I particularly welcome the opportunity to participate tonight in this debate on the Derelict Sites Bill, 1989. The views I am going to express will be largely based on personal experience as a local public representative on Dublin County Council and I hope my views will contain many of the comments made to me by my constituents throughout the part of Dublin I represent. These comments are from people who have experienced the utter frustration of trying to deal with derelict sites in their own area, or neighbourhood over the years, under the legislation available to them until now. It is hoped this Bill will become law as quickly as possible.
How often have we been faced at public meetings with demands from residents to deal with a particular eyesore or derelict site in their area? When we refer the matter to the local authority we find frequently that for a variety of reasons, largely going back to the inadequacy of present legislation, the local authority are unable to deal with the problem. This has had a tremendous impact on communities, on the older communities which saw the increase in derelict sites in their areas and on the newer communities, the new housing areas where, although housing estates were being developed, places around those estates were being allowed to decay and become derelict, causing great concern and discomfort to both types of community. This legislation is an attempt rapidly to correct the situation which has been allowed to get out of hand for far too long. Basically, we are dealing with the inadequacies of the 1940 and 1961 legislation in this regard.
The Minister when opening this debate made a number of telling points which put the legislation in perspective. He sought to highlight clearly for us the reasons for the legislation being necessary. We must understand the impact of derelict sites on the environment, on people living in the immediate area, and the effect the general sense of dilapidation derelict sites can have to those who see them, perhaps for the first time. This legislation seeks to confer on the local authority primarily, the power to deal with derelict sites, which power all of us have realised for some time they have lacked. Many of us, having the benefit of serving on local authorities, will know that there is very much an involvement in development plans which are largely drawn up or renewed every five years and very often during discussion on such plans the issue addressed in this Bill comes up for discussion.
The Minister has given us something of the history of the legislation in so far as it attempts to deal with derelict sites. He has shown quite clearly that the legislation available to local authorities at present is extremely weak. One local authority, Dublin Corporation, find that there are, in a very small space between the canals, something in the order of 600 derelict sites. That is an enormous number and obviously it is causing tremendous disquiet to those living in the area concerned. Perhaps it has given rise to the drift from inner city areas out to the suburbs, something which we now recognise is not necessarily a welcome trend in population movement.
This Bill sets out to try to provide local authorities with powers to deal with the issue of derelict sites. It is extremely timely and follows on a number of very imaginative Bills brought forward by the Minister for the Environment, Deputy Flynn, and the Minister of State, Deputy Connolly, to strengthen the hand of the elected representatives of local authorities. One frequently hears the complaint from elected representatives at local level that their powers in relation to local matters are extremely limited. This Bill represents an attempt by the Minister and the Minister of State to give back substantial powers to local authorities. The elected representatives are familiar with the problems of their own areas and are best qualified to deal with them.
There is no more important issue than derelict sites when it comes to the exercise of power by locally elected representative organisations. Local assemblies are in a position not only to harness the powers within the local authorities but also to call upon voluntary effort to deal with derelict sites. This has been shown to some extent by some of the more enlightened local authorities who have been able to devise schemes in which tenants' associations and other interested groups and organisations play a specific role in cleaning up areas which have become eyesores. Voluntary organisations have contributed very significantly to the enhancement of their neighbourhoods, but local voluntary effort, no matter how well disposed, is not always able to deal ultimately with the issue. For that reason the Government have brought forward this Bill.
If the Bill was not strong enough to deal with this problem, it would be a waste of time, but any examination of its contents will show that the Minister sets out to give teeth to the Bill. It contains provisions which will allow local authorities to take very strong action once notices have been served on the owners or occupiers of derelict sites. There is a fundamental difference between this legislation and the Acts of 1940 and 1961. The 1940 Act contains only the threat that the local authority will be enabled to acquire derelict sites if the owner or occupier does not put them in order. There is no case to make nowadays for a local authority dealing with this issue by threatening to acquire a piece of property. This would lead to enormous difficulty in the expenditure of taxpayers' money to acquire sites which would be of no use to the local authority. That was one of the fundamental weaknesses in the 1940 Act. The Minister here deals with the problem by way of levies.
A major difficulty for a local authority has always been the definition of the derelict site. Those of us who have experience of serving on local authorities have frequently brought a particular site to the attention of the management, asking that it should be investigated. Frequently the manager reports back that he cannot define the site as derelict under existing legislation, although we know that by comparison with neighbouring sites the site in question is clearly derelict. Nevertheless, legal opinion is often otherwise. The Minister has addressed this problem by widening the definition. This will strengthen the hand of the elected representatives and the management of local authorities in defining derelict sites on a much wider scale. Problems of definition have heretofore allowed for the continued existence of derelict sites, despite complaints by individuals and local representatives.
An important provision of the Bill is that which requires a register of derelict sites to be drawn up by every local authority within one year from the commencement of the Act. They must establish and maintain a register to be known as the derelict sites register. Although it might not be realised by some contributors, this outstanding provision means that any elected representative or other interested person can, by contacting a local authority, discover if a particular site is on that register. If so, the matter can be pursued with the local authority so that action can be taken under this legislation. If the site in question is not included in the register, the local authority can be alerted to undertake the various procedures necessary to have it entered on the register. This is a very important aspect of the Bill. The work of elected representatives will be made much easier when discussing this issue. It will be possible for the management of local authorities to name all derelict sites within their area and to apply pressure, if required, to have them dealt with as provided for in this Bill. This provision will strengthen the hand of the local authority.
It will give the ordinary person better access to information relating to derelict sites in their own areas, an issue that might concern them because they live beside the derelict site or work beside one. That is an extremely important insertion in the Bill and I am delighted, as someone who has served on a local authority, to see it because it will strengthen the hand of the elected representative, the manager of the local authority and ordinary individuals who may have a problem in regard to sites in their area.
The legislation also refers to the power of the local authority to acquire derelict sites. Generally, the Bill confers power on the local authorities to do this but I do not favour local authorities acquiring sites just because they happen to be derelict. However, the legislation is strong enough to allow for local authorities to take other measures in regard to most of the derelict sites. I do not think that any of us would be anxious to see local authorities acquiring, willy-nilly as it were, sites just because they happened to be derelict and which would not be of any use to the local authority in question.
I want to briefly refer to the levies which can now be charged by local authorities to owners of derelict sites over a number of years. This gives teeth to the legislation because, without a penalty or financial implications of some kind for the owners of these sites, the Bill would be worthless. I am glad the Minister and the Minister of State take a similar view, that legislation of this kind would be worthless without financial penalties being imposed. Therefore, I am particularly pleased that up to a maximum of 10 per cent — depending on what the Minister may decide — of the value of a site can be levied by the local authorities in any one year. This will quite clearly spell out to the owners of such sites that the time has come for them to put their houses in order and that we will no longer accept a situation where sites are allowed to deteriorate to such an extent that they become derelict. If they decide to go down that particular road a financial penalty will be imposed which will, I hope, encourage them to ensure that the sites are kept clear and do not become an infringement on people's rights in an area as far as a clean and healthy environment is concerned.
I know the Minister recognises that there will be an occasional case which will involve hardship. We accept this can happen in any legislation which has a punitive clause. However, there is a waiver which can be utilised at the discretion of the local authorities and taken into account. The Minister is very fair-minded about this and recognises that individuals can have difficulties for a whole variety of reasons which mean they may not be able to respond in sufficient time to avoid a financial penalty. The Minister is to be complimented for allowing the waiver to be included.
This is a very important Bill which will strengthen the hands of local authorities and in a special way it compliments and reinforces the view of the Minister and the Minister of State in their intention to give back real, significant and substantial powers to local authorities and their elected representatives which we all recognise have been taken away or eroded.
I compliment the Minister and the Minister of State on this excellent legislation. I note that all sides of the House have warmly welcomed it.