Committee on Finance. - Housing (Amendment) Bill, 1950—Committee and Final Stages.
Sections 1 to 5, inclusive, put and agreed to.
SECTION 6.
Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 not moved.
I move amendment No. 3:—
To delete sub-section (6) and substitute the following:—
(6) (a) Sub-sections (1) and (3) of Section 13 of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1947 (No. 33 of 1947), and sub-sections (1) and (3) of Section 24 of the Finance Act, 1949 (No. 13 of 1949), shall not apply to any instrument giving effect to the purchase of a house in respect of which a grant under this section may be made to the purchaser when the house is occupied by him and in lieu thereof such stamp duties shall be chargeable as would have been chargeable if those sections had not been enacted.
(b) Paragraph (a) of this sub-section shall have effect if, but only if, the instrument contains a statement such as is referred to in sub-section (4) of Section 13 of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1947, or sub-section (4) of Section 24 of the Finance Act, 1949, whichever is appropriate, and there is endorsed on the instrument a certificate under the seal of the Minister for Local Government that a grant under this section will be made to the purchaser when the house is occupied by him.
Sub-section (6) of Section 6 of the Bill, as drafted, unintentionally removed all liability for stamp duty on houses purchased with the aid of grants. It is the intention of the Government that houses purchased under Section 6 of the Bill should be liable only for the reduced duty of 1 per cent., which applied to all house purchase transactions since 1891.
The effect of the amendment will be to exempt houses purchased by Irish nationals with the aid of grants under Section 6 of the Bill from the higher rate of duty, that is, 5 per cent. ad valorem, which is at present applicable in the case of purchase transactions for completed houses. The normal stamp duty of 1 per cent. which applied before the passing of the Finance Act of 1947, will be chargeable in respect of these houses. The position of non-nationals will not be affected and they will continue to pay the higher rate of duty applicable to them irrespective of the fact that they may qualify for payment of a grant under Section 6 of the Bill.
The position is that the old procedure of 1 per cent. stands?
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 4 not moved.
My name is down to amendment No. 5, but the amendment introduced by the Minister is quite satisfactory.
Amendment No. 5 not moved.
Question proposed: "That Section 6, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
Mr. Byrne
On the section, I had an amendment down which was ruled out of order and I could not move it. I am merely asking the Minister to make this measure retrospective, even if he would give a date from the beginning of this year. I have knowledge of at least the case of one young man who finds himself in certain difficulties under this measure. I sent the Minister particulars of two or three cases. The particular man to whom I have referred entered into a contract. He could not wait for this Bill, although it was promised 12 months ago, and he signed a contract last March for the purchase of a house. So far as I know, he will not get a grant on that house because he entered into his contract three months too soon. He was in a hurry. I hope the Minister will try to do something for him.
These young people were responsible, through their agitation, for bringing this measure forward. Deputy O'Sullivan and myself and others continuously brought forward the question of market value. Those who agitated succeeded in devising a new method of valuing houses. That is a step in the right direction and we wish to congratulate the Minister in regard to it. In fairness to the young people who purchased houses within the last six months under the promise of this Bill, I suggest they should get the benefit of it.
I sent particulars to the Minister's Department of one struggling young man who signed a contract in March. I understand he will not get the advantage of this Bill, but I trust the Minister will reconsider this matter and give some benefit to what I might call the crusaders, the men who are really responsible for this Bill, because of their agitation and the way they drew attention to many grievances.
There are two aspects of the case presented by Deputy Byrne to which I would like to refer. On this section we would like to appeal to the Minister for some measure of retrospection in so far as the grant is concerned. The latter portion of Deputy Byrne's remarks covers an extremely important point. It concerns people whose homes are in the course of construction and the point is whether the words in this Bill, which sets out that certain things shall take place as from the passing of the Act, shall apply to the new valuations. With Deputy Byrne I would like to add my voice to this request. We could point to certain hard luck cases where people were deprived of the grant under the last Act, through technicalities which we are glad to see the Minister is now about to put right. If the 1948 Act were worded as we would like, what would have been the effect on the grants? How many have been deprived of the grants in the way Deputy Byrne suggested, and what was the total amount involved to the Exchequer? It is a difficult question, as the Minister is faced with a heavy bill. On the other hand, if a certain amount of discretion were allowed to meet certain cases, the House would appeal to the Minister in that way. The Minister can, without any charge on the Exchequer, ensure that people who are now buying or building their own homes will have the full effect of Section 27, which sets up the new machinery regarding valuation, applied as from the passing of this Act.
A number of people are buying their own homes now. They had to apply for loans in the ordinary way when plans were submitted and a provisional valuation was given, but many of them have got no money whatever in respect of the loans. Certain difficulties would arise if they had. In so far as no money transactions have taken place at all in those cases, I appeal to the Minister to allow the machinery of Section 27 to operate retrospectively. In other words, people who started, say, some six months ago, to build homes or entered into contracts, and who have received no money, would be given the advantages of Section 27, in so far as the revised form of valuation is concerned.
I would like to support the case made to the Minister, for reasons set out on the Second Reading and for the reasons advanced by Deputy Alderman Byrne and Deputy Alderman O'Sullivan. Quite a number of people who purchased houses had a very harsh valuation imposed on them. That may have been due to the interpretation of the 1948 Act. I myself was on a number of deputations in regard to it and while I appreciated that the officials concerned were interpreting the Act, I felt that the interpretation caused a very severe hardship to many young people who were purchasing their houses and trying to make a start in life. I was hoping the Minister might be able to leave the door open, whereby any of those people might reapply for the improved valuation. Some of them may not want to reapply, as they may have got over their difficulties, but some may still be in a difficult financial position, not having got the amount they expected, owing to the way the valuation was made. If the Minister could leave the door open, to the extent of reopening those cases, it would relieve the hardship on those people. They may not be 50 per cent. and certainly would not be 100 per cent. of the cases. They entered into the plans for building their own houses and found when they entered into the contracts and had the house constructed what they had in mind regarding the grant was not achieved. I support the appeal of the two Deputies who have spoken before me on this matter.
I would like the Minister to clarify the position in relation to tenants who have applied for a loan under the Small Dwellings Acts and whose loans at the present time have not been granted. I take it that these people are in a position to refuse that loan and reapply for a loan under the present Act.
I agree to a certain extent that most Governments find it difficult to make a retrospective date. If the Minister adopted the principle of the 1948 Act, which went back to the 1st November, 1945, making a portion of the new grant available to such cases, that would be fair. The 1948 Act was retrospective regarding a certain portion of the grant. If that were applied in Section 6, to the person who purchased the house since a certain date, and was given a portion of the grant, not the full grant, as under the old Act, it would meet the case reasonably well.
I feel this is developing into a discussion on Section 27 rather than on Section 6. The Act of 1948 is still operating and can be availed of. The gentleman spoken of by Deputy Byrne can get in under this Act if he has not purchased before the day the Act is passed. A house standing, that has been erected but has not been purchased or occupied, can come under the provisions here. The acid test is whether he has purchased and occupied it. If the house has been built but has not been sold, because of the absence of the grant, that house could be purchased and occupied and would get the grant. The 1948 Act is operating as before.
Local authorities can operate the new terms with their clients once the Act is passed. That is dealing with the provisions of Section 27.
Mr. O'Sullivan
But from what date? The Minister says local authorities can operate it, when the Act is passed. That is true, but can they deal with the matters retrospective to this date?
On the valuation? Yes, if they want to do it, they can operate it.
Mr. O'Sullivan
In other words, if the local authorities have granted £800 on a house, they can reconsider that and grant £900, if they wish?
If the loan is not completed.
Mr. O'Sullivan
Supposing it is completed?
They will operate under the new method applicable as from the passing of the Act.
Supposing it is complete and that £800 has been granted under the Small Dwellings Act to an individual and now, under the new process of valuation, that can be increased to £900, will the local authority be entitled—personally I think they would—to grant £900; in other words, it would be a simple transaction, I take it, to pay off the £800 loan and get the £900 loan instead?
I am not a lawyer, but in any case they could advance a second loan for the amount.
Mr. Byrne
Dublin Deputies must be assured so that they will not in any way mislead those who have purchased houses within the last three to six months. I understand that if the loan has been completed as recently as last week on the lower valuation based upon the market value, under the Bill as it stands the case cannot be reconsidered. I would like to have that point made clear so that people will not come along subsequently believing that their case can be reconsidered. The position is, as I know it, that if a loan is completed. on the market value based upon the auctioneer's value of a second-hand house and if the money was advanced last week the municipality has no power under the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Act, under the new Bill or under any other Act to reconsider the position. That is the reason why we Dublin Deputies should know the full position and that is why we are asking for guidance on the matter now. Any man who got his loan a month ago and whose loan was £100 less than he expected cannot ask for an increased valuation now.
I am suggesting that in the circumstances indicated by the Deputy it would be possible for the local authority to issue a new loan— that is, an additional loan on top of what he had already got.
Mr. O'Sullivan
Perhaps my point is less contentious. There are a number of people affected who have not completed any transaction in connection with the loan at all. They are merely in the preliminary stages; they have got a provisional valuation based on the architect's plans. They are working on the basis that they will get 90 per cent. of that but nothing has actually been paid to them in respect of their loan. Is it quite clear that there will be no hitch following the passing of this Bill and that their case is open to revaluation along the lines suggested in Section 27?
Have they signed the mortgage?
Mr. O'Sullivan
If they have not signed that is all right.
When the matter is only in the transition stage and has not been completed the local authority would be empowered under this measure to work under the new Act, as from the date of its passing. I think that meets the case raised.
I may have misunderstood the Minister. If a client had received a loan of £800 and then discovered that was not sufficient, would he be empowered to apply to the local authorities for a loan of £900—that is, an additional £100? I think the Minister said that he would.
If that is the case I suggest that practically every applicant for a loan under the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Act since the introduction of the 1948 Act will be applying to the local authorities for an additional loan because practically every purchaser of a house over the last two years has been left considerably short of the amount of money they require in order to purchase a house.
Mr. O'Sullivan
Are you all right in Cork?
I made that quite clear. Undoubtedly Dublin seems to be altogether undervalued as regards the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Act. It is only in Dublin that situation arises.
Would the Minister say by what means people should apply if they are short? If they have not actually signed the mortgage do they withdraw the mortgage application? Is that sufficient? Do they have to have the whole thing all over again? Do they get a second mortgage? Is it possible for them to get a second mortgage where they have signed the first mortgage? What would be the procedure?
All this should arise on Section 27 and not on this section.
It should, but it is more convenient now.
I hope we will not have duplication.
May I explain that the reason why I introduced this was because we were dealing with Section 6 which uses the words "after the passing of this Act." They do not apply to Section 27. I think you can rest assured that there will not be duplication on this question.
Question agreed to.
SECTION 7.
I move amendment No. 5 (a):—
Before Section 7 to insert a new section as follows:—
(1) A housing authority may, in accordance with a scheme approved by the Minister, make, to a person erecting or purchasing a house in respect of which a grant is made under Section 16 of the Act of 1948 or Section 6 of this Act, a grant not exceeding the amount of the grant under such section.
(2) For the purposes of this section a housing authority shall have the like powers of borrowing as are conferred on such authority for the purposes of the Housing of the Working Classes Acts or the Labourers Acts.
This amendment is in substitution for amendment No. 4 on the printed sheet which is not being moved. The principle in the amendment standing in the names of Deputy Spring, Deputy Flynn and Deputy O'Sullivan is accepted. The first amendment was defective as it only covered houses qualifying for grants by reason of their being purchased on or after the passing of this Act. There will be another case, of course, that under Section 16 of the Housing (Amendment) Act, 1948, in which a person may contract to have a house erected for himself for his own occupation. That is being covered. The applicant for a grant can choose either system. The housing authority may make a contribution to either type. The amendment now proposed revives a power which local authorities possessed between 1924 and 1931 to contribute towards private enterprise housing. In that period about £170,000 was paid by local authorities. If a local authority wishes to aid housing, it should be allowed to do so.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 5 (b):—
In sub-section (1), line 11, to delete "having control of" and substitute "occupying".
This is merely a drafting amendment. The words "having control of" would limit the grant to the owner, having regard to the definition of the expression "person having control of a house" as contained in the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1931. It is the intention that the grant should be payable to the person occupying the premises as is done at present under the Housing (Amendment) Act, 1948.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 6, 7 and 8 are, of course, out of order.
I move amendment No. 9:—
In sub-section (4), line 34, to delete "(5)".
We are accepting that amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That Section 7, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
Mr. Byrne
On the section, a position may arise upon which I think everybody getting a grant under this section should be informed.
Is the Deputy referring to reconstruction grants?
Mr. Byrne
I am. Paragraph (c) of sub-section (3) provides that grants may be made only where:
"The Minister is satisfied that the proposed reconstruction is necessary in order to prolong the life of a house or to arrest or prevent deterioration or that it will substantially improve the amenities of the house."
What I am anxious to ascertain from the Minister is this. If a person gets a loan of £100 to make some addition to his house, will he be informed that, if the house is improved, it will be subject to revaluation, or will he get a guarantee that it will not be revalued, because if it were it would mean an increase in his rates? In the case of tuberculous patients, people occupying a house can get a grant of £100 to make an addition to it to provide accommodation for the tuberculous patient.
I am anxious to know, in view of what has happened recently, if there is going to be a revaluation of houses in respect of which grants are made under this measure. In such cases, can a person's next door neighbour, or someone in the area, make a complaint and get the houses revalued? In the Clontarf area, which I represent, that has happened. I see that danger in connection with grants given to prevent houses going into decay. The person who owns the house, in order to prevent that happening, may make application for a grant, not knowing that the valuation commissioners may come along and revalue the house thereby making the owner liable for an increase in rates. I think, in view of the fact that this section is intended to save a lot of old property from going into decay, that the position should be made clear to the owners of such property. In my opinion they should get a guarantee that their houses will not be revalued. As I have said, that sort of thing is happening in the Clontarf area where neighbours and others are writing in and are getting people's property revalued.
I had intended to submit an amendment asking the Minister, in regard to the reconstruction of houses and of new houses, to fix a ceiling whereby this question of valuation could be dealt with. In view of the fact that exorbitant valuations are being put both on new houses and on reconstructed houses, the people in my district, in most cases, are reluctant to do any work of this kind. Perhaps if the Minister cannot do anything about it now, he would, in consultation with the Minister for Finance, establish some standard by which this question of valuation could be dealt with.
The Minister has no function in the matter.
Why raise it on the Bill then?
I am suggesting that the Minister, in consultation with other Ministers, should consider the question of setting up some standard in regard to this question of valuation. This is the time to raise it.
If the Minister has no function in the matter I do not see how this is the time to raise it.
I suggest that what Deputies are discussing should be raised on Section 14. The Minister is moving an amendment to that section which, I think, covers the whole question.
I had an amendment down to Section 7.
That amendment has been ruled out of order.
I am anxious to know what led the Minister to fix a total gross valuation of £12. The fact is that tradespeople, and others, in towns throughout the country occupy houses the valuations of which are much in excess of £12. I think that even a valuation of £18 would be a very low figure to fix. The number of people occupying houses with a £12 valuation is very small indeed. I know the number of such houses in Galway, where a general revision was carried out, would be very small indeed. I think that tradespeople, and others, who occupy houses with a higher valuation than £12 should be entitled to get these reconstruction grants.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 8.
Amendments Nos. 10, 11 and 12 have been ruled out of order as they would impose a charge.
I move amendment No. 13:—
To add a new sub-section as follows:—
(3) For the purposes of this section the installation of water and sewerage facilities may be regarded as forming part of the works necessary for the provision of additional accommodation.
I should say that "reconstruction" for the purpose of second grant payment is defined in the section as involving the construction of a new roof or the provision of additional accommodation which involves an increase in the total floor area of the house and which, in the opinion of the Minister, will relieve overcrowding.
This amendment is intended to meet the point raised by Deputy Mrs. Crowley in amendment No. 11. That is to say, that for the purposes of this section the installation of water and sewerage facilities may be regarded as forming part of the works necessary for the provision of additional accommodation.
I am glad that the Minister has moved this amendment. Certain powers were given by us under the Sanitary Services Act which we passed in 1947. The Minister is now taking additional powers to compel people to make use of public sewerage and water systems. Provision was already made whereby a local authority would provided the sewerage and water system for a certain number of feet beyond a public drain or water pipe. It could compel a person to install the remaining pipe and mechanical appliances, and could charge that person with a loan over a period of 30 years at some nominal rate of interest. This amendment will give an opportunity to the Minister of insisting on the joining up of a great many premises throughout the country. You have hundreds of such premises in villages throughout the country which are not yet joined up with a public water or sewerage system, and persons who do that will now be able to get the full grant. I congratulate the Minister on having introduced the amendment because I think it is going to make a great difference.
I mentioned this matter on the Second Reading of the Bill. I wanted to have the facilities that were available under the 1948 Act for new houses extended to all houses, particularly in the rural areas. I am anxious to know if the Minister's amendment covers the suggestion which I then made to him, that any householder who wanted to avail of a sewerage and water system in a rural area could take advantage of the reconstruction provision in this section?
I do not think I could meet the Deputy's request in that case. In the instance I have given, a grant has been made for a new house only. If you want another grant inside the period fixed here, it would not fit in.
I am asking about a rural house that never got a grant of any description. Will a householder in the case of a farmhouse or a cottage, be able to take advantage of this amendment in order to install water and sewerage?
The 1948 Act still applies.
The 1948 Act applies for water and sewerage in the case of houses which are being newly erected but the intention in this amendment, I take it, was that that grant would be extended so as to be available to any applicant who wished to take advantage of it in order to install a water supply and sewerage in his dwelling-house. Would this amendment meet that situation?
I suggest that the point made by Deputy Mrs. Crowley is covered in this amendment so that sewerage and water are made part and parcel of a reconstruction grant, but you cannot have a second reconstruction grant within a period of 15 years.
I want to thank the Minister for inserting this new section because it covers the point I was making. There are many people who have purchased these cottages who will be very grateful for the facilities now given them, to obtain a reconstruction grant for the purpose of installing sanitary accommodation and a water supply.
Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That Section 8, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
Would the Minister say why he struck on a period of 15 years? When he was opening the door at all why did he put the figure so high as 15 years? Was there any particular reason for striking on 15 years rather than 12 or ten years?
Possibly there might have been different views about it and we had to decide as to what could be considered a suitable period. The question was when should a reconstruction grant become necessary and the period of 15 years was fixed as a reasonable period.
In view of the fact that the floor area under the previous reconstruction grant was limited to 1,250 square feet and that the floor area is now being extended to 1,400 square feet, would it not be reasonable to ask that the period of 15 years should be reduced, perhaps to 12 years?
I think 15 years is reasonable from every aspect. Question put and agreed to.
Sections 9 to 12, inclusive, agreed to.
Amendment No. 14 not moved.
Section 13 agreed to.
SECTION 14.
I move amendment No. 15:—
To add to sub-section (1) the following:—
"or a grant for the reconstruction of a house is made by the Minister under Section 7 of this Act and no grant for such reconstruction is made by the housing authority."
Section 14 of the Bill as at present drafted provides inter alia, for rate remissions in respect of new houses for which a grant is made under Section 6 of the Bill. The Housing (Amendment) Act, 1948, Section 44, granted rate remissions in respect of new houses and reconstruction for which grants were paid under that Act. It is considered necessary to extend the principle of rate remissions for reconstructions under the new Bill (including cases of second grants) in cases where no grant for such reconstruction is made by the housing authority. Under Section 7 of the Bill it will be optional on all housing authorities to make grants for reconstruction. In the four county boroughs and the borough of Dún Laoghaire, a State grant will be paid only if the housing authority also pays a grant. If the housing authority in these areas pays a reduced grant, the State will also pay a reduced grant of equivalent amount. In the other areas—all rural areas and the urban areas other than the four county boroughs and the borough of Dún Laoghaire—the State may pay up to one-third of the cost of the work or £80, whichever is the lesser, even though the housing authority refused to pay or pay a reduced grant.
The principle of rate remission for reconstruction cases is being confined by the amendment cases where no grant is paid by the housing authority. The provisions of Section 44 (3) of the Housing (Amendment) Act, 1948, are being applied. Under this sub-section where a grant is made in respect of the reconstruction of a house, the valuation of the tenement, consisting of or excluding such house, shall not, on any valuation or revision of the valuation thereof coming into force within seven years after the completion of such reconstruction, be increased on account of any increase in the value of such tenement arising from such reconstruction.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 16:—
To add a new sub-section as follows:—
(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in this or any other enactment, sub-section (5) of Section 44 of the Housing Act, 1948, shall not apply to houses erected or reconstructed under this Act or the Act of 1948.
This amendment is designed to give the benefit of the remission in connection with the normal amount of taxation that would be collected under the income-tax code. It would be an encouragement to people who are applying for these grants if they got that remission as well as a remission of rates.
This amendment suggests that we should allow a remission for income-tax purposes as well as for local rate purposes. I think that so far as income-tax is concerned, it would be a matter for a Finance Bill. We are doing what we can so far as the rates are concerned but this is a matter with which we could not deal. It is a really a matter for the Finance Act.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 14, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 15.
I move amendment No. 17:—
Before Section 15 to insert a new section as follows:—
Sub-section (2) (c) of Section 19 of the Act of 1948 is hereby amended by the insertion of the words "only at such rent and" after the word "house" where it thirdly occurs therein.
The purpose of this amendment is to secure the insertion of the phrase "only at such rent and" which occurs in sub-section (c) Section 20 of the Housing (Amendment) Act, 1948, in Section 19 of that Act. In regard to public utility societies availing of the grant, the sub-section provides that such societies will let such house or houses only at such rents and subject to such conditions as may be approved of by the Minister. In the previous section of that Act which deals with houses built by housing concerns such as house-building companies or private contractors, the words "only at such rent" have not been inserted. It is in order that that particular provision should be made operative in respect of houses built by housing concerns or building contractors, that I am moving the amendment. Where a grant or subsidy is being made available to housing concerns for the building of houses, the Minister should have some say or some control in the matter of the fixation of rent level of such houses. I would like to know if the Minister would consider accepting the principle of that amendment.
I am afraid that I am not in a position to accept that amendment. The Deputy is attempting to impose a specific obligation on the Minister to control rents in regard to houses eligible for letting grants under Section 19 of the 1948 Act. The Deputy probably feels encouraged in his proposed amendment by the fact that in Sections 20 and 21 of the Housing (Amendment) Act, 1948, the Minister has a specific power to control the rents in the case of capital grants to public utility societies erecting houses for letting to members of the working classes or to agricultural labourers.
Notwithstanding the absence of a specific power to control rents for the purpose of letting grants under Section 19, the Minister in dealing with appeals from persons aggrieved by decisions of local authorities does in fact take into consideration the rent charged and he has been advised that he is within his power in abating or refusing a grant where he considers the rent is excessive.
There is no necessity for this amendment in law as Section 19 (2) (c) taken in conjucntion with the regulations gives both the local authority and the Minister wide powers expressed as "subject to such conditions as may be so prescribed." Regulations are being made for the purposes of Section 19 and specifically cover the point raised by the Deputy. It is unnecessary to attempt this in that respect.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed: "That Section 15 stand part of the Bill."
At present there is a certain difficulty in so much as a person with a valuation of £35 can get a grant of £80 whereas a person with a valuation of £35 5s. 0d. gets no grant at all. It is proposed in the section to increase the limit to £50 but you have the same difficulty in the new section because it means that a person with a valuation of £50 can get an £80 grant whereas a person with a valuation of £50 1s. 0d. is entitled to get nothing. I wonder would the Minister consider on the Report Stage or in the Seanad amending that section so as to have a sliding scale and so as not to have that particular anomaly.
The Deputy will, I think, appreciate that I am giving that particular grant in the case of an agricultural holding with a valuation of £50 but on the other hand it is restricted to £12 in urban areas—if the local authority will contribute. There should be some difference in the case of the reconstruction of a holding. This is the first time it has been extended to urban areas and I think you will find it equitably balanced.
Does the Minister not appreciate the difficulty of a man who has a valuation of slightly over £50?
I would ask the Minister to take this view of it: we have cases where people reconstructed houses last year or the previous year and as far as I can learn all previous housing legislation was retrospective particularly the 1948 Act, which was retrospective to October, 1947. I would be glad if the Minister would consider having this retrospective to 1948, so that the man who reconstructed a house in 1948 or 1949 and had over £35 valuation would be given an opportunity to qualify under this Bill.
I am afraid I cannot go any further with the matter. We have gone a very reasonable way. We are asked to take off the £50 limit and make it retrospective but this is a step forward and it is only an experimental matter and should be allowed a few years to see how it will go. Following that we may have to do something better.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 16.
Amendment No. 18 not moved.
I move amendment No. 19:—
In sub-section (1), page 7, line 5, after "thereon" to insert "or on any land acquired by them".
This amendment is intended to establish definitely that local authorities will be enabled to use lands for the purposes of this section which were not necessarily acquired under the section. Local authorities may have in their possession from time to time lands acquired under their general housing powers, and it is desired to make it clear that they can, from time to time, utilise such lands for the purposes of this section. This means that lands already acquired may be used. It is a matter for the official carrying out that work.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Question proposed: "That Section 16 stand part of the Bill."
Mr. Byrne
The section appears to be a very good section and one by which municipal authorities will benefit and be able to do very valuable work in letting lands to public utility societies and others, but I notice line 10:—
"such persons and societies shall erect and maintain thereon such number of houses as may be fixed by the housing authority and in accordance with plans approved by such authority."
An architect or law agent might hold —we have had difficulties now and then —that 12 or 14 houses could go on an acre of ground. A local authority might decide that they should have a playing ground, a playing field, a civic centre or a public hall. This clause here would permit of that being done or at any rate will not prevent it if a law agent or architect of a local authority insisted that under the Act they are to build houses and houses only? What is going to happen if they want to put aside three, four or six acres for a playing ground, playing field, civic centre or a public hall? I would ask the Minister to see if there is any doubt there. Personally, I do not think there would be a doubt unless you came across a finicky architect or a finicky law agent who held that you would have to put up houses and nothing but houses. Provision should be made so that if a local society wanted to provide any of these amenities some ground could be allotted for the purpose.
I do not think the difficulty that Deputy Byrne visualises will arise. I think that the local authority has power under the Town Planning Acts to deal with any situation such as he envisaged. In his reply on the Second Reading, the Minister mentioned that I must have had knowledge of discussions which had taken place between himself and the corporation on the general question of financing housing and finance for compulsory acquisition. I should like the Minister to be more specific now. When speaking on the Second Reading, I had knowledge of a discussion which had taken place between the Minister and the Dublin Corporation on the question of raising finances.
Will the Deputy say on what sub-section of this section that arises?
It is in the section about housing generally. The section empowers the housing authority to acquire land either by agreement, with the consent of the Minister, or compulsorily.
Yes, but what about finances for the purpose of building houses?
By compulsorily acquiring land.
Not financing the building of houses.
Of sites, certainly, but not the financing of house building.
It is the same thing so far as I am concerned.
It is not the same so far as I am concerned.
Under the section, we can acquire land for housing. We are not permitted to acquire land for anything else. I asked what arrangements had been made to get money at a cheap rate for the Dublin Corporation.
I do not see how that arises.
We cannot compulsorily acquire land if we have to pay for the money at the same rate we are paying at present. If we have to go on the market for money on the same terms as the last loan, we will not be able to carry on. That was the Minister's contention before he was a Minister. Before he was a Minister, he suggested in an amendment to a private Deputy's motion, which is No. 12 on the last list, that money should be raised at 1¼ per cent., including the cost of redemption. I asked the Minister on the Second Reading——
The Deputy wants to reopen the Second Reading debate now.
I do not. I want to get an answer from the Minister as to whether he and the Government are making arrangements to have cheaper money made available for local authorities.
I do not think it is relevant.
As to relevancy, my point is that we cannot go ahead acquiring land, whether compulsorily or by agreement——
I do not think it is relevant.
Surely it is relevant. Does the Minister say now that his suggestion that money could be obtained at 1¼ per cent., including the cost of redemption, is impossible now, and, if so, why?
I do not think the Minister will be in order if he wants to give his opinion on it.
This section empowers a local authority to acquire land either compulsorily or by voluntary agreement and also empowers the Minister to make a grant for houses erected. I should like to draw the Minister's attention to the date mentioned here, namely, 1952. This is the middle of 1950, and if a local authority were to set out to acquire land compulsorily they could not do it by 1952 no matter how hard they worked. The Minister will not be called upon to make very many grants under that section unless he extends the date beyond 1952. It takes a considerable time to acquire land, and land could not be acquired, either compulsorily or by agreement, and houses erected on it before 1952.
Is it not a well-recognised fact in housing legislation and other legislation that a date like that is put in and it is extended by subsequent legislation? There are many examples of it.
We approve of this section which does confer a very important power on a local authority. It rather reminds me of reading the history of the free cities of Germany where the corporations bought up all the land within ten miles of the centre of the city with a view to ensuring orderly development and providing people with land for houses. In this case, the Dublin Corporation are able to enter on an already overcrowded area to purchase land and, in certain cases, they may be bidding against private interests who do not require assistance of that kind. In other words, the power conferred by the section will have to be used very carefully or it might create inflation in land values, on the one hand, and, equally, it might interfere with the possibility of orderly planning on the other.
The Minister knows as well as I do how far the town planning of Dublin is being disregarded because of the urgency for obtaining sites. As I said, this is a very important power which should be used with the very greatest scruple by a local authority or they may be making a situation already serious very much more serious.
Deputy Byrne is concerned about the possibility of overcrowding and provision being made for playgrounds. A housing authority, in the exercise of their power under Section 16, can control the number of houses per acre and see that the provision of playgrounds forms part of the development. I think it is unreasonable to suggest that private persons or public utility societies should be more forward in the providing of amenities than a local authority. The local authority can see that there is no overcrowding. I have not the least idea of being drawn into a financial debate by Deputy McCann. I discussed the matter on the Estimate for my Department and Deputy McCann has had assurances with regard to the provision of money for the continuance of housing. I would not pay one fraction more for money than Deputy McCann. However, we are not discussing that now.
Deputy Childers may be assured that the powers he referred to will be used reasonably and with caution. There is no intention whatever of making any unreasonable use of the powers taken. Certain powers are necessary and, under the control of the Minister, they will have to be used with reason and caution. We do not want, however, to have the people who are carrying on the housing drive restricted in their operations. The section will have to be interpreted in a reasonable and fair way so as not to inflict any hardship on anyone. There is no fear at all of the overcrowding that Deputy Byrne suggests, because that can be controlled by the local authorities themselves.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 17 agreed to.
SECTION 18.
I move amendment No. 20:—
Before Section 18, but in Part III, to insert a new section as follows:—
Where houses have been condemned by a sanitary authority as unfit for human habitation, tenants or occupiers of such houses shall not be dispossessed therefrom until the sanitary authority have provided a suitable new house for such tenants or occupiers.
In certain areas people find it very difficult to get accommodation when their houses are scheduled for demolition. In most cases, they cannot avail themselves of the new houses which are being provided. My proposal is to allow them to remain in their present houses until an alternative arrangement is come to. In the case of houses which are scheduled for demolition, we have cases where the tenants cannot afford to avail of the new housing arrangements and if they are deprived of these houses, there is no alternative housing accommodation in the districts. I suggest that, pending some satisfactory arrangement being made, these houses should not be demolished but reconstructed in such a way as to enable these people to remain in them.
I am afraid I cannot accept the amendment as I consider it absolutely unnecessary. Under Section 14 of the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1931, a local authority cannot make a clearance order or an improvement order, unless the authority is first satisfied that the persons being displaced can be given suitable accommodation, provided or secured by the local authority. It is most unlikely that any authority insists on demolition without alternative accommodation being made available, either by the local authority or by other parties. I suggest that Deputies who are members of local authorities should cast their minds back and ask themselves if they have ever known of a case where a local authority insisted on demolishing a house without providing alternative accommodation. I have not known any such case and I have a long experience. They are bound under Section 14 of the 1931 Act to see to it that suitable accommodation is available before making a clearance order and hence the Deputy's proposal is not necessary. The protection is there already.
Mr. Flynn
In certain of these areas, comparatively good houses have been demolished under a clearance order. My point is that these houses should be left there, pending provision of accommodation for the people who cannot leave them and get better houses.
Would the Minister explain what powers a local authority has to compel reconstruction of a privately-owned house which has been condemned by the health authority as unfit for human habitation? It is a question which is very often asked.
I do not wish to do any more than to point out to the Minister that, whereas the legal position is as he states, I should not like him to be under the impression that there are not Deputies here who know of cases of clearance orders being made by a local authority where alternative accommodation was not always available. I can assure the Minister that within my own short experience, I have come across such cases.
On 24th February of this year, we issued a circular stating that local authorities could fix dates for evacuation of condemned houses which would coincide with a time when alternative accommodation would be available. There was some misinterpretation by local authorities as to the use of the powers of demolition and this circular was issued to make it clear that the local authority could fix the dates for the evacuation of such houses to coincide with the time when alternative accommodation was available, so as not to have these people left, as is suggested by the Deputy, homeless.
The Minister is quite right when he refers to demolition, but I am referring to the terms of Deputy Flynn's amendment. There are cases to my own knowledge—and they are not too uncommon—where dwellings were condemned as being unfit for human habitation and where adequate alternative provisions were not made. I must say, in fairness to the local authority, that normally the application of the law is intelligent and that the regulations are intelligently interpreted, so that cases of grave hardship are avoided, but the Minister would be under a complete misapprehension were he to imagine that no such cases occur, as would appear from what he said.
I am a member of a local authority and I never heard of anybody being dispossessed without alternative accommodation being made available.
The Dublin Corporation will not dispossess until accommodation has been secured. On the question of whether a dwelling is fit for human habitation under the Public Health Acts or not, when I was very young in the corporation, I asked the medical officer of health about certain places not being fit for human habitation and he said: "I should have to close every tenement house in Dublin to-morrow under the Public Health Acts but where am I to put the people?"
I do not know what local authority is referred to, but, in the case of Dublin, there may be a delay as between the time of making of the demolition order and the moving of the people, but the people are never taken out of a house without having somewhere to go. It has never occurred in Dublin in my time.
Mr. Byrne
I sympathise very strongly with Deputy Flynn. My colleagues in the corporation may have had the experience I have had of ringing up the housing authority of the corporation and saying: "Did you hear that such and such a house is being condemned as unfit for human habitation and that the tenants are to be evicted?" and of getting the reply from the official: "We are not evicting them. We have not compulsorily acquired that house which is owned by a private landlord who is getting these people out." I sympathise very much with Deputy Flynn. When a house is condemned by a sanitary authority, whether a private landlord's house, as it is in most cases, or otherwise, which has not yet been acquired by the corporation for reconditioning or demolition, the public authority says the house is condemned and puts the people out. I have known them to be put out and to go to the workhouse. I ask the Minister to consider the point in connection with other amending legislation at a later date.
As a member of the Dublin Corporation, I can say that I do not think that what Deputy Byrne has said has ever happened. Deputy Dockrell and those of us on the Dublin Corporation know that, whenever the Dublin authority decides to go ahead with a demolition order, alternative accommodation is always provided, and, in many cases, exceptionally good accommodation. Recently we had to demolish certain houses and we housed the people in Captain's Lane in newly-built corporation houses. I do not think it would be fair to allow the House to think that the position described by Deputy Byrne, in fact, arises.
Mr. Byrne
I will mention one case, the case of Clarendon Street, where a private owner would not do the repairs and got a number of the people out.
That is not the same thing at all.
Mr. Byrne
He would not provide alternative accommodation and the people had to go elsewhere.
That is a different matter altogether.
The amendment does not refer to demolition orders.
I am not a member of the corporation but as far as people outside the corporation understand, the position is that where a house, privately owned, is condemned by the corporation the owner of the house is asked by the authority to provide accommodation for his own tenant and the corporation do not undertake to provide accommodation for him. That is the actual position. I am not too sure but I think the corporation have legal authority, if the owner of a tenement house in the City of Dublin does not carry out instructions to have repairs made to the House, to go in and repair the house and to surcharge him.
Where the house is condemned and not owned by the corporation, the corporation are not compelled to provide alternative accommodation and do not in fact provide alternative accommodation.
I think it is very important that the House should understand what actually takes place. What Deputy Fitzpatrick imagines takes place does not happen nor does what Deputy Byrne suggested happen. If the Dublin Corporation has to condemn a property owned by a private individual, the moment it is condemned, the house is taken over by the corporation and the corporation actually collect the rents and proceed either to repair or demolish the house. The tenants are provided with alternative accommodation. I think the Minister need not be too seriously impressed by what is suggested. I think Deputy Dockrell will confirm that in the matter of condemned dwellings we do always give alternative accommodation.
The moment a house is condemned by Dublin Corporation, Dublin Corporation is carrying the baby and must rehouse the people. If anyone thinks that the people are put out on the side of the road from a house that is condemned by Dublin Corporation, that is absolute nonsense.
Would the Minister answer my question? In the county health district the position is not just the same as Deputy Briscoe has stated. Will the Minister say, if he can, what powers the county council have to compel reconstruction of a house privately owned and condemned by the county medical officer of health or, conversely, if the house becomes vacant, what powers of demolition have they?
The county council themselves have power under the Health Acts to make the order.
If the House is unsuited or unfit for habitation and is condemned under the Health Acts, they can move. They have powers vested in them under the Act of 1931.
Supposing the house is occupied and is privately owned, what power have the local authority, seeing that they have condemned it, to compel the private owner to repair it?
They have none. It is condemned.
If it is condemned, it is past repairing. That is the idea.
That is the Dublin Corporation position. It is not so in the country.
Is it not a fact that it can only be condemned if it cannot be put into repair at reasonable expense?
They have the same powers in the county councils as they have in urban authorities, the very same powers.
There is no analogy between the point made by Deputy Dockrell and the case I am making for the rural districts. Deputy Briscoe made the point that the sanitary authority condemn a house and come along and repair it. There is a contradiction there.
The sanitary authority condemn it and then tell you they have no responsibility for the people in it. We want to let a little light in on all these things.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 21, which is in the name of Deputy MacEntee:-
In line 50 to delete "1960" and substitute "1955."
I am accepting the amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 18, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 19.
I move amendment No. 22:—
Before Section 19, but in Part IV, to insert a new section as follows:-
Section 11 of the Act of 1948 is hereby amended by the substitution, for sub-section (3) of the following sub-section:-
(3) In this section the expression "multiple dwelling" means premises containing two or more dwellings.
The definition of "multiple dwelling" in the Act of 1948 has been found to be defective in certain respects. As it stands, it does not cover the case of a house occupied by an owner who sublets only one part of it. The new definition proposed in this amendment is intended to remedy this defect. The plural was used and this seeks to cover that point. It is a definition of "multiple dwelling".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 23:—
Before Section 19, but in Part IV, to insert a new section as follows:—
Sub-section (2) of Section 12 of the Act of 1949 is hereby amended by the substitution, for paragraph (b), of the following:—
(b) a condition as to the number of dwellings which may from time to time be provided in the premises;.
The purpose of this amendment is to remedy a difficulty which housing authorities have experienced in working Section 12 of the Act of 1948. Under Section 12, a housing authority is empowered to grant a permission for the use of premises as a multiple dwelling or, in plain language, for the letting of a house in flats or rooms. The licence may contain a condition limiting the number of separate dwellings which may be provided in any premises.
Where a housing authority find that a house has been sub-let into, say, six separate dwellings, they may consider that five is the maximum number that should be permitted in the house. They inform the landlord that five is the maximum number that should be permitted but, as it would be unreasonable to require one of the tenants to leave immediately, they grant a licence, limited in its operation to a certain period, for six dwellings. If, during that period, a tenant leaves the premises, and the landlord allows a new tenant into the premises in his place, when the time comes to renew the permission, the housing authority will still have to give permission for six dwellings. This amendment will enable a housing authority to attach to a permission a condition that the house may be let in six flats so long as the six tenants in occupation when the permission was given continue in occupation. A new permission will have to be obtained if one of those tenants leaves the premises; in this permission the number of dwellings into which the premises may be divided may be reduced to five.
Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That Section 19, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
This is a transfer section that proposes to allow land or buildings to be transferred to an urban authority when the boundary is extended but it is not quite clear as to the position in respect of houses where portion of the loan is still outstanding. The section does not make it clear that the liability is transferred to the urban authority. I would like to hear the Minister on that. It is an important matter. There is provision where it is a question of transfer of land but I can see no provision for the transfer of the liability for houses. There is no provision in this section.
There is one other matter. In the case of houses under the Labourers Act, if the occupier does not take advantage to purchase under the Labourers Act, 1936 (No. 24 of 1936), this section does not say what is to happen from that on. If he does not opt to take advantage of the Act, on notice being served on him, it does not say what happens as a result or whether it is the rural or the urban authority who will carry liability in future in that case.
The financial adjustment referred to by the Deputy would be made if there was an extension of the boundary. That has been done in many cases where there has been an extension.
I understand that. It is a different matter that I raised.
If the tenant does not opt to come under the Housing of the Working Classes Acts, he can remain. For 12 months, in any case, he has the option. The county council need not hand their tenant over at all. If the man does not want to come in he can remain. There are 12 months.
How can he be in the town and out of it?
Under the Labourers Acts he is entitled to 12 months during which he may give notice of his intention. If he likes, he can apply and if he does not he will lose the benefit of the 1936 Act. The local authority could retain him under their control, under the Labourers Acts, indefinitely. That may be argued but it is my contention. Definitely, however, the powers for purchase are extended for 12 months. He has an opportunity of making that application inside 12 months.
Assuming that he does not purchase his house, will the county health authority be responsible for the maintenance and repairs of that house within the urban area? Will the county authority be allowed to go into the town, so to speak, to repair the house?
The Minister did not answer my question as to who is to be responsible for the payment, after the tenants go into the urban area, if these houses are not acquired by the urban authority, of the loan charges.
If the tenants fail to exercise their rights within 12 months of the boundary extension, the county council may transfer the cottages to the urban authority. The right of the tenant to purchase, under the 1936 Act, cannot be exercised subsequently.
The Minister has not given me the information which I am seeking. He is avoiding it. Assuming that the tenant does not purchase, will the urban authority compensate the rural authority for that house or will the rural authority be responsible?
Who will own the house when it comes within the urban area? I suggest that the Minister should look into that section again because, as it is, it is not quite clear.
If the tenants fail to exercise their rights within 12 months after the boundary extension, the county council may transfer the cottages to the urban authority——
——and the right of the tenants to purchase, under the 1936 Act cannot be exercised subsequently.
If, however, the tenants desire to avail of their rights under the 1936 Act they are given a period of 12 months from the date of incorporation in the urban area to do so.
It is the loan charges which are worrying Deputy Allen.
I suggest the Minister should look up the section again and tell us who carries liability for the loan in the event of the house not being vested in the tenant.
What has happened up to the present?
Is it the county council or the corporation who will own the house in the future?
They will make an arrangement, surely?
If the house is only 12 months erected and the tenant does not opt to purchase, are the urban authorities entitled to collect the rent from the tenant and the county authority to be responsible for the redemption of the loan charges?
There is no provision in this section for that.
It is clear under the law.
In any event, it is the Minister who is responsible. He should tell us.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 20.
I move amendment No. 24 which stands in the name of Deputy Major de Valera:—
Before Section 20 to insert a new section as follows:-
Sub-section (3) of Section 17 of the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1931 (No. 50 of 1931) shall be and is hereby amended by:—
(a) deleting all words from "on the ground that" to "has not been complied with" inclusive, and
(b) by inserting in paragraph (b) of the said sub-section after the words "complied with" the words "or that having regard to the existing use made of the land to which the order relates and to any other suitable land which is available, the acquisition authorised by the Order is unjust, unreasonable or inexpedient."
I do not know whether the Minister would indicate now if he is going to accept the amendment or not. I do not propose to argue the legal side of the matter. It proposes to delete from sub-section (3) of the 1931 Act a phrase which is left in paragraph (b) of the same sub-section. There is also the purpose of adding under sub-section (b) the safeguards that it was intended to have under sub-section (3) but which are difficult. It puts on the back of the individual his interpretation of the law. Deputy Cowan said just now that something was clear under the law. The problem of the layman is that nothing is ever clear under the law and that is why we have all this legislation and litigation. I am not prepared to argue the legal point. Before pressing the matter I wonder if the Minister has had an opportunity of getting opinion on the suggested emendations and if he can indicate at the moment what he proposes to do about the matter.
The amendment proposes to give the courts a jurisdiction over a number of matters which are at present within the jurisdiction of the Minister. At present, an aggrieved individual, can appeal to the courts, on the grounds that the acquisition of the land by the local authority has not been carried out in accordance with the requirements of the Housing Acts and regulations made thereunder.
The amendment however proposes to confer on the courts a much wider range of jurisdiction than exists at present. It would enable the courts in fact to hold a second inquiry on the lines followed by the inspector. For example it would enable the courts to challenge the decision of the local authority that a specified number of houses was required in their area. Its terms are so wide that before the court could arrive at a decision it would have to hear evidence on the extent of the programme and the financial commitments of the local authorities themselves. There is no doubt that a comfusing body of case law precedents would grow up which would take many decades to crystallise into general principles. A general slowing down of the operations of local authorities would result which having regard to the existing housing needs would not be in the public interest.
In the past and at present the Minister's administration of the powers entrusted to him have been uniformly exercised with an equitable balance between private rights and public interest. I suggest the amendment would not be helpful at the present juncture and would be really harmful to the local authorities in their work.
I wanted to hear what the Minister had to say and it is obvious that he has a distinct brief on this matter. The Minister must remember that we are now reaching a stage where the local authorities are, faster than ever, acquiring all classes of properties for the purpose of the building of houses. The rights of the owners of these properties are gradually being more or less dealt with by the Minister rather than by a court of law. For instance, take the position where there is a definite legal right on the part of the individual, the holder of a particular class of property which is going to be acquired. I do not suggest that I will press this amendment, but I should like the Minister to say that he will consider the matter for another stage. It is true that, where the local authority seeks to acquire, they have the Minister to decide and the aggrieved party must accept the decision. But the aggrieved party can still go to law under the existing Acts, and do everything the Minister has said this amendment will——
This is widening the door completely for him.
It is to relate it specifically and to tell the court, in case it goes to court, that they must find in accordance with the Act. The trouble to-day is that there appears to be a certain amount of doubt in the minds of people who fear they are not given sufficient protection and by the act of the local authorities and by the act of the Minister in siding with the local authority. Would the Minister agree to look into the matter again?
I could not accept that amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 21.
Question proposed: "That Section 21 stand part of the Bill."
On the section, will the Minister give us some explanation of sub-section (3)? Will it apply only to houses that will be erected and let in the future, or will it apply retrospectively to houses that could be deemed to be let under the Housing of the Working Classes Act? This is an important matter. It is one on which the local authorities would need to be informed immediately. Will the Minister also indicate what is the necessity for this section and if it means the bringing in of rural authorities as housing authorities under the Working Classes Acts which they were not previously? I hope there is no effort in this section to hand across the baby from the urban to the rural authorities, asking the rural authorities to carry the urban baby of building. We saw indications for some time that there might be an effort in that direction. We hope this is not the section that will put the burden on rural authorities of providing the buildings for the urban authorities. I would like to hear from the Minister if sub-section (3) will be retrospective in respect of houses already let.
The building covered by this sub-section would not come under the Labourers Acts, but would come under the Housing of the Working Classes Act. I might say that under this section it is intended to provide chiefly for working classes other than agricultural labourers living in town commissioners' areas and non-municipal towns. At present these classes are excluded from consideration as the housing accommodation is normally provided under the Labourers Acts and the dwellings must, therefore, be let to persons coming within the extended definition of agricultural labourer. This position, in effect, precludes a large section of the working classes from consideration even though the families may be living in dwellings which are unfit for human habitation, or are otherwise qualified for new houses as member of the "special classes", that is, families suffering from tuberculosis or living in one-roomed dwellings, etc.
The section will remove this anomaly and will enable rural authorities to provide for all sections of the working classes in need of housing accommodation. The suggested financial assistance is the same as that paid to rural authorities for operations under the Labourers Acts; that is, 60 per cent. of the annual loan charges up to £300, plus the appropriate Transition Development Fund grant. The proviso in regard to lettings made before the passing of the Bill is intended to cover cases where doubts existed as to the qualification of the tenants to be regarded as coming within the definition of agricultural labourer; that is, lettings to soldiers, Guards, pensioners, etc. The proviso prohibiting purchasing facilities is intended to cover cases of houses provided in town commissioners' areas and non-municipal towns for persons other than agricultural labourers.
It is quite clear that there have been thousands of those types of houses erected in non-municipal towns over the past ten or 15 years, but those houses will not rank any more under the 1936 Act. They cannot be purchased by the tenants. I am afraid this Bill does not make that clear. Sub-section (2) talks about making it retrospective. In non-municipal towns people were taken out of condemned houses and I suggest they are entitled to purchase their houses if they desire to do so. Is it not a fact that a great number who were not agricultural labourers, purchased under the 1939 Act? This section does not set that out clearly. If they are tenants can they purchase under the 1936 Act in the future or does this section apply only to houses that will be erected and let?
The provision does not apply retrospectively at all.
Where there is a transfer from a rural authority to an urban authority and where a cottage becomes part of the urban area and has to comply with quite different health laws to those which existed in the rural area, either the tenant continues as a tenant of the urban authority and the urban authority is then forced to give the amenities required under its health laws, as distinct from the rural health laws, or alternatively, if the tenant should purchase he becomes liable to equip the house which the sanitary requirements need under the urban health laws. There is hardship both ways.
When the urban authority takes over and has to spend money—we have had experience of that around Dublin City, at Islandbridge and so forth—we have to put in certain sanitary amenities and we immediately impose on the backs of the people an additional rent. If the person opts to buy, unless he fulfils the obligations of the public health laws in the urban area he cannot do so, and if he does buy he has to spend a considerable sum. Will the Minister indicate what would be an equitable way of dealing with that problem?
Is that where the urban area is extended?
Yes, where the urban area is extended and takes in a number of rural area cottages. The urban area cottages have to comply with certain health laws and sanitary requirements. If a tenant buys a cottage he has to instal all these requirements at his own cost. If the local authority, in observance of its own laws, puts in these facilities, they put an additional rent on the backs of the tenants who were taken over by the urban authority without being consulted at all, because it is an extension of the boundary. Could the Minister consider some equitable way of dealing with that point? I do not know if he could by way of an extra grant. I feel that the members of the Dublin Corporation will admit that this is and has been a rather difficult problem for a number of years, where we are gradually getting in cottages from rural areas.
I am afraid I could not satisfy the Deputy on the particular point he has raised. A tenant brought into an urban area has certain rights under this Bill. He can excercise his powers to purchase under the Labourers Acts. I think the point raised by the Deputy is outside the scope of this Bill. I cannot say what would happen in the rather hypothetical case the Deputy has brought forward.
It is not a hypothetical case. I can give the Minister particulars about the area around Islandbridge.
I wonder if this comes within this section?
I suggest it does come within the section—it is covered by amendment No. 25.
Then, perhaps, it would be more appropriate to a later section.
With regard to a tenant now going to be transferred to an urban authority and who is purchasing his cottage, will the new authority withhold consent to the sale of his interest if he wishes to sell his interest? The practice has been heretofore that the county council invariably consented to the sale of the interest to any tenant approved of by them. Will the urban authority agree to the sale to another private owner?
I think amendment No. 25 will cover that.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 22.
I move amendment No. 25.
Before Section 22 to insert a new section as follows:-
22. Where a cottage provided under the Labourers Acts comes within an urban area within the meaning of Section 19 of this Act, the Labourers Act, 1936, shall continue to apply to the cottage until its transfer to the urban authority under the said Section 19, notwithstanding that the cottage is no longer in a county health district.
The need for this new section is to clarify further the position in regard to the preservation of the rights of tenants under the Labourers Act, 1936. The effect of Section 19 of the Bill will be that cottages vested prior to transfer will continue to remain under the control and management of the county council. In order to provide for circumstances where tenants have not exercised their rights under the 1936 Act at the date of boundary extension or where the local authority have not prepared a purchase scheme, it is proposed under Section 19 (2) that that cottage shall not be transferred to the urban authority until 12 months have elapsed since the cottage has come within the urban area, and that the tenants of cottages which come within the urban area shall thereupon be informed as to their rights under the 1936 Act.
If the tenants fail to exercise their rights within 12 months after the boundary extension, the county council may transfer the cottages to the urban authority and the right of the tenant to purchase under the 1936 Act cannot be exercised subsequently. If, however, the tenants desire to avail of their rights under the 1936 Act within 12 months from the date of incorporation in the urban area the county council shall thereupon proced with the vesting of the cottages. In order to enable the council to proceed accordingly, it will be necessary to enact the new section, as the 1936 Act refers only to cottages situate within a county health district. The section will preserve the powers under the 1936 Act for cottages included in an urban area until such time as they are transferred to the urban authority. (The question of transfer would normally arise only in circumstances where the tenants failed to exercise their rights to purchase.)
Section 19, taken in conjunction with this section, provides a protection for the tenant where the county council wish to hand over a cottage to an urban authority. The protection is limited to a period of 12 months. There is, of course, no obligation on a county council to hand over the cottage to the urban district council and if they retain the cottages the rights of the tenants to purchase are preserved permanently.
The case I was making before—which is related to Section 19 and 21 and definitely related to this amendment No. 25 to Section 22— applies here also. An urban authority in extending its boundaries takes in a certain number of cottages. The Minister wants to give the occupant of such a cottage protection to the extent that he will retain his rights, but he is omitting to see that the moment the rural cottage dweller becomes an urban cottage dweller, he has different liabilities imposed on him. That has particular reference to the sanitary requirements of the urban area as compared with the previous requirements of the rural area. I am wondering how the Minister is protecting that rural cottage dweller, who will have to pay an increased rate—apart from whatever difference there is in rates—or if he opts to buy the cottage will have to spend a good deal to make it comply with the urban sanitary requirements. I am wondering where the Minister is helping him there.
I am afraid that question is outside the scope of the Housing Bill. It is a matter for the council deciding on the borough extension and would be discussed at the inquiry. I do not see how one could expect any Housing Bill to give protection for every possible borough extension that might take place in the near or distant future. This gives protection in regard to labourers' cottages. There will be plenty of people in rural areas brought in through extensions who will not be tenants of labourers' cottages at all but may be farmers or small holders. I cannot see how you could arrange in this Bill to give them protection for such altered circumstances when they come into urban life as visualised by the Deputy. There will be counteractions on the other side, I presume.
We had an extension recently in Limerick and I would like to ensure that all those tenants of cottages who may be affected as a result of that extension of the boundary, will be let know either by the local authority or the Department, of the rights they are being provided with under this Bill.
Yes, they are bound to be informed. It is compulsory in the section that they be informed by the local authority.
Will it be open to the council to retain under their own control the cottages in the extended urban area, whether or not these cottages are occupied by people who have purchase agreements?
Yes, they may retain the control.
In the case of cottages in respect of which there are purchase agreements, they may retain them for 12 months?
There is no obligation on the county council to hand over the cottage to the urban district council and if they retain it the rights to purchase are preserved permanently.
In the event of the county council retaining them, must they comply with the sanitary laws of the urban authority and keep their houses up to the standard of the sanitary laws of the urban authority? Further, I asked the Minister before, in the event of the county council transferring these houses to the urban authority, who would be responsible for the future loan charges that may not have been paid off?
That would be adjusted in the Order.
Can they transfer the loan charges?
They will be adjusted in the Order.
Do I understand the Minister to say that, if an urban area extends its boundaries and takes in a certain number of cottages, the rural authority who previously owned these cottages can still retain ownership in the urban area which has gone further out?
Which is likely to happen? Any time a boundary has been extended, the authority that extends the boundary takes over the property in the extended area and does not create a new landlord within its own territory.
And pays compensation to the local authority.
If it does not pay adequate compensation the local authority can keep it.
Yes, but two local authorities cannot operate in the one area.
Not as local authorities.
That is what is suggested.
But as a local authority and as a landlord they can.
We shall have a fine state of affairs if we have that.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 26:—
In line 15, to add after "Acts" the following:—
"Provided always that where an allotment has been in the continuous occupation of an allottee or his immediate relatives for a period of not less than 12 years such allottee shall not be disturbed except upon payment of compensation to be agreed upon by the local authority and the allottee concerned, or, in the event of a failure to so agree, to be determined by arbitration".
During the war period we had occasion to examine in a fair amount of detail the question of allotments, particularly in Dublin, and we found that in many areas the number of allotments was barely sufficient for the emergency. We found areas where people had allotments for a considerable number of years and where land had been further utilised for allotments purposes as a result of special measures taken by the Dublin Corporation to find suitable places where the people could produce food during the emergency. Encroachment inevitably took place as a result of housing activity and as a result of the Dublin Corporation taking over housing sites. Now there are a considerable number of people, not only in Dublin but in other parts of the country, who had allotments for years and years to the great benefit of themselves and their families; they have what might almost be called "squatters rights" in connection with these allotments. If the Minister wants to preserve the social principle of encouraging the use of allotments, he might consider accepting an amendment whereby if a person is in possession of an allotment over a period of 12 years he will be entitled to some sort of compensation.
This amendment is unnecessary as there is provision for compensation already available. Tenants of allotments under the Labourers Acts are required to be Cottier Tenancies (Section 13 of the Labourers Act, 1883). In the case of such tenancies compensation for disturbance is provided for in Section 82 in the Landlord and Tenant Law (Amendment) Act, 1860 (Deasy's Act). The provision is there for compensation to the allottees and it is, therefore, unnecessary to have this amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 22, as amended, agreed to.
Section 23 agreed to.
SECTION 24.
I move amendment No. 27:—
In line 27 to add after "residence" the following:—
"and by the substitution therefor of the following:—‘The schemes shall avoid all interference with lands immediately adjoining and customarily occupied with a residence provided that the protection extended by this section does not extend beyond 75 yards of the residence in question.'"
We feel that, while this affords local authorities a valuable means of securing housing sites that would otherwise not be available, the Minister is going rather far in not providing some sort of protection for owners of demesne lands. There, again, we face a certain difficulty. We go in for town planning and for the creation of a sort of orderly extension of housing in various areas. At the same time, very frequently the Minister—I might say both the present Minister and his predecessor—because of pressure to erect houses is compelled to take land which has the effect of creating disorderly and unattractive conditions, not only for the public generally but also for the individual landowners. The object of this amendment is to preserve to some degree the privacy of people who have houses on lands that have been acquired for building purposes. It seems only reasonable that they should have some measure of protection. This amendment seeks to give them an area of 75 yards within which they cannot be interfered with.
I am not accepting this amendment. I consider that the laying down of a specific condition of this kind in legislation stating the extent of the protection to be afforded would be neither desirable nor equitable to landowners or local authorities. There are many cases where a greater area than 75 yards should be conceded as a protective belt. In other cases, the area could be less. So much depends upon the circumstances, which include considerations other than distance, that it would be impossible to concentrate in any single formula the reasonable protection which ought to be given. There is nowhere else in the housing code a specific circumstance which would confer a protection and it is considered that the amendment proposed would, even if accepted, be inadequate to give just treatment in special cases. The owner of the demesne land may confidently take his place with other landowners who rely on the sympathetic consideration given by the Minister to all cases of hardship and pleas of injustice which come before him as a result of the local inquiry. He can rely in addition on his right to appeal to the courts. I think the application of this amendment would be very difficult, if not impossible. I can cite cases where a demesne house is so situated that the application of this 75 yards rule would completely debar local authorities erecting houses, even on lands outside of the 75 yards. The application of the 75 yards fixed rule would be impracticable. I do not think it would be either necessary or desirable. The people who so seek to be protected should take their place with the other landowners in relation to the Minister and local inquiries. I cannot see my way, therefore, to accept this amendment.
Section 24 purports to give a certain specific amount of protection to the power of a particular type of specified building or residence. The Minister is wrong when he says that the amendment suggests a fixed distance of 75 yards. The amendment suggests no such thing. The amendment suggests only that there shall be protection given, but not exceeding 75 yards. Even if the owner wanted more the amendment suggests that he should not get more. There have been cases where grave hardship has been inflicted because of residences being rendered useless to their owners since too much land was taken away from them close up to the residence and the residence remains there with practically no privacy, out-offices or anything else. This amendment merely underlines what is inherent by implication in Section 24. It does not say that you must give the owner 75 yards. It merely says not exceeding 75 years. It That is quite a different argument from that advanced by the Minister in his rejection of the amendment.
The Minister has resisted the amendment on the grounds that he is entitled to 75 years in certain cases. The amendment admits that and says so. I think this amendment will give the owner of property, whose lands are being acquired but whose house is not being acquired by the local authority, some additional protection. Obviously the residence becomes more and more unsuitable if the local authority can define up to the last inch what it wants to acquire.
Section 24 proposes to delete that.
The Deputy has misread Section 24. We are deleting that.
I suggest I have not misread the amendment. The amendment says:—
"The scheme shall avoid all interference with lands immediately adjoining and customarily occupied with a residence provided that the protection extended by this section does not extend beyond 75 yards of the residence in question."
The protection goes right in up to 75 yards. That is the reading of that, 75 yards in every direction from the house. The acceptance of the amendment would make it utterly impossible for a local authority to operate this provision and, in many cases, would not give the protection that is necessary or desirable.
I did misread Section 24, but, having done so, I am convinced that it makes the amendment all the more necessary. In this section the Minister is introducing something new as regards the rights of local authorities in the matter of the acquisition of property or bits of property. The proposal in the section is not to take over a whole parcel. I think the Minister ought to leave some rights attaching to the residual part, even if it means that he may have to consider a distance of 75 yards from the house itself.
The Deputy says that he misread the section. He certainly misquoted the amendment. The amendment means that a local authority cannot go within 75 yards of any house, whether it is taking the house or not. Deputy Briscoe made a case in respect of a local authority that was taking land near a house, but was not taking the residence. The amendment, as drafted, would cover a case where the residence was being taken— that you could take the residence, but that you could not take 75 yards of the land around the house. That may not have been intended. In fact I think it is clear that it was not intended.
When one considers any of these questions relating to the acquisition of land which is near a residence, the more one is driven to the conclusion that each individual case must stand on its own legs, and that it is impossible to legislate for the necessary land to be acquired by a local authority in such a way that specific instances will be ruled out of individual consideration. In my opinion, the best way of dealing with it is to rely on the good sense of the local authority that is dealing with individual cases. So far as the local authority of which I am a member is concerned-the Kildare County Council—we frequently come up against this question. If we were to take land in a particular spot, we know that we are going to interfere unduly with the residence of the person who lives in or adjacent to that land, and so we always go away from that land if we can possibly do so. We always avoid taking sites on such land if we can at all do so. It is only by giving the local authority credit for exercising a reasonable interpretation of their desire to get sites as well as a reasonable interpretation of the amenities of the people living in the neighbourhood, that you are going to get a sound result. You are not going to get that sound result by tying up the local authority, one way or another, in a strait-jacket.
I am glad that I managed to misread the section and to misquote the amendment, as Deputy Sweetman has said, because it had brought about the line of argument that I wanted to get. In this Bill we are introducing a completely new form of acquisition. I think Deputy Sweetman will admit that, prior to the introduction of this Bill, if a local authority wanted to get land it either bought the land or acquired it compulsorily, subject to arbitration and the payment of compensation. It took the whole bit, and offered back, if you like the residence. That gave security to the owner, because if his property was, from his point of view, being destroyed he had the option of getting out and of making the best bargain he could, or of buying the back, as cheaply as he could what he wished to retain.
Only in regard to demesne land?
No. You had to take over the whole thing.
But so far as the section is concerned.
I say that this is a new approach.
To be able to take demesne lands?
That is the new approach.
I say this new approach is a very dangerous one, because you are now not giving the owner the right to get out on the best bargain he can make. You are now introducing this new system whereby you can say to the owner of the property: "We are not going to take your house because it is too big or because it would be useless to us, but we are giving you back as much of the land as we like, up to your hall-door". As Deputy Sweetman has said, you are leaving the owner with a house and 75 yards of land on every side of it. A lot of these houses may be fronting the public road, and the 75 yards of land may be at the side or the back of the house. We object to the section because it is a new form of compulsory acquisition. In my opinion, it takes away the fair basis that was there heretofore so far as an owner's rights to compensation were concerned. I am surprised that Deputy Sweetman, who is a legal man, does not see what is implied in the section.
I think the Deputy misunderstands it.
If I misunderstood it before I think that, having listened to the lecture given by the Deputy, I fully understand it now. I think the Deputy agrees with me that it is a completely new departure so far as the acquisition of demesne land is concerned.
Mr. Byrne
Having listened to the Minister, to Deputy Briscoe and to Deputy Sweetman, I am inclined to agree with the point of view put forward by Deputy Briscoe. At the same time, I think that the amendment goes too far. I am of the opinion that the section itself is all wrong. In my opinion, if the Minister withdrew the section and if Deputy Briscoe withdrew the amendment, I think it would be much better for all parties concerned. At the moment, local authorities have the power to say what is right in matters of this kind. I agree with Deputy Briscoe that it would not be fair to take all the land running right up to the hall-door or bedroom window of any man's house. If you take a man's gardens, or the field around his house, and if you will not give him compensation for the house, that, I think, is not fair. There is no value in the house once the gardens and the lands surrounding it are taken.
The Minister is proposing in Section 24 to delete the words "the scheme shall avoid all interference with the demesne and amenity of residence of the owner of the lands proposed to be taken, or with any home farm, or lands immediately adjoining and customarily occupied with such residence". Why should the Minister delete those words? In my opinion this section is a little bit objectionable. The amendment may not be the amendment that would meet the requirements of individual cases. The local authority ought to have the power to use their judgment to go in and act fairly. Certainly, if the gardens and lands surrounding a house are taken, the owner of it ought to be entitled to some compensation in respect to the house because, without the gardens and lands, the house is of little value to him.
I move to report progress.
Progress reported; Committee to sit again.
