Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 1 Feb 1984

Vol. 102 No. 13

Housing Bill, 1983: Second Stage.

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

Minister for the Environment (Mr. Kavanagh)

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.

Mr. M. O'Toole

First of all, let me welcome the Minister to the House and wish him every success in his new portfolio in the Department of the Environment.

As this is a very limited Bill, if I go over the border in trying to make a point I will get back to the Bill as fast as I possibly can. The Bill arose out of the McNamee-Buncrana case and the ruling of the court was that the duty of a local authority is to decide on the allocation of homes which they have provided in accordance with the 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 local authority area. I want first to compliment the housing administration authorities throughout the country on the way that they have operated the 1966 Housing Act. I do not presume to be a judge in the McNamee case but it would appear to me that this was a case of somebody having a chip on the shoulder. Since no other person has challenged the Housing Act by bringing a case before the courts it would seem that our housing administrators did a very legitimate job in regard to the applicants before them.

The housing for the first time of people from caravans and camping sites and in poor housing conditions needs administration on a humanitarian basis in order to get the best results. My county has excellent local authority housing administration, as is the case in most counties. We have housed many hundreds of people and the 1966 Housing Act has not come into question. One county medical officer wanted to house every itinerant in Mayo. All an itinerant family had to do was to get two hazel sticks and some canvas and move out the road and then the county medical officer would recommend them for inclusion on the local authority housing list.

In urban areas in Mayo people on housing lists are genuinely waiting to be housed, and people coming in from other counties and from outside the rural area qualify for housing within those urban areas. The Bill is intended to prevent this practice. The situation has its pros and cons.

With regard to the jurisdiction outside the local authority functional area, what will the entitlement be under the Bill? People return from England and the United States and they find themselves in a local authority functional area. Some of these people are fairly well off, others not so well off. They apply for accommodation in old people's homes, for instance, and for ordinary tenancy of local authority housing. The administration dealing with these cases should be able to handle them within their own formula for allocation of houses, but where does the functional area of a local authority end? Does it go over the Border into the Six Counties or across to Great Britain? Does it go into another county? We must have a definition from the Minister on what will now be the functional area of a local authority in the provision of rented housing.

I understand that the retrospective clause which the Minister speaks about will cover all applicants who received houses and applicants who did not receive houses and who may be thinking of bringing actions against the local authorities concerned. I would like the Minister to explain what he means by "retrospective".

I wish the Bill every success. Housing is of prime importance to human beings and to their happy residential living in our community. Good housing means contentment. The Minister is sensitive enough to know that and also that any available moneys to meet the housing needs that our population explosion will bring about in the years ahead must not be static but must continually be increased. We have not got the increase in this year's budget that we would like to have got.

Mr. Ferris

I welcome the Minister, Deputy Kavanagh, to this House in his new capacity as Minister for the Environment. I wish him well in his new post. I have no doubt that he will show the same dedication in this Ministry as he has shown in previous Ministries which he has held. This legislation is indicative of the kind of progress he wants to make. I congratulate him for responding so quickly in a legislative manner to the problem that has been created by the findings of the High Court which were later upheld by the Supreme Court.

It is appropriate that the Houses of the Oireachtas should legislate for the needs of the people. If the courts at times find that legislation enacted in the past shows some deficiencies, it is our duty to respond with the correct legislation. This enabling Housing Bill, 1983, does that.

People's need for houses is the most predominant factor, the overriding factor that any local authority who are a housing authority should look at, irrespective of where people live or work.

I have been reminded by my colleague, Senator Michael Higgins, that people have a constitutional right to be treated equally, particularly by the Government as the overall, responding authority with responsibility for providing finance. Irrespective of where the person lives, it is where the need is and where it can be met at the quickest possible time that is important. My county council in South Tipperary, which borders on Waterford and Limerick, have ignored county boundaries in the past because we have looked at people's needs rather than where they resided, temporarily or otherwise.

It is important that a person, not the Supreme Court or the High Court, should decide where he should be housed. People themselves have a right of choice and often that choice is based on family and work reasons. In County Limerick, for instance, where it adjoins County Tipperary at Galbally and Lisvernane, two housing schemes are in progress. The parishes in that area ignore the county border and the county council have also ignored it. We have housed people from Galbally which is technically in County Limerick and we have housed them in Lisvernane in County Tipperary. We have housed them in places in which possibly their parents originated and where work is available. People have a right to choose where they live. Any restrictions put upon housing authorities to house people only within their housing jurisdiction would be an infringement of people's rights. The fact that this legislation is retrospective puts out of the question that any lettings that we might have made in the past could be found to be unconstitutional under this decision of the courts.

I commend the Minister for responding so quickly, particularly as housing lists have been held up resulting from the court decision. Think of towns such as Navan, with a population of possibly 4,000 and almost 7,000 people living on the border. In Ennis, the Leas-Chathaoirleach's area, many people are living on the county boundary with Galway and Limerick. I have no doubt that the housing authority in Ennis would respond to the needs of people, wherever they live, if they want to live in the area. I am sure you, a Leas-Chathaoirligh, would welcome them as part of your electorate on the voting register.

There should be a free movement of people and local authorities should assist that. They should match the challenge demanded of us by providing houses. It is appropriate on this Bill to congratulate the Minister on announcing in the other House an increase in the SDA loans and income limits to encourage people to provide their own houses through their own ingenuity. Assistance given by the State in that direction is a welcome feature of the Minister's enthusiasm for the Department he has inherited. I congratulate and thank him. I have no doubt that this legislation will get a speedy passage through this House so that it can become law and make all former and future lettings of county councils the responsibility of county councils.

Mrs. Honan

I should like to welcome the Minister, Deputy Kavanagh, to the Seanad. From my long association with local government I consider this to be the most important portfolio. I sincerely wish the Minister well. Once again we find how removed from everyday living and the problems of people that some of our legal people are. If they were dealing with housing and giving homes to people as elected representatives on all sides of the House do, I am sure they might understand the dreadful problem more clearly. For that reason the decision given in the recent court case might not have been as stupid as it was.

Acting Chairman (Mr. Howard)

A criticism of a court decision is not in order.

Mr. Ferris

The Senator has said it and that is that.

Mrs. Honan

I do not apologise for saying it. For the Acting Chairman to pull me up when I was criticising a court decision that stopped our council giving out 44 keys in his home town was very brave. Some of those people have been waiting for approximately two months for their keys and their homes because of this court decision. I had a most unusual human situation last week when we had to take a family into our home because the mother is expecting twins in a week's time. I had to move her temporarily out of a horrible caravan into my own home and try to fix her up in another place. Her house is ready for occupation but she cannot take up residence because of the result of the court case. It has created difficulties for us as a local authority, for Senator Ferris and other public representatives.

I am happy to support this legislation. I am not surprised it was brought in with speed by the Minister. This is a necessary legislative measure to resolve the position as a result of recent events. I do not think the Housing Act, 1966, should have been interpreted in the way it was. That Act was good and worked well, as Senator O'Toole said for a long number of years and for many local authorities. I am now in the position that I cannot refer to the court case although the Bill has been introduced as a result of the court case. I am totally confused.

Acting Chairman

I should like to explain that while reference can be made to the court decision, a criticism of the decision is not in order.

Mrs. Honan

The court findings if allowed to stand would only create a further division between urban and rural people. At a time when there is a need for a united stand on everything this would have the wrong effect. As a member of Ennis Urban District Council I am aware that we must first house the people within the immediate boundary of that council but we always have housed people in need. I understand that the giving of the houses is the executive function of the county manager. In Ennis we have a very good system. A meeting of the top health officials, the county manager, county secretary and town clerk is held first and the housing list prepared. Politics do not play any part in it. At that meeting all information on the need of a family to be housed is processed. It is a very good exercise and is probably similar to procedures operating in many constituencies. We always finish up with the right people getting the houses and flats.

I should like to comment on the record of the Ennis Urban District Council. I may be going outside the scope of the Bill but I am proud to highlight our record of 238 houses to rent, 100 private sites, flats for newly weds, 65 units for old people and houses for the disabled and so on. Some Members said single mothers were not being housed in some constituencies and it is nice to know that we have done that in Ennis and in County Clare. Of course, we nearly always do the right thing in Clare. We have housed one-parent families — we housed five such families — and we have also housed seven unmarried mothers. It would be a great exercise if the people in the legal world knew how rough it is to house needy people. Local representatives know the cases of people who need homes and that is why I have always had very strong views on the real situation. It may create a lot of hassle for us but we have an advantage after serving on local government when we rise to national level. It is a definite advantage when one is looking for a house for a constituent. Families will talk to the local representative and that person will know their problems. I am aware that other county councils operate this system.

Senator O'Toole referred to the record of county councils. Will the Minister give his blessing soon to our CPO for Ennis in his Department since December 1983? It is not very long there but he should examine it.

The Minister in the Dáil on 14 December, as reported in the Dáil Official Report at column 1979 said:

Basically, this Bill seeks to do no more than 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.

On a more general note, I should say that there is now a 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. I intend to proceed as quickly as possible with this review and the formulation of legislative proposals.

I welcome that statement. It is correcting the wrongs that were done. I would not expect anything else from the Minister. I thank the Minister for listening and I support the Bill.

Mr. Cregan

I should like to welcome the Minister, Deputy Kavanagh, to the House in his capacity as Minister for the Environment. We had some dealings with him in Cork some time ago when he was Minister for Labour and we were very impressed and encouraged by his coolness and calmness. I am confident that he will continue in that manner as Minister for the Environment. He has my heartiest congratulations, and I hope that he will be Minister for the Environment for a long time.

It is unfortunate that we have a Bill of this type before us this morning and that particular urban councils are saying that people outside their areas do not get priority and courts are prepared to uphold that. It is unfortunate that urban councils are not prepared to give priority to people outside their area. If we did not implement this Bill, we could have urban councils not building any houses for a long time because of this court ruling or because of the view some of them take that they do not have to accommodate anybody outside their own area. Some urban councils could suffer because of this. To be honest and reasonable about this, if I felt they were thinking that way I would let them suffer the consequences. It would be very narrow and bad minded of members of local authorities or urban councils to say that only those living within their district areas should get accommodation. If would be unfortunate if we had people thinking that way or going by the book. As other Senators have stated, this does not prevail in other parts. I would be sad if I learned that Cork Corporation were not prepared to accommodate a person because he or she lived across the bridge in Douglas, an area that is in the centre of the city but is governed by the county council. I would be annoyed if there was a ruling to the effect that the corporation would not build in the county area because it was not part of their property. I am glad to be able to report that there is great co-operation between Cork Corporation and Cork County Council in the provision of accommodation for the less well-off. Both authorities adhere to a list of priority cases.

In recent years quite an amount of work has been carried out in those areas, and we are proud of that. I am chairman of the housing committee of Cork Corporation, and I can state that we have not been so far ahead in the task of accommodating people in need in 20 years. All members of that authority are sincere when it comes to drawing up a priority list. I am glad the Minister announced that there will have to be a review of the 1966 Act to take account of the housing needs of the less well-off. However, I must question whether we are doing the correct thing with regard to providing accommodation for the less well-off. There are areas where we should be doing more, and some of those we are accommodating could accommodate themselves if they were given proper assistance. That would enable local authorities to provide more accommodation for those in most need.

An Cathaoirleach

I hesitate to interrupt the Senator, but the Bill before the House seeks to give houses to people outside a given area.

Mr. Cregan

I appreciate that and that is what I am dealing with. I am annoyed, and confused, at how people can get accommodation within certain areas ahead of those who are in urgent need.

An Cathaoirleach

I agree with the Senator, but he is raising a matter that does not come within the terms of the Bill. The Senator will have another opportunity of dealing with that matter.

Mr. Cregan

The Minister said this morning, on a more general note, that there was a fairly widespread recognised need for a more fundamental review.

An Cathaoirleach

I was not present to keep the Minister in line, unfortunately.

Mr. Cregan

He dealt with that in his speech, and I should like to know if I am in order to refer to it now.

An Cathaoirleach

The Senator is not in order. The Bill deals with one net point.

Mr. Cregan

The Minister has said that there was a recognised need for a more fundamental review.

An Cathaoirleach

The Minister has the right to put anything he wishes in his speech.

Mr. Cregan

I shall try to confine my remarks to the terms of the Bill and not mention courts, problems in specific areas or other matters.

An Cathaoirleach

The Senator can refer to those matters as long as he confines himself to the terms of the Bill. I am anxious not to allow the debate to open up into a discussion on housing in general.

Mr. Cregan

I appreciate that. Without questioning the decision of the court I should like to say that it was unfortunate that the case had to go before our courts for a decision. I am anxious that the Minister outline his views on urban councils who adopt such a narrow minded opinion in regard to housing people. I appreciate the Bill is specific on this point, but I should like to know how many authorities were wrong in the past and did not accommodate people who may have been entitled to it. Are there many people who should have been accommodated? Can people now claim that they were entitled to be accommodated by local authorities? If we were to broaden the debate on this issue we could have very strong arguments on this. Senators might identify areas where people should not be accommodated or where priority was given to them wrongly. In some areas, as Senators and local representatives are aware, people got priority over others. Consideration should be given to every application and priority given to the less well-off in our society. I am glad the Minister said he is prepared to ensure that a larger review will be made of the Housing Act, 1966.

Minister for the Environment (Mr. Kavanagh)

At the outset I would like to express my appreciation on the congratulations and good wishes which Senators extended to me today on this, the occasion of my first visit to the Seanad as Minister for the Environment. I would also like to thank those Senators who contributed to the debate on this short but nonetheless necessary Bill.

As I said in my opening speech this Bill has a strictly limited purpose. It aims to clear up the confusion and overcome the difficulties which housing authorities have experienced since the Supreme Court judgment in the Buncrana case and to restore the position as it obtained prior to that judgment. The power of housing authorities to take account of the needs of persons residing outside their functional area in the building and letting of houses is, by virtue of the amendments being made now, clearly written into sections 53, 55 and 60 of the Housing Act, 1966. Apart altogether from the particular shortcomings in these sections of the 1966 Act which the Buncrana case brought to light, there is, as I said earlier, a need for a general review and overhaul of Part III of that Act which, after all, is now almost 20 years on the Statute Book and was drafted in the context of a housing situation which in some respects was quite different from that now prevailing.

It is accepted, however, that there is a need, in the meantime, to clarify the position arising from the judgment if the prospects of many families in urgent need of housing are not to be damaged. Otherwise, long established practice adopted by some housing authorities in considering applications from persons not resident in their areas would have to be discontinued. In the past many county councils have housed persons residing within urban districts in the county and vice versa because such arrangements were seen to be the most advantageous way of looking after local housing needs. There should be no impediment to local authorities wishing to enter into mutual arrangements best suited to local needs and circumstances. We are ensuring by the provisions in the Bill that such arrangements can continue. Furthermore, I would hope that it will encourage authorities to co-operate more effectively in providing houses in the speediest and most efficient way possible for applicants in greatest need.

Senator O'Toole asked me to clear up the distinction of the functional area of housing authorities. Under the Housing Act, 1966 county councils, county boroughs, borough corporations, urban district councils and, for very limited purposes, town commissioners are the housing authorities. In other words, the administrative area of each local authority is their functional area for housing.

Senator O'Toole called for more money for local authority housing. I should like to tell the Senator that a sum of £211 million is being provided to fund the housing programme in 1984. There are at present about 8,500 houses in progress by local authorities throughout the country — almost 1,000 more than at this time last year and the highest number for years. Completions last year reached approximately 6,100 houses — about 400 more than in 1982. Furthermore, direct employment on the programme has increased by 500 to some 6,300. Although the increase in the allocation over last year is less than the anticipated rate of inflation the Government considered that a capital allocation of £211 million for 1984 would maintain the programme at present levels when allowance is made for such factors as the effect in 1984 of the increased competitiveness in tender prices during 1983; the substantial increase in the 1983 capital allocation will continue to be reflected in output next year and the new cost control procedures together with improved house designs. These do not imply any reduction in the standards of the houses or of the accommodation provided. However, they do aim to curtail excesses and cut out unnecessary frills.

The purpose of the Bill is to return the situation to what it was prior to the McNamee case taken against Buncrana Urban Council. It is generally agreed that this is what most councillors, and councils, want in order to have flexibility in the provision of local authority houses. It does not, and it was never intended that it would, have the effect of making local authorities go beyond their functional areas in order to look for prospective tenants for houses. It is introduced in order to maintain the practice of the past, to house people in need whether they were inside or outside their functional areas but made application to a particular urban council or county council.

I thank Senators who contributed and for their good wishes to me. The need to pass the Bill as speedily as possible is obvious because a number of councils are awaiting our deliberations today and hoping that the Bill will be passed so that they can get ahead with the letting of houses.

Mr. M. O'Toole

The Bill states that the powers will have retrospective effect. Will the Minister explain that?

Mr. Kavanagh

The retrospective provisions of the Bill would operate to remove any doubts about the validity of any past actions taken in good faith by housing authorities. If a housing authority in the past housed somebody from outside their area no question can be raised as to the validity of what the council did. It was never the intention that the 1966 Act should have been applied in the restrictive way that the court decision has brought about. The retrospective provision is to ensure people who may be nervous that because of the result of the case they are now not validly tenants of the particular local authority in which they are now residing.

Question put and agreed to.

Agreed to take remaining Stages today.