This is a short Bill with a strictly limited purpose of enabling a housing authority, at their discretion, to take account of persons resident outside the authority's functional area in assessing housing needs and also to build houses for and to let houses to such persons. It will overcome the difficulties and confusion that have arisen in relation to the letting of some local authority houses and other local authority housing functions following the Supreme Court judgment in the case of McNamee versus Buncrana Urban District Council (Reference 117-1983). In that case the court ruled that the council are not entitled to house people who are not resident in the functional area of the council. The plaintiffs, who were applicants for a house from Buncrana UDC, sought a declaration that the council were acting ultra vires in purporting to allocate houses to persons residing outside the council's functional area. The High Court granted the declaration sought on 8 March 1983. An appeal to the Supreme Court by Buncrana UDC was rejected on 30 June 1983 and the decision of the High Court was confirmed.
In considering the case, the Supreme Court had regard, in particular, to the provisions of sections 53, 55 and 60 of the Housing Act, 1966. Section 53 places a duty on housing authorities to assess, at least every five years, the housing needs — accumulated and prospective — of their functional areas. Section 55 imposes a further duty on authorities to prepare a building programme having regard to the housing needs of their functional area and taking account of certain statutory objectives. Section 60 obliges authorities to make a scheme of letting priorities for the letting of houses having regard to certain statutory primary objectives. These primary objectives relate mainly to the elimination of unfitness and overcrowding and the housing of persons in need of housing who cannot provide it from their own resources. In delivering the judgment the Chief Justice said in relation to these provisions and I quote:
In my view, it is quite clear that these various duties and obligations so imposed on housing authorities, applied to each housing authority in relation to its own functional area, and, having regard to the housing needs of that particular area.
Concluding the judgment the Chief Justice went on to say, and I quote again:
I do not think the Buncrana Urban District Council are entitled to house people who are not resident in its functional area. The duty of the Buncrana Urban District Council is to allocate the houses, which they have provided, in accordance with a scheme of priorities which enables them to house suitable applicants who fit within the designated categories and who reside or are domiciled within the functional area of the Council.
As interpreted by the Supreme Court, sections 53, 55 and 60 of the 1966 Act would put undesirable restrictions on individual local authorities in the execution of their functions in assessing housing needs and in the building and letting of houses. The sections would hinder housing authorities in entering into mutually advantageous arrangements between themselves for the housing of applicants in a particular locality in the most speedy, economical and convenient way possible. They would give undue importance to the sometimes random effects of local boundaries on the rehousing prospects of needy families. They would also cause difficulties for the inter-transfer of tenants between housing authorities, and could, in some circumstances, conceivably be construed as placing restrictions on the making by a local authority of loans for the purchase or building of houses. Furthermore, it is right and proper that comprehensive assessments of the future housing needs of any particular area should be able to take account of, and provide for, any anticipated migration from outside the area. I am, therefore, satisfied that there is need to amend the provisions of the 1966 Act which have given rise to these problems and anomalies.
The present Bill expressly enables a housing authority, to such extent as they consider appropriate, to have regard to persons residing outside the area of the authority in the assessment of housing needs and in the building and letting of houses. This is being done in the most straightforward manner possible by simply providing explicit powers in the three sections concerned enabling a housing authority:
(a) in assessing the housing requirements of their functional area under section 53, to have regard to the prospective demand for housing from persons residing outside the area who are likely for any reason to come into the area;
(b) in preparing their building programme under section 55, to have as an objective, the provision of houses for persons residing outside their functional area; and
(c) in making a scheme of letting priorities under section 60, to have as a primary objective the provision of houses for persons residing outside their functional area who are seeking accommodation within the area and who are not in a position to provide it from their own resources.
I should stress that these are enabling provisions and that the extent, if any, to which they are used by any housing authority is entirely at the discretion of that authority. They do not compel a housing authority who decide otherwise to have regard to persons outside their functional area. Basically, this Bill seeks to do no more than to restore the position to what it was widely considered to be prior to the Supreme Court judgment. These new provisions are being given retrospective effect to remove any doubts about the validity of any past actions taken in good faith by housing authorities.
The Bill will, therefore, facilitate improved co-operation between housing authorities in the provision and letting of houses and the arrangement of transfers. It will give those authorities who are undertaking joint schemes to meet the housing needs of particular localities greater flexibility in making the most advantageous arrangements for the letting of such houses.
On a more general note, I should say that there is now a fairly widely recognised need for a more fundamental review of Part III of the Housing Act, 1966 which relates to the provision and management of local authority dwellings and which includes the three sections now being amended. This review is already under way in my Department and it is my intention now to press ahead with it as quickly as possible and to have new legislative proposals formulated. One of the main objectives of these proposals, which I would hope to be able to present to the Houses of the Oireachtas by about midyear, will be to provide a better legislative framework within which the question of homelessness can be tackled effectively.
However, the object of this Bill could not await these more extensive proposals. I am satisfied that the problems flowing from the Supreme Court judgment are such as to require prompt amending legislation to restore the position. Action on these lines has been sought by a number of local authorities and the Bill had the support of all sides in Dáil Éireann.
I commend the Bill to the Seanad.