any benefit on that tenant, if we do not ensure that he gets his cottage vested in the same way as those of us who had cottages vested under the 1936 Labourers Act because a house may be structurally sound if the walls and roof are sound, but there are many other aspects of a house which would cost a lot of money if that phrase is to be interpreted as meaning a sound cottage merely because the walls and roof are in good structural condition. You have to take into consideration window frames, door frames and things like that which will be interpreted under section 106 of this Bill as meaning that the house is structurally sound and the tenant will have to accept what the engineer may regard as being structurally sound.
It is also stated here, as in the 1936 Act, that you can appeal to the Minister. Under the 1936 Act, when appeals were made to the Minister, in almost all cases on the visit of an inspector from the Department, as a result of such an appeal, repairs had to be carried out. The inspector from the Department was not satisfied that the house was handed over in a proper state of repair. He listed certain repairs that had to be carried out and they were then carried out. Not only were the local authorities served with a list of repairs to be carried out, but the tenant of the vested cottage was also served with a list of repairs to be carried out. To my mind any change or deviation from the system appertaining to the 1936 Act would be detrimental to the tenants trying to vest their own houses.
I should like to know how many appeals from cottiers were successful?
In reply to Senator Ahern, I think 75 per cent were upheld. That does not mean that all the points raised in the appeals were acceded to.
The change here is brought about by reason of the fact that it is costing the local authorities between £300,000 and £400,000 per annum to put these cottages into repair for the purpose of vesting. Senator Fitzgerald seemed to think that so long as the walls and roof are sound we think that is sufficient. That is not so. Windows and window frames, doors and door frames, would be part of the structure, and would be included. For instance, if the entrance door to a cottage were eaten away by woodworm or dry rot, there would be an obligation on the local authority to provide a new door prior to vesting. That would be part of the structure.
One of the main complaints was that the local authorities were being asked to do small little repairs that should normally be carried out by the tenants themselves—replacing a pane of glass or something like that—rather than expecting the local authority to do it. Quite a number of the appeals are finicky little appeals, but because the tenants had the right to appeal they lodged an appeal, and in many cases the engineer did not see eye to eye with them and refused the applications. At the same time, it seems that 75 per cent of the applications were successful because the local authorities did not tackle the job in the first instance and did not carry out essential repairs.
Senator Fitzgerald referred to window frames, door frames and floors. They will come under the heading of "structure" and will have to be attended to by the local authorities.
In Cork it costs us roughly £450 per cottage to carry out these repairs for vesting. The average is £450 per cottage. There is a lot of cribbing about doors and windows, but I think that with £450 being paid a good job is being done. I am glad that the Minister has brought in the provision that the local authorities have the right to purchase these cottages before they go on the open market.
I am not satisfied with the Parliamentary Secretary's explanation and I do not think it is correct in many ways. If the position is to remain as it was under the 1936 Act, why then have we such a change in the 1965 Act?
It must mean something or the change would not be made. I feel very strongly about this because I know a great deal more, perhaps, about labourers' cottages than anyone here, for the simple reason that I was born and reared in one.
They had no sanitary services.
That is quite correct, and if this Bill is left as it is, they still will not have any sanitary services. I cannot see any cogent reason why we should have such a sensational change, and why we should hand over a cottage under the 1965 Bill in a state of repair which would not be tolerated under an Act passed 30 years ago.
This is a vested cottage?
When the tenant wants to vest his cottage.
The tenant, when it is vested.
What about the local authority?
I am not talking about the local authority.
Are we to allow cottages to be bought by every Tom, Dick and Harry?
I think the Senator is confusing this with another section.
I am not confusing it at all. I know well what I am after.
I am talking about cottages vested by the tenants. According to the 1936 Act they must be put in a proper state of repair by the local authority before vesting. If after they are repaired by the local authority, the tenant is not satisfied that they are in a proper state of repair, he has the right of appeal to the Minister. The Minister sends down an inspector and in a very high percentage of cases that inspector has invariably lists of repairs that should have been carried out by the local authority and that now must be carried out by them.
I cannot agree with Senator Fitzgerald in his anxiety about this particular section because primarily you are dealing with the local authority engineer. I have had considerable experience in connection with repairs to cottages preparatory to vesting them. The House can accept it that the engineers of local authorities are in all cases prepared to do what is just and reasonable. We find cases, of course, where tenants who are able to have their cottages vested in them whom we think are unreasonable because they expect repairs to be carried out which they would not do themselves and which ordinary householders would not do.
When appeals have been made I feel the county engineers and inspectors of the Local Government Department have leaned over backwards, I might say, towards helping out the tenants. Invariably, the local authority engineers have dealt with this matter very fairly. Although the change may not appear to be necessary, I do not see any danger whatever in it.
I do not agree with Senator Flanagan on that because I never found anybody leaning over backwards so far as the local authority are concerned. I have found that doors and windows are left out. The only person who suffers because of this is the person inside the cottage. Sometimes when they have done some work to the cottage they do not even put back the half door or window.
I should like to support my colleague very strongly in regard to this amendment. I think it is absolutely essential. As I said on Second Stage, this is a most regrettable step backwards. Why does the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary want the change? I know it would be less costly to proceed on the lines on which he is proceeding when vesting. It would be much more costly, when payments have to be made under the health code, to endeavour to cure the results stemming from the effects that will shortly be necessary to ensure that sanitary conditions prevail although the dwelling is structurally sound. Such a dwelling could withstand the elements for hundreds of years thereby causing ill health and disease to succeeding occupants. Surely we want healthy families; not merely families housed in sturdy premises under insanitary health-destroying conditions.
I should like to give a little illustration of a case which might help the Minister to understand what I am getting at, It is perhaps this case which gives me so much anxiety about the step which the Minister proposes to take. I want to ask him to take a good long look at this amendment before he thinks of rejecting it. A young man of my acquaintance developed tuberculosis. His family was very comfortably circumstanced. They lived in a fine, perfectly structured house belonging to the company in which his father was in a senior executive position. In spite of good food and attention this young man's health declined. A long holiday away from home saw a great improvement in his health but when he returned his health declined again.
Three other members of that family developed tuberculosis. I discussed this matter with my late father who was an acknowledged expert in all branches of building and architecture. He examined the house and he said: "It is a fine house but it is a death trap. No one could be healthy and live in that house." He explained at great length what the shortcomings were— among them the fact that the wrong materials in relation to location had been used. These are things which go much deeper than window frames, coats of paint, woodworm or such matters. My father said that the house was in fine structural condition and repair but was completely insanitary and a menace to health.
That young man, aged 21 years, died of tuberculosis. Shortly afterwards the family moved to a house in the suburbs. A daughter already suffering from tuberculosis recovered. Other younger members of the family are today alive and in good health. I hope I can convince the Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister of the value of existing legislation and ask him very sincerely not to spoil what good is in the Bill by changing the existing law in this very important matter.
If we do not accept the amendment we will not spoil the Bill at all because I am quite convinced that if a cottage is put into good structural condition it will meet the case. We will try to avoid doing the finicky little jobs that can cost a lot of money. I will give an example of what it can cost to carry out some repairs by the local authorities. In Cork there were some cottages built 27 years ago. The annuity to be paid was £2 12s. 0d. and the cost of repairs carried out to those cottages was £363. The annuity on some houses which were built 50 years ago was £1 1s. 0d. and the cost of repairs carried out by the local authorities was £112. As I say, it is the small jobs which can be very costly.
The Minister feels very strongly about this matter. He feels the tenant should accept some responsibility for the small repairs which need to be carried out. If there is bad flooring in the house it has to be carried out by the local authority. A new roof has to be provided by the local authority. Interior and exterior plastering, new windows and frames have to be provided if the engineer is satisfied that they should be provided. It is the smaller type of job that we feel should be the responsibility of the tenant rather than of the local authority. We still think that the points will be met and that we can get satisfaction with the Bill as it stands rather than by accepting the amendment of the Labour Party.
I cannot for the life of me see why, if there is such gross inefficiency, it should be felt that the Parliamentary Secretary or anybody else should be responsible except the local authority for dealing with this matter. There must be something wrong locally, and instead of coming up here to try to get things changed they should be looked after there. In my county we do not have any of these troubles. Senator Flanagan is much better acquainted with this type of thing, and he has made a somewhat similar statement here already. We require a bit of commonsense in dealing with these things. It must be considered that a great many people to whom we have given cottages are people who had a very bad type of house before, and it is possible that they fail, when they go in there before the houses are vested, to keep them up to normal standards to which they should be kept. We have not this thing in our county, but of course we are a very advanced people down there. A lot of things have been talked about here which make very little sense. If you put a beggar on horseback he will ride to the devil. It is quite possible that it happens because of the way in which we select candidates for housing schemes, that we put people into houses who may require a little more training for that type of house before they are put into them. Afterwards they are not kept to the standard, but who is to blame? Not the local authority but the tenant. The trouble is that the local authority are blamed, and that is unfair.
What are we going to do? Are we going to continue in a circle in which we will paint every door and window, sweep every floor, for everybody going into a local authority house? I do not think we can do it. I do not see any reason why we should draw a line as between the ordinary small farmer in the country who builds and maintains his own house and this type of person put in by us into a local authority house. It is a very unfair division. I do not mind what anybody in the Labour Party says about it. Many of these people who go into our houses are much better off than the people who have to build their own houses with an ordinary grant and have to maintain them. I do not think that there has been a fair return. As far as we in the west are concerned— Senator Flanagan will bear me out on this—our county council are perfectly fair to these people and will go a long way out of its way to try to ensure that their houses are right. We do not ask them to vest them until the cottages are right, but after that we feel that they should put in their own doors and windows, tiles and slates and whatever else they have to put up. After that they should keep them in a reasonable condition. I want to say quite clearly that we do not use any compulsion but they do get it right.
I find it difficult to believe that the people in the west or in any part of Ireland are as backward as the previous speaker would have us believe they are. However, in Laois at any rate, they do not fit the description he painted. I wish to support this amendment because I believe that the tenants have a right to expect repairs, especially vesting repairs, but in many councils in the midlands with which I am acquainted the backlog of repairs is indeed regrettable. I find that it is necessary to have this particular section as strongly worded as possible in the interests of the tenants. For that reason I strongly support the amendment.
Vesting repairs certainly cause a problem. It is quite true that many of the tenants enjoy houses with very small rents. Nevertheless, the cottages in many instances are both old and small, and after vesting it gives the tenant an opportunity of availing of the grants and building on. It is imperative that the cottage should be handed over in a reasonable state of repair to the tenant. I am in favour of the vesting system because it gives people an opportunity of being proud of their own houses and gives them the value of the ownership of property, and the great improvement in the standard of cottages all over the country is admirable. Yet my sympathies are with the people who seek repairs. It is extraordinary to find that in many cases the weaker members of the community, the elderly people, who seek vesting repairs very often are complaining about a door being draughty or decayed and you will find contractors replacing them with a worse one, perhaps from another cottage. That happens over and over again. It is important for members of the county councils to keep on the track of all these things, especially since the money allocated for vesting has in most cases been restricted over the past few years. The people who are tenants, whether they are council houses or not, are entitled to have them put in a proper state of repair before they vest.
I am fully behind the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary in this matter of finicky repairs. Finicky repairs, or the need for them, should not arise. I am behind Senator Lenehan in that. I would like to see our people educated so that they would be proud of their houses, and painting the doors and windows, seeing that the doors do not fall into disrepair and that hinges are oiled, but for the life of me I cannot see how good sanitary conditions could be called finicky. Finicky repairs by no stretch of the imagination could come under the definition of sanitary conditions. It has nothing to do with sanitary conditions. I have a great deal of experience of the building industry and I do not see that painting doors, mending windows, correcting draughty doors and that kind of thing could be described as having anything to do with sanitary conditions of the premises by any stretch of the imagination. As I have said, I am fully behind the Minister. No Government Department, no local authority should have to do the little things one would do if one had built a house and owned it and was proud of it.
I should like to know why the Minister dropped the words "and sanitary condition"—what he calls finicky repairs. I should like to hear the Parliamentary Secretary relate finicky repairs to sanitary conditions. I see no connection. Sanitary science is taught in the building industry. It is looked upon as an important part of the training of architects and of people in charge of building construction. Sanitary science has always been looked upon as a very important and serious thing and I can assure the Seanad that sanitary science never dealt with finicky repairs.
It is a pity we have wasted so much time in discussing this matter. There is no difference between what is in the Bill and what was in the Act.
Time and again we have changed terminology and commented on it. To my mind, the present wording is far more satisfactory than the previous wording. You can have good structural conditions without structural repair. Repair means defects. The present wording is more satisfactory.
Good repair and sanitary conditions.
I know as much about cottages as anybody and as far as I know there is no such thing as sanitary services in cottages. Some of them may have been built close together and they may now have sanitary services, sewerage and water supplies. They are not in the cottages I know. Do we mean by sanitary conditions that there must be wallpaper on the walls?
We are wasting the time of the Seanad in discussing it. I repeat that the wording in the Bill is much more satisfactory. We are wasting time discussing a finicky thing.
We accept the Parliamentary Secretary's word that in the near future there will be no such thing as a house without water and sewerage.
No new houses, certainly.
When all the new houses have been put up, the old houses can then be dealt with. When we have got all houses with sewerage and water supplies we shall still have a Bill that omits sanitary conditions. A house with all the amenities could still be a very insanitary house. It could have damp walls even if they were structurally perfect. They could be houses without damp courses. Wrong materials could have been used. While we give the Minister full credit for providing that no new house will be without toilet accommodation and water, we ask why he wants to leave out sanitary conditions.
I should like to support the amendment. One of the big problems of the local authorities is to get tenants to vest. Local authorities want to get the houses off their hands. Speaking from experience of my own county only, we hope in the course of the next few years to arrive at the maximum number of vestings with only isolated cases where vesting would not be practicable. The main reason why so many tenants in my county are vesting is because we are doing a first-class job of repair to houses before vesting. When a house is vested, if the occupier is not thoroughly satisfied he can appeal to the Minister, an inspector will come and see whether further repairs are necessary.
There are very old houses in the county which cost more to repair than they cost to build but they have to be brought up to the standard Senator Miss Davidson spoke about. It is unfair and unreasonable to ask people to accept less when they are vesting. It is costing the ratepayers a sizeable amount of money but it is money well spent. Having taken over a well-repaired house, structurally sound, sanitary serviced, people are proud of their houses and make every effort to keep them that way. We have had example after example of this. Any attempt to change that system will not be for the benefit of the local authorities or the people concerned.
The house a tenant seeks to vest is the house in which he has been living, the house for which he has been paying rent. He knows the condition of the house. No amount of work that can be done will repair damp courses in houses which did not have damp courses from the beginning and no amount of work will make a house up to the point where it satisfies a tenant who wants to be unreasonable. I have had experience of this.
Ninety per cent of the cottages in Mayo have been vested and the remaining ten per cent are not vested because the tenants have chosen to be unreasonable. It may be over a crack in the ceiling. The ordinary occupier will agree it is something that cannot be repaired but an unreasonable tenant will say he wants a new ceiling. If sanitary services are put into old cottages there must be a change of rent. The expenditure is taken into account and a new rent must be fixed for the cottage. I repeat that a cottage vested is a cottage in which the person has lived for a number of years. Everything reasonable will be done. Any defects—timbers, flooring, windows, doors and door frames—are invariably put in. I do not think Senators on the other side need be so uneasy. We are dealing with professional people who are anxious to do the right thing as between the tenant and the ratepayer.
This amendment is not put down to help the people who want to get finicky repairs done. We all realise that there are many unreasonable people in the country, some of them living in labourers' cottages. The Parliamentary Secretary mentioned a cottage which cost £363 to repair which was set at an annuity of £2 12s., approximately 1/- a week. If that cost £363 to repair there are two reasons why it could have fallen into that state. Firstly, the occupier could have been a very bad tenant, but, secondly, you could have a reasonably good tenant in that house, and because the local authority in question did not make any attempt to keep the house in repair for a long number of years the result was, when the tenant went to vest his house, the local authority found it was in a very bad state of repair. Therefore, after many years they went to repair that house knowing they would be vesting it at 1/- per week.
The Parliamentary Secretary mentioned that I need not worry about door or window frames or floor boards. We all know, and I say this with all due respect to Senator Flanagan, who is an engineer and has experience of this, that there are engineers going to labourers' cottages and making out a list of repairs to be carried out and if there are one or two broken boards on the floor they are prepared to take out these two boards and put in new ones, but they are not prepared to put in a new floor.
What would an ordinary ratepayer do in his own case?
I am not concerned with what an ordinary ratepayer would do in his own case. I am specifically concerned with the labourer's cottage the occupier of which is also a ratepayer.
You have two responsibilities — responsibility to the local authority and——
(Interruptions.)
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Order; Senator Fitzgerald, to continue.
We have also examples of a very bad door in a labourer's cottage and the engineer goes out and says the bottom of the door is bad all right and he sends a carpenter out who cuts two and a half feet off the door and it is repaired. We come to the bigger issues and I agree with Senator Flanagan when he mentions that nothing we put in the Bill will enable anybody to put a damp course in a house already erected. But, there is something we can put in this Bill and which we are now taking out of the law which would enable a tenant to get a damp course put on the roof of his house which was not put there when the house was erected. That has been done to my knowledge. That would be a hefty bill for somebody who would have to vest his house knowing that that house has no damp course under the roof. That was done not long ago. I can mention a specific case and the roof had to be taken off as a result of an appeal to the Department of Local Government and new felt was put under the roof. That was a very important thing for the tenant. That was his right under the 1936 Act but I wonder will he have that right under the 1965 Act if this amendment is not accepted.
I think Senator Miss Davidson and Senator Fitzgerald are looking for a hypothetical law for hypothetical people.
I am looking for a continuation of the old law.
I doubt that anybody has more experience of these things than Senator Flanagan. The same position exists down in Mayo, believe it or not, and we are no different from others.
I thought the Mayo people were different.
I do not know whether we are a more advanced people in Mayo or not but we have not these problems at all. Unfortunately, it is not a question of this Bill alone; it is the same with most Bills going through. I always hear people arguing on a hypothetical basis. Senators here do not argue about how people live in this country. They argue as if people did not exist. We in Mayo bring our houses up to a good standard. The people see the houses before they vest them. They have to sign a document before they vest and nobody is so completely daft as to sign the document unless he is satisfied beforehand.
Deputy Flanagan said there were ten per cent not vested. I do not think that is right. I would say that it is two per cent. Senators opposite should examine their conscience in the light of this fact. It is all right to say that the Minister is introducing some type of law that will make things difficult for tenants. We have bent forward several times to help our tenants. The unfortunate thing coming out here is that you are trying to brand local authorities and landlords with making a profit. We should have commonsense. We are giving these people houses at a price that is unknown in any part of the world. We should be reasonable and fair and I do not think Senators opposite are.
I agree thoroughly with Senator Lenehan that local authorities have been operating fairly, that in Mayo they are advanced and that cottages are repaired to the satisfaction of reasonable people taking possession of them. All we are asking is that the same position will continue, that the same authority and direction to the local authority will continue under this legislation as heretofore. I am saying that good repairs and sanitary conditions should continue, and not be altered. Senator Flanagan has wide experience in this matter. He told us that the local authority engineers and the local authorities themselves operate this reasonably and there are no complaints. We agree. We are only asking that that position should continue, that it should not be changed and that we should not proceed to give different directions to the local engineers and local authorities. I think we have general acceptance all round and that is a proper and good thing.
This is an amendment to a section but it is a section in a whole Housing Bill. I presume it is the wish of the House to try to improve the housing conditions of all our people. If I am purchasing a house, the local authority and Government Departments inspect that house and make sure that I, as an ordinary purchaser, will get a house that is in a proper condition. I do not know what the definitions are but I make quite sure that I will get a good house.
We are talking about the tenants of local authorities. They are entitled to this protection when they are purchasing a house which forever after they will maintain in good order and condition because it will be their own property. They should continue to be treated as they have been treated. That is, the cottage should be in good repair and there should be good sanitary conditions. An argument has not been made, I suggest, for altering that position by changing those directions.
We were told that there is some argument about cost. In other words, we will save on these people. I do not agree with that. We should continue to treat them as we have been treating them and the words and the direction in this respect should remain as they have been, and we are sure they have operated fairly in Mayo and other counties.
The position has been clarified somewhat as far as this question of good repair and sanitary conditions go. We find now in the case made for it that it does not necessarily follow that we have to have flush toilets. Under the 1936 Act we had no such things. Senator Miss Davidson made a point about such things as ground damp. This comes up through the walls because no damp course was provided. This is something which is happening in houses erected 50, 60, 70 or 80 years ago. What can we do about it? Can you put a damp course in now? We would not have been able to put in a damp course under the 1936 Labourers Act either so where does one go from there in regard to that part of the section which deals with sanitary conditions? Damp is what we are getting at here.
Modern techniques can control damp, even without a damp course, to a very great extent.
Not very effectively, I am afraid. I have tried it myself on a number of occasions and it is not that easy. At the same time, under the 1936 Labourers Act we had some old council cottages which did not have this facility. Yet the tenants were prepared to vest them if they were replastered inside.
But they can still be replastered under this Bill. If a tenant wishes to vest his cottage he calls for an engineer who comes along and finds, maybe, that the plaster work three feet from the floor is damp; he recommends that the plaster be removed and the wall replastered. It can be done by patchwork. That was the position under the 1936 Labourers Act. It would still be the same position under this Bill.
Senator J. Fitzgerald talked about felt on a roof. Fifty years ago they did not put any felt on roofs.
I was talking about a house built less than 50 years ago.
What happens where the house was erected when felt was not in use for that purpose and instead of felt you had rendering underneath the slates which has since fallen away? Do you think we should now put on felt?
If section 106 means what the Parliamentary Secretary is telling us it means, we will have to do that.
It would still be structurally sound. Would it not happen in any house built over the last 40 or 50 years? In the case of houses built in the 1930s felt had to be placed on the roof underneath the tiles and some contractors, I take it, got away with it, took the chance that the engineer was not around and subsequently somebody found out. It was the responsibility of the local authority to see that the job was done in the first instance. Bad supervision caused the local authority this added expense and they would be obliged to incur it.
As far as putting a house in good sanitary condition is concerned, the wording of the present Bill will be as effective as the 1936 Labourers Act. The only addition is that we find, on appeal, that while there might be one major item the rest of them are all cracked panes of glass, one knob missing on the door and tenants expect the local authority to provide these things. Our engineers try to lean over backwards to meet the wishes of the tenants. While I said earlier that 70 per cent of the people who appeal get the important work done, the other items are excluded. Senator J. Fitzgerald made this point and rightly so. I knew cases where a council engineer would decide to put in three or four floorboards. The tenant might feel there should be three or four more but there is nothing to stop the tenant appealing against that decision and getting the work done if he has a case to make and if there is justice in his case. Again, we have the right of appeal to the Minister under this Bill, so we are quite satisfied that the wording of the Bill, as it is, meets the case and that it will as far as the tenant is concerned. His interests will be looked after just as well as they were under the 1936 Labourers Act.
Many appeals are lodged with the Department for cracked panes of glass or a lock on an internal door which should, in the normal course of events, be the responsibility of the tenant. Most of these cases, of course, are turned down but, all in all, we feel that the wording of the Bill will meet these cases and we are quite happy about it.
I want to emphasise that we are not putting down this amendment so that those unreasonable people can have those little repairs the Parliamentary Secretary has mentioned carried out. We know that is unreasonable. We know these unreasonable requests have been made to the Department, to local authority engineers and local authority representatives but this is something we have got to live with and about which we have got to be as broadminded as we can. This amendment is put down to ensure that we will continue to treat tenants vesting their cottages in the same way as they would have been treated under the 1936 Labourers Act. As I pointed out, this Act, passed over 30 years ago was advocated for a very long time by a Cottage Tenants' Association. Senator Dr. Ryan will be able to name the Minister for Local Government in the Fianna Fáil Government who introduced it. The section I quoted from that Act was a very useful one. The changes, to my mind, are drastic. It is very obvious that this is an attempt to discourage people from making appeals to the Department of Local Government because there is another change in this, which has not been mentioned by anybody and which I intend to mention now. It is that not alone has there been a change in the Act whereby you must within 21 days write in to the Minister making an appeal against repairs carried out by your local authority but now it must be accompanied by a fee which will be specified by the Minister for Local Government. When the fee is specified it may mean that that will again help to discourage a person from appealing to the Minister for Local Government.
Question put: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand".
The Seanad divided: Tá, 24: Níl, 13.
Tá
- Boland, Gerald.
- Brennan, John J.
- Brown, Seán.
- Cole, John C.
- Connolly, O'Brien, Nora.
- Dolan, Séamus.
- Eachthéirn, Cáit Uí.
- Egan, Kiernan P.
- Farrell, Joseph.
- Flanagan, Thomas P.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Lenehan, Joseph R.
- McGlinchey, Bernard.
- McGowan, Patrick.
- Martin, James J.
- Ó Donnabháin, Seán.
- O'Reilly, Patrick (Longford).
- Ormonde, John.
- Ryan, Eoin.
- Ryan, James.
- Ryan, William.
- Sheldon, William A.W.
- Teehan, Patrick J.
- Yeats, Michael.
Níl
- Conlon, John F.
- Crowley, Patrick.
- Davidson, Mary F.
- Dooge, James C.I.
- Fitzgerald, John.
- Jessop, W.J.E.
- McDonald, Charles.
- McHugh, Vincent.
- Malone, Patrick.
- Mannion, John.
- Murphy, Dominick F.
- O'Reilly, Patrick (Cavan).
- O'Sullivan, Denis J.
Tellers:—Tá: Senators Farrell and Brown; Níl: Senators J. Fitzgerald and Murphy.
Question declared carried.
Amendments Nos. 45 and 46 not moved.
Section 106 agreed to.
SECTION 107.
Amendment No. 47 not moved.
Section 107 agreed to.
Sections 108 to 110, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 111.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
It is proposed to take amendments Nos. 48, 54 and 55 together.
Government amendment No. 48:
In subsection (4), lines 39 to 42, to delete the following:
"—
(a) a body, other than a housing authority, to prosecute an offence under this Act,
(b)".
The purpose of this amendment is to enable a body performing a function on behalf of the Minister where a housing authority have failed to carry out such function to prosecute an offence where necessary. It follows that if a body is to be empowered to carry out such functions in certain circumstances it must also be enabled to prosecute offences committed in connection with the performance of the functions. For example, if the National Building Agency were required to discharge a local authority's functions in regard to overcrowded and unfit property it would need the power to prosecute.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 111, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 112 to 114, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 115.
Government amendment No. 49:
In subsection (2), line 47, to delete "by the" and substitute "by a".
This is purely a drafting amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 50:
In subsection (2), line 47, to delete "shall" and substitute "shall not" and in line 48 to delete "also".
I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will consider accepting this amendment which is somewhat different from the proposal I made on Second Stage. It is designed to permit a tenant member of a housing authority to exercise his vote in so far as it relates to rates and dwellings even where his own house is part of a collective scheme but the withdrawal of his right to vote where a proposal concerns his personal dwelling and rent only. It seems rather unfair that such a tenant should be prevented from voting when a resolution on a question arises concerning the whole scheme in which he might be one of several hundred tenants.
I am afraid we are not prepared to accept the amendment because we feel that a local representative should not be in a position to vote for something in relation to which he may himself be a beneficiary. I am not quite sure if I got the point made by the Senator but I think I know what she is trying to get at. A councillor could vote, for instance, to allow rents to be increased in a housing scheme which would be outside his own electoral area.
Not necessarily. If his cottage was one of a fairly large scheme of cottages and there was a proposal to raise or lower the rents of the whole scheme, it would be unfair if he was not permitted to take part in that collective voting. We would be prepared to concede, if the rent under discussion was his own personal rent, the withdrawal of his vote in those circumstances. I pointed out, on Second Reading, that if a number of tenants lived in a scheme of this nature they would be prevented, as the law stands at the moment, from voting on a proposal to raise the rents whereas another councillor who might be the local publican or the local millowner could vote for the raising of the rents. He would have a beneficial interest in the rents, going up for the simple reason that if they went up his rates could go down substantially. This is unfair discrimination. As I say, we would concede that he should be stopped from voting on his own personal rent but we still think he should be able to vote on the collective scheme perhaps even of raising the rent in the whole scheme but not of his own personal house.
Would not the decision of a collective scheme affect him if he was a tenant?
Therefore, he would be a beneficiary.
Would not the millowner also be a beneficiary?
Do you mean the millowner who is a councillor?
His vote would be of benefit to the whole rent-paying community if the result of his vote was to bring about a saving in the rents.
Yes, but he might be a big ratepayer and save up to £200 a year.
I suppose that could be so but I doubt very much that that would happen. He would want to be a substantial ratepayer.
If he was a millowner he would be a substantial ratepayer.
The worst feature of this section, as I see it, is that it denies a public representative, because of his station in life, he may be of the working class, to play his full part on a local authority to which he was elected. That is the first and most serious objection I have to the section. The fixing of the rents of cottages is primarily a managerial function. The manager in most cases will determine what that rent may be and a local authority who may feel that the manager is laying it on and charging what they feel is an excessive rent may pressurise the manager into reducing the rent somewhat. The local authority as such will find it very difficult to get the manager to agree to accept a rent if he feels that it is not an economic one. There is nothing wrong in anyone who is about to become a tenant of an isolated cottage—the Parliamentary Secretary and those in the rural areas will know what I mean—being precluded from fixing the rent because he is going in as a beneficiary, but if we come to the terrace or scheme of houses that may be allocated by the county council and the council member is getting one of those houses it is wrong to deprive that public representative of the right to play his part in the fixing of a rent for the entire terrace, because even if he were not getting one of those houses himself his brother or his sister might be getting one, and in that way he would be playing an equally important part as if he were fixing the rent of the terrace and had been appointed tenant of one himself. There does not seem to be much sense in the section, but what I take strong exception to the section for is that it deprives an elected public representative of his right to play his full part on the local authority because he happens to be a member of that section of the community who would be entitled to be housed by a local authority.
It does not necessarily have to be confined to members who are tenants. No man can vote himself a contract for the county council. The councillor who is a contractor for the supply of meat or vegetables or is a building contractor cannot vote himself a contract for the council. An employee of the council cannot vote himself an increase in wages.
Under our amendment he would not be able to vote.
This is the principle there for some time. However, if it is acceptable to the Senators, I would ask the Minister to have a look at it between now and the Report Stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Government amendment No. 51:
In subsection (5), page 74, line 18, before "so" to insert "or".
This is a drafting amendment. It inserts the word "or" which was inadvertently omitted in line 18. Without this word the subsection would lose its meaning.
Amendment agreed to.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
The Chair would suggest that amendments Nos. 52 and 53 be debated together, if that is agreed.
I move amendment No. 52:
To add to the section a new subsections as follows:
( ) A person voting as a member of a housing authority (or any committee mentioned in section 110) upon any resolution or question which is proposed or arises under sections 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 39, 40, 53, 55, 56, 57, 58, 60, 70, 90 and 97 shall not be deemed to be beneficially interested therein.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 53:
To add to the section a new subsection as follows:
( ) A person voting as a member of a local authority upon any resolution under section 4 of the City and County Management (Amendment) Act, 1955, relating to sections 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 39, 40, 53, 55, 56, 57, 58, 60, 70, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 90, 97, 98, 106 and 112 shall not be deemed to be beneficially interested therein.
In view of the Parliamentary Secretary's undertaking with regard to amendment No. 50, I will withdraw this amendment, as well, for further debate on Report Stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed: "That section 115, as amended, stand part of the Bill".
On section 115 generally, particularly after what Senator Fitzgerald has said, I feel that this is one of those cases that people in local authorities and other committees have met before. It is very difficult sometimes to make a decision as to whether a person has a beneficial interest or not. You find those cases mentioned by Senator Fitzgerald where you have a relation, perhaps a distant relation, and how far out are you going to go with relations to know where the representative has a beneficial interest in the vote or not? I am not quite sure that we could not come to some arrangement where the authority or whatever it may be could by unanimous decision decide that the person was entitled to vote. It is practically impossible to put down in rules what we want to do because you will always get a difficult case to decide. If it is going to be left to the individual to make the decision it might be very embarrassing to him and to his constituents. If it is left to the Chairman it will be equally embarrassing to him. It should be left, perhaps, to the local authority itself, that it could decide by either a two-thirds majority or by a unanimous decision in any case like this where it was doubtful whether the person had a beneficial interest or not. Even in cases where perhaps the person himself was gaining some benefit but the whole feeling of the council or other authority was that he should be allowed by a majority or a unanimous decision of those at the meeting to vote or otherwise as they thought fit, then this would be a solution. It is an impossible question for the Chairman or the person himself or anybody to draw the line.
I am not at all happy either, about this section. There are very few instances in which a member of any county council will have an opportunity of voting for anything that will benefit itself with the possible exception of fixing a rent. Somebody mentioned contracts, but the placing of contracts, as most members know, is a managerial function and, therefore, does not come before the county council as such. For that reason I feel that it is wrong to debar members of a local authority in any way. After all, the number of public-spirited men and women prepared to give a considerable amount of their time in this voluntary public service is limited enough without putting in these restrictions, because of the fact that the only case I can see when members of a local authority would have an opportunity of being involved is in the case where a member is a tenant of the council and the council is fixing rent for his particular house or housing scheme. Members of a local authority are not eligible to tender for supplies to our institutions, therefore it would not arise in cases of that kind.
Perhaps the Bill would be better without this entire section. On the other hand, even when the council are getting down to fixing a rent for a member who is a tenant and his neighbour knows that he is a member of the council, and the council decide to fix the rent and his name does not appear in the local paper as being for or against it, it is very harmful to that individual member, because people will not understand that he was statute barred from taking part and will think that he was shirking his duties and responsibilities. In all, section 115 is one that will not help individual members of our county councils throughout the country, and for that reason it is a pity that it should be left in the Bill, because the amount of abuse this section will get in the years ahead or similar instances in past years are, indeed, very few, if any, at all. Since the Parliamentary Secretary was good enough to say that they would have another look at it, perhaps he would go further and consider dropping the entire section altogether.
I am afraid I cannot go that far, tonight anyway. I have indicated that I shall ask the Minister to have another look at it. I am quite sure he will note the points made by Senators.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 116.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Amendments Nos. 54 and 55 to this section have already been debated.
Government amendment No. 54:
In subsection (1) (a), line 27, to delete "or".
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 55:
In subsection (1) (b), after "that authority" in line 29 and before line 30, to insert the following:
", or
(c) in case the function is being performed by a person—that person".
Amendment agreed to.
Section 116, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 117 to 120, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 121.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
The amendments to section 121 have been ruled out of order.
Amendment No. 56 not moved.
Amendment No. 57 not moved.
Schedules agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments.
Report Stage ordered for Wednesday, 18th May, 1966.
The Seanad adjourned at 9.5 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Wednesday, 11th May, 1966.
