Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, 1931—Third Stage.
The Seanad went into Committee.
Section 1 agreed to.
SECTION 2 (1).
the expression "unhealthy area" means an area the dwelling houses in which are by reason of disrepair or sanitary defects unfit for human habitation or are by reason of their bad arrangement or the narrowness or bad arrangement of the streets, dangerous or injurious to the health of the inhabitants of the area and in which the other buildings, if any, are for a like reason dangerous or injurious to the health of such inhabitants;
I move:
Section 2, sub-section (1). After the words "an area" in line 40 to insert the words "the subsoil of which is unsuitable for the building of dwelling houses or."
This matter affects everybody, and it will affect generations in the future if we do not now consider the definition of what is an insanitary area. It is not houses that make an area insanitary. It is very easy to see that no one would, except by the aid of an hospital sweep grant, build a tuberculosis sanatorium in Capel street when one remembers that Capel street is an unsuitable site apart altogether from the conditions of the houses there at present. This city was founded in the ninth century in a haphazard manner by the Scandinavians who came up the river and could not go any further. The river spread tidally to a much greater extent in those days than it does now. The cellars in a large area of the city are subject to tidal changes twice daily. I have a letter from the City Engineer's department in which I asked to be given an idea of the area of Dublin under the high water level of the Liffey. It says:
"the districts in which some of the roads are in many cases under high water are the North Lotts area extending from North Strand to East Wall road and the South Lotts area near Sir John Rogerson's Quay. However, in other parts of the city, although I have not all the levels, I am sure that many of the basements are under high water, especially areas parallel to the River Liffey and on each side from Arran Quay and Merchants Quay eastwards.
In other words for about 200 yards on each side of the Liffey the basements are flooded twice daily. I think it is very ill-advised to build dwelling houses on these sites. Remember that as the law at present exists it prevents people erecting houses on newly made lands. We cannot build houses at Fairview where sloblands have been taken in nor at Blackrock where land has also been made. Twenty years is the minimum time in which houses could be built on such land. Let me explain the reasons for that. If you build houses on land made within the past twenty years all will be well until fires are lighted. The moment the fires are lighted and the rooms warmed you turn that house into a suction opening into a syringe which brings the miasma even through a cement basement. If that happens in ordinary dry land how much more harmful will it be when you are dealing with what has been an open sewer since 900? The Corporation of Dublin in 1905 held up some of the effluvia in a large pipe which runs by the side of the river to Ringsend. The old brick drains were not removed when the Corporation sewers were built and now you get the second condition or factor which makes it inadvisable to erect dwelling-houses on that part of the city and on areas that can be cleared. The water pipes and drains that run into the river quite freely when the Liffey is at low tide are momentarily subject to a backwash when the Liffey is at full tide and that backwash extends over a far greater area than the area I have mentioned. It is influenced by the river apart altogether from the drainage area. It extends to a greater area than the river itself and overflows at high tide.
To give an idea of the conditions in the south side, the backwash of the Liffey extends to the Fusiliers' Monument at Stephen's Green. There is an area of Dublin in which if it were built on, and if there were artificial means of getting it drained, the houses would be flooded each year. I refer to Trinity College Park, which is under the Liffey level. The Trinity College Park is kept a grass park and not a snipe park by means of a large pump behind the medical school which had to be augmented by the fire brigade last year during the floods. I ask the House to include in the definition of insanitary dwellings consideration of the soil on which it is proposed to put people to live. If houses are built in such places children will suffer from different forms of trouble, slight or otherwise, but which may end in greater troubles like rheumatics later. Then we will have the perpetual vicious circle of continuing Dublin as the most hospital-ridden city in the world. We are supplying the hospitals with patients by ignoring the first principle of health. The Local Government officials have to provide themselves with the diplomas of public health. It is not too much to ask the Local Government Department to put into action in that matter the knowledge that these diplomas confer and consequently to use common sense and not to build houses in a sewer area. I do not want to depreciate further the rateable value of this property, but I want to say that if you dig a hole and expose a sewer you will think that water is coming in from the river Liffey. When you send for the plumber the water will have disappeared when he comes. That is water from the Liffey. If the rains come that will be much more increased if you are very near one of these water drains.
There is a river I believe flowing under the Richmond Asylum on to the Liffey on the North side and on the South side you have another river flowing into the Liffey. These rivers are subject to being choked up when the Liffey is at high tide and that is what I mean by the backwash which influences the health of houses within the Liffey bed. I want the House to consider what I think is a prime factor in making a place insanitary and that is the subsoil. If one is not allowed to build on made ground within a minimum period of 20 years how much more indefensible would it be to build on a percolated site like this?
Citizens must have noticed that if one looks up Capel street no matter what the visibility one cannot see to the end of the street and that is not because of the curve but because there is a kind of bluish mist in the air. That is not from a sewer, it is a miasma coming up from the percolated subsoil. If it is a sunny day you will notice that mist even much more. It is to that we are going to condemn our children. That is the air we are going to condemn them to breathe. We are going to prejudice the health of three generations of people. It is on land extending around that area that it is proposed to build new houses. I hope you will not build on an ancient sewer. That is why I think it is very important, under the circumstances, to know, before you make up your mind to build, the sort of place in which you are going to build. On this matter surely nobody would think of saying "we would like to see a tuberculosis hospital for little children erected in the middle of Capel street." Anyone who would say that would be laughed to scorn. There is one at the North Wall but there is fresh air there. This city is already rather remarkable for the amazing number of hospitals it has. No town of its size has an equal number of hospitals—nineteen hospitals. But if you are to build in the places I have indicated you will have to provide more hospitals. You will continue the vicious circle. As a result you will have cripples reared in that area. I would ask the House to consider that matter very seriously.
[Senator Counihan took the Chair.]
Anyone listening to the speech of Senator Gogarty would agree with the saying "dread the man with one idea, above all, the specialist." Where are we to build houses in the City of Dublin? We are told by the Senator that we must go to the Fusiliers' Monument at the top of Grafton Street before we get out of the ambit of the Liffey tide and the miasma of which he has spoken. Is he going to build houses in Dame Street or Westmoreland Street? What is wrong with Capel Street? I never saw this blue Danish mist of which he has told us. I think that Capel Street is above the sea level——
You do not think—the City Engineer knows it and he has measured it.
I would be in favour of the Senator's amendment if it would do any good and avoid undue expense. Is a man before he builds a house to have an investigation made as to the subsoil and who is to determine whether the subsoil is suitable—is there to be a special investigation with regard to the sub-soil?
Or are we to depend upon the Public Health Authorities who have already sufficient power to prevent the erection of houses on unsuitable places? Does Senator Gogarty propose to clear the whole heart of the City, the North Lotts and the South Lotts, Dame Street and Capel Street?
When it is cleared I would like to buy some of the vacant spaces and then we could amend the subsection and Senator Gogarty could start building houses as his Danish forefathers did in the blue mists not in Fairview but in what the Senator calls the part of the City where he saw this blue mist.
I ask Senator Gogarty to withdraw this amendment. I know that the area about which Senator Gogarty has spoken cannot be insanitary and it cannot be suffering from the dreadful things about which the Senator has told us. As a matter of fact the Dublin Municipality did build a number of artisan dwellings within the immediate vicinity of the Liffey, in Church Street and in Mary's Lane, and we never heard the dreadful things about which the Senator has been telling us. The people in the Church Street area are very happy. In that area there was a lot of dirty, miserable slums at one time. Some of them fell and killed some of the inhabitants. They were all cleared away and the Municipality built there a lot of nice houses. I am speaking of the Church Street area. I suggest seriously to the Senator that he ought to withdraw his amendment. This section of the Bill is not dealing with newly-made ground. It is not dealing with the Lotts area about which I know something, because the Corporation some years ago decided not to build on it. I suggest that this amendment will not improve the Bill. The municipality have surveyed the whole city on many occasions and they have taken into consideration the things the Senator has said, and I want to say this, that in the immediate vicinity of the Liffey it is an extraordinary thing that if the statistics as to the health of the City are looked up, it will be found that the people who live along the Liffey are the healthiest people in the city of Dublin. I seriously suggest that the Senator ought to withdraw the amendment.
There is a more serious defect in the amendment. It purports to improve the definition of the words "unhealthy area." When you alter the definition of "unhealthy area" in the way the Senator wishes you are not effecting what he desires. The definition clause has nothing whatever to do with where you are going to build the new houses. If you declare that all these places within the centre of the city are unhealthy areas then you have got to demolish all the places in those areas. I think the Senator would hardly desire to do that.
I was unable, by keeping too closely to the amendment, to make it more acceptable because I had in the back of my mind to make an appeal to the feelings of good citizenship of Senator Farren and my critics. At the present moment, when we are clearing the city, we ought not, without a spacious plan and a noble vision of a greater Dublin, to build on those cleared sites. Otherwise, we will not be able to improve the city as European towns have been improved by the building of boulevards, etc. There is this shortcoming in the Bill, that it has not been made part and parcel of a town planning measure with which it really ought to run concurrently. If you do nothing except remove these old houses that have stood for hundreds of years and put perishable cement structures in their places, then you will simply be creating a horrible Hollywood of potential slums. There are hidden behind noble fronts houses that are hardly fit for habitation; these noble old houses are a fence to hide what is behind.
I think, when we get a chance of clearing a city area, that it should not be immediately built upon until there is a definite scheme as to how the city is to be replanned. It is really high time that the nation should at least be able in its charter of freedom to compete with the men of the 18th century whose high ideas made this noble city, the seventh city in Christen dom. The great central avenue what is now O'Connell Street with the North and the South Circular Roads were beautifully planned. The houses that have now become tenements were nobly proportioned. They have stood for 200 years until now they have become tenements. I wonder how long will the modern houses built out around Fairview last?
The limitation in my amendment is that I was not able to call on the spirit of citizens and to implore them not to build at all in the city until we have a co-ordinated plan before us to make a city worthy of the nation. I saw a plan recently of Paris and its boulevards. It mentioned about seven great Parisians, but Dublin had at least seventy. In Dublin you had the effects of fresh blood incoming for seven hundred years. In Dublin you had the products of new and old races giving rise to a new native genius, and men like Hamilton and Burke, Dunlop and Griffith and others in their different spheres of life—these and modern men that we export like George Bernard Shaw. I am merely asking in the amendment, in view of what might be done and ought to be done in the city, to withhold rebuilding on the cleared sites. My idea of condemning certain sites is to make it easier for us to acquire them and to build a road sixty yards broad each side of the river from Butt Bridge to Parkgate Street on one side and Kingsbridge on the other. This would make the Four Courts stand out as its architect intended it, and also make Christ Church visible from O'Connell Bridge. The Minister should give himself an opportunity of preparing the ground for a dignified Dublin. I hope the Seanad will consider the amendment, as the effect of it will be to give a chance for considering this whole matter when there is a general town-planning scheme.
I do not know whether the putting in of the words in the amendment would provide the Senator with machinery in the Bill for calling upon the spirit of citizens to do certain things. There is, however, machinery in the Bill by which you can call on the City Corporation and on the Ministry to prevent building in an unsuitable way. Under Section 9, when a clearance order has become effective, then no development of that area can take place except in accordance with such plans as will be approved of by the local authority in so far as building by the local authority is concerned. That is a matter, too, that will come under review by the Ministry.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Sections 2, 3 and 4 agreed to.
SECTION 5.
Question proposed: "That Section 5 stand part of the Bill."
On the section I want to draw the Minister's attention to what seems to me to be a defect in the drafting of this in relation to section 14. It is entirely a drafting matter, but I think it is not satisfactory as it stands. It will be noticed that under sub-section (1) of Section 5 where the local authority are satisfied upon consideration of an official representation or other information in their possession that any area within their district is an unhealthy area, it shall cause the same area to be defined on a map, shall by resolution declare such an area so defined to be a clearance area and shall, in accordance with the provisions of the Act, proceed to secure the demolition of all buildings. It is imperative on the local authority that they shall do these things, but under section 14 they are precluded from doing them until they have satisfied the Minister that they have provided alternative accommodation. It seems to me that you cannot impose upon the local authority an obligation to do these things, having been satisfied that the area is unhealthy, and then say that they must not decide upon doing that thing until the Minister is satisfied that they have done something else. Some proviso, I think, would have to be inserted in sub-section (1) of Section 5 to limit the order of the local authority until they have satisfied the Minister that certain things have been done.
In the first place we require the local authority, having examined a place, to mark on a map the area that they would propose to define by a resolution as a clearance area. We require them before they pass the resolution to satisfy the Minister under Section 14. The only thing from the drafting point of view that would be necessary there if it were necessary would be to say "subject to satisfying the Minister under section 14 shall by resolution" etc. I would imagine that the presence of section 14 actually does operate between the compulsory making of the map and the passing of the resolution.
I would point out that it is not merely an obligation to cause a map to be made. The section says that they shall by resolution declare such an area and shall proceed to demolish.
Section 14 says that the local authority shall before undertaking the business of a clearance do certain things. When they come to the point at which the resolution has to be passed they are faced with the word "shall" enshrined in Section 14.
They cannot do what you order them to do because you refuse to allow them.
Section put and agreed to.
Sections 6 and 7 agreed to.
SECTION 8.
(1) When a clearance order has become operative the owner or owners of any building to which the order applies shall demolish that building and clear and level the site thereof before the expiration of six weeks from the date on which the building is required by the order to be vacated or, if it is not vacated until after that date, before the expiration of six weeks from the date on which it is vacated or, in either case, before the expiration of such longer period as in the circumstances the local authority may deem reasonable; and, if the building is not demolished before the expiration of that period, the local authority shall enter and demolish the building and clear and level the site thereof and sell the materials thereof.
On behalf of Senator Milroy I move amendment 2. Section 8, sub-section (1). After the word "thereof" in line 56 to insert the words "to the satisfaction of the local authority."
The purpose of the amendment is to establish the standard as to what exactly is required. Without the amendment the person clearing an area might be prevented from stacking certain of the materials taken from the demolition on the area in the way in which the local authority would approve. The amendment is to meet that.
Amendment agreed to.
On behalf of Senator Milroy I move amendment 3. Section 8, sub-section (1). After the word "demolished" in line 1 to insert the words "and the site thereof so cleared and levelled."
Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That Section 8 stand part of the Bill."
On the section I wish to ask for some information. Has the Minister or somebody got the power to ensure that a clearance, if desired, is effected partially, because under schemes of re-housing I know that it has been found desirable to clear partially and to use some of the old buildings for temporary accommodation while the new buildings were being put up? I do not know if that power is there. If there has to be a complete clearance for re-building, that may add to the difficulties with regard to temporary accommodation.
There is another point I would like to put to the Minister as to the equity of recovering the cost of demolition from the owner. It does not seem equitable that the owner should be out of pocket in the case of the demolition of buildings. There are all sorts of ways in which an owner might get out of that. He might be tempted to use some type of subterfuge, but is it desirable that there should be that temptation under those conditions?
So far as clearing the site is concerned, it must be cleared to the satisfaction of the local authority; but so far as the demolition of buildings is concerned, Section 5 contemplates that a clearance area will contain only houses that it is intended completely to demolish. If there are houses in the unhealthy area, if there are houses contiguous to the unhealthy area, or if there is an island in it which the local authority considers need not be completely demolished because it does not come into the clearance area scheme, those places might be dealt with under the unhealthy housing portion of the Bill either at the time or afterwards. The owner would be required to put the house or houses into a proper state of repair.
So far as a clearance area is concerned, I can conceive no purpose that could be served by leaving a wall standing here, a chimney-stack standing there. The purpose is complete demolition but only of an area where it has been decided that everything has to be demolished. In so far as clearing an area under sub-section (1) of the First Schedule is concerned, that area can be cleared progressively. The local authority can fix different periods at which different parts of the area can be cleared.
Would the Minister care to touch upon the point of covering the owner with regard to the cost?
I do not quite catch the Senator's point.
Under Section 8 the local authority have power to recover from the owner by summary jurisdiction the cost of demolition. Can the Minister justify the equity of that? Can he visualise the cases of owners who are likely to be out of pocket? I am sure he is aware that, if they so desire, they can get out of their liabilities by methods that are not altogether desirable.
What particular sub-section is the Senator referring to?
I am referring to the provision in the measure which enables a local authority, if the owner does not clear an area, to order its clearance and recover from the owner, by summary jurisdiction, the cost of the clearance. I suggest that in some cases the owner would be out of pocket and I consider that that is not equitable.
I would like to hear the Senator arguing that the owner of an insanitary dwelling, dangerous to the health of the inhabitants in the neighbourhood, should be able to leave it standing there with impunity.
I am quite prepared to argue that, seeing that the Minister and his officials alone can lay down the standard of sanitation. I know that some of the officials are rather inclined to regard the question of sanitation from an unduly high theoretical and academical standpoint. It does seem unjust that an owner of buildings should be left entirely in their power and should be out of pocket in clearing an area. Let the local authority take over the place and compensate the site value. I submit that an owner would be out of pocket over the cost of demolition.
The demolition of the type of house we are discussing is absolutely necessary. From our experience in public life we know that when houses are condemned and are allowed to stand poor people creep into them and live in them. That is a most undesirable procedure. I really think that declaring houses to be insanitary and not demolishing them would be simply ridiculous, particularly when overcrowding and the need of houses form such a problem.
I am not objecting to the local authority entering and demolishing. I object to placing the responsibility of clearing on the owner and leaving him out of pocket. He may be a poor man, and yet the local authority can recover by summary jurisdiction the cost of demolition.
It is not the person who is actually in control of the house; it is the owner of the house. The owner is any person who has an interest in it in any way, by way of ground rent or otherwise. The court has power when fixing costs to distribute them over the various owners. A person with a three years' interest is excluded under the definition of owner.
Sections 8 and 9 agreed to.
SECTION 10.
(1) A local authority who have under this part of this Act purchased any land comprised in, or surrounded by, or adjoining a clearance area shall, so soon as may be, cause every building thereon to be vacated and subject to compliance with any provision contained in a compulsory purchase order with respect to the carrying out of re-housing operations shall deal with that land in one or other of the following ways, or partly in one of these ways and partly in the other of them, that is to say:—
(a) they shall demolish every building thereon before the expiration of six weeks from the date on which it is vacated, or before the expiration of such longer period as in the circumstances they deem reasonable, and thereafter may, subject to the approval of the Minister, sell or let the land subject to such restrictions and conditions, if any, as they think fit, or may appropriate the land for any purpose for which they are authorised to acquire land subject to the like restrictions as are contained in section ninety-five of the Public Health Acts Amendment Act, 1907, with respect to the appropriation of land by local authorities under that section; or
(b) they shall, subject to the approval of the Minister, so soon as may be, sell or let the land subject to a condition that the buildings thereon shall be demolished forthwith and subject to such restrictions and other conditions, if any, as they may think fit to impose.
On behalf of Senator Milroy, I beg to move amendment 4:—
Section 10, sub-section (1). To delete all after the word "and" in line 57 down to and including the word "operations" in line 59.
This amendment and the next amendment are consequential on the change introduced into the Third Schedule in the Dáil. Originally the difference in compensation as between a clearance area and a derelict site was that in the case of the derelict site that could be cleared at the site value as a cleared site, less the cost of the clearance. As originally drafted the compensation to be paid where the local authority would be acquiring a clearance area, was the site value cleared of building. An amendment was introduced and passed changing the amount of compensation to be given in a case like that to a site as a cleared site, less the cost of demolition. It was brought into the same position as regards compensation in relation to the derelict site.
Originally, when the amount of compensation to be paid was the site value cleared without any advertence being paid to the cost of demolition, the provisions of compensation included a provision that where a part of the cleared area was to be used for re-housing there would be a reduction as in previous Acts; the reduction factor would be introduced because of the fact that certain of the ground was going to be used for re-housing. It would then be compulsory on the local authority to carry out their housing scheme, as a result of which they got a reduction in the price. Now, when the compensation being paid is the site value, less the cost of demolition, there is no reduction factor in respect of any re-housing that might take place. Therefore in the award there will be no requirement on the local authority to build houses. We take out the words in amendment 4. In order to allow the local authority to use the site in so far as they want it, for the purpose of housing, we propose to insert amendment 5 in the later part of the Section 10 (1).
Amendment agreed to.
On behalf of Senator Milroy I move amendment 5:—
Section 10, sub-section (1). After the word "may" in line 66 to insert the words "use the land for the purposes of Part III of the Act of 1890 as amended by any subsequent enactment including this Act or may".
Amendment agreed to.
Sections 10 to 19, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 20.
(5) The local authority may by order declare any such expenses to be payable by weekly or other instalments within a period not exceeding thirty years with interest at such rate as the Minister may, with the approval of the Minister for Finance, from time to time by order fix, from the date of the service of the demand until the whole amount is paid, and any such instalments and interest, or any part thereof, may be recovered summarily as a civil debt from any owner or occupier of the dwelling-house, and, if recovered from an occupier, may be deducted by him from the rent of the house.
On behalf of Senator Milroy I move amendment 6:—
Section 20, sub-section (5) To delete in line 23 the words "any owner or occupier of the dwelling-house" and to substitute therefor the words "the person having control of the house or the occupier thereof."
The purpose of the amendment is to correct a mistake and to bring the person so liable under sub-section (5) into the same position as the person liable under sub-section (3) where any expenses incurred by the local authority can be recovered from the person having control of the house. Sub-section (5) makes provision for the recovery of these expenses, and the person from whom they can be recovered is the person having control of the house.
Amendment agreed to.
I wish to raise a point on Section 20 rather cognate to what I have already raised. I can visualise the case of small owners who own, perhaps, one or two houses. They invest their small savings in these houses. I suppose the Minister is aware that ownership of these small houses in country villages is a thoroughly uneconomic proposition. One may take over possession of them and probably spend three or four years' rent in doing them up. There is an idea prevalent in some minds that these owners are waxing fat on their rents. That may be the case in cities, where you have rents of 8/- or 10/- a week, but in the country districts the rent is no more than 2/- or 3/- a week. Sometimes you have the soft-hearted owner who may allow rents to slip by, and the thing in that light can be regarded almost as a charity.
In most cases the owner cannot sell because the house will have very little market value. Again, he cannot borrow because the bank will give him nothing on the house; there is nobody buying that sort of property. Of course the officials will be somewhat theoretical in their outlook; they will be detached from the brass tacks of reality. If one just glances back at the Claddagh controversy one will see the difference between the outlook of the occupier and the outlook of the theorist. The officials will declare certain places insanitary and the owner has to carry out their dictates. The whole thing is utterly uneconomic. If the owner fails to do what he is ordered to do they will come along and recover the costs as a civil debt.
Perhaps the Minister will consider some remedy between this and the Report Stage. I ask him to consider how unjust the whole thing is. I know that sentiment is very strongly against the owners and there is very little regard paid to the equities of the position. There is a distinct injustice in the case of these individuals. In many cases the house owner cannot afford to do what is directed. He may have only three or four houses and in order to meet the costs he may have to sell out and possibly he may become a bankrupt. The rents do not justify him in doing these repairs that modern sanitation requires. The case might be met by the appointment of a Receiver or the landlord might be allowed to surrender the property to the local authority. I would be delighted to surrender some property that I have to the local authorities and let them work on it. The rents are not worth the trouble of collecting and you cannot eject poor people. I do not think that this House is at all in touch with the realities of the situation as regards those who own property. We see the horror of the slum problem in Dublin. I hope I have put the case clearly to the House and to the Minister, that there is a possibility of great injustice in this. I do not know that it will not react on housing. I know owners—I am one myself—who if they did not feel that they had a certain social duty would pull some of this property down and leave the land derelict because honestly it is not worth the trouble. I do not think the Minister realises the position that faces a number of small owners in the country. If the Minister could see any possibilities of accommodation on that point I should be glad.
I think the point made particularly in the last statement of Senator Sir John Keane requires attention. I find a difficulty, in reading the Bill, as to how exactly it will work out. It seems to me that if an owner is entitled to a valuable ground rent it is not unreasonable that he should have to pay the costs of demolition, but it does not seem reasonable that he should pay a cost above the value of the ground. If the cost of demolition is greater than the value of the ground I do not think it is unreasonable that he should be allowed to surrender the property to the local authority. I do not own property myself and I am not personally interested. I think there is a possibility that if people are put to expense over and above what they receive from the property that they might make it over on a pauper, leaving the position almost worse than it is.
I think it is stretching it to suggest that the purpose of this Bill is humanitarian. The purpose of this Bill is to safeguard the lives of the people who are living in these houses and in the neighbourhood. In the first place, let me say that it is not officials—dictatorial, brutal and off the earth—who are going to deal with these matters. It is the representatives of the local people, advised and guided by their officials, but completely controlling their own decision. I think the Senator will realise that there are many houses of this particular kind that have been condemned by local authorities, twenty, twenty-five and thirty years ago, and the owners have been very leniently dealt with by the local authorities and even by the courts when the local authorities have taken some of these cases before the courts. There is no very great past of ruthless action that need frighten us as to the way this Bill would be administered. Sub-section (3) of Section 19 provides that a person shall not be ordered to repair an insanitary house except it is clear that it can be repaired at a reasonable cost, taking into consideration the value of the house when the works have been completed. A person so ordered can appeal to the court and have the protection of the court against any unjust action on the part of a local authority.
Section 27 deals with appeals by a person aggrieved and he gets twenty-one days to deal with his grievance. Then where a local authority comes in and carries out the work, there not having been an appeal in the first place, sub-section (5) of Section 20 makes arrangements by which the cost can be collected over a period of thirty years if necessary, to avoid any considerable and immediate hardship falling on the person in control of the house. In so far as Senator Sir John Keane would like a receiver to be put in, sub-section (6) practically gives power to have that done and to have the cost of carrying out the repairs dealt with in that particular way, by taking the rent or even by the sale of the lease of the place. I think we have made every possible arrangement here to make it easy for persons in control of houses to meet the liabilities that would fall on them in this matter.
With all due respect, I am not a bit satisfied that what the Minister has said meets the point. Going outside the assets of the property to recover any moneys that may be due in respect of repair is an injustice. I cannot at all accept the view that the Minister takes of these officials, docile people, working entirely under the direction of the local authorities. That might be so nominally, but I know that there is a hidden hand behind all these things. I have seen it working myself. The local authority are in many cases almost a cipher in these matters. I wish the Minister would consider that point, limiting the liability to the rents received.
Section 20, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Sections 21 to 25 put and agreed to.
SECTION 26.
(1) When a demolition order under this Part of this Act has become operative, the owner or owners of the house to which it applies shall demolish that house and clear and level the site thereof within the time limited in that behalf by the order; and, if the house is not demolished and the site thereof cleared and levelled within that time, the local authority shall enter and demolish the house and clear and level the site thereof and sell the materials thereof, and the provisions of subsections (2), (3), (4) and (5) of Section 8 of this Act shall apply in relation to any expenses incurred by the authority under this sub-section and to any surplus remaining in the hands of the local authority as they apply in relation to any expenses or surplus in a case where a building is demolished in pursuance of a clearance order.
I move amendment 7:—
Section 26, sub-section (1). After the word "thereof" in line 27 to insert the words "to the satisfaction of the local authority."
This is a drafting amendment.
Amendment put and agreed to.
I move amendment 8:
Section 26, sub-section (1). After the word "thereof" in line 28 to insert the word "so."
Amendment put and agreed to.
Section 26, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Section 27 to 30 put and agreed to.
SECTION 31.
(1) In any contract entered into after the passing of this Act for letting for habitation a dwelling-house at a rent not exceeding—
(a) in the case of a house situate in the County Borough of Dublin or the Borough of Dun Laoghaire, thirty pounds per annum;
(b) in the case of a house situate elsewhere, twenty-five pounds per annum;
there shall, notwithstanding any stipulation to the contrary, be implied a condition that the house is at the commencement of the tenancy, and an undertaking that the house will be kept by the landlord during the tenancy, in all respects reasonably fit for human habitation.
I move amendment 9:
Section 31, sub-section (1). After the word "habitation" in line 52 to insert the words "but nothing in this section contained shall affect the liability of the tenant or occupier of any such house for any wilful act or default of such tenant or occupier whereby such house is rendered not reasonably fit for human habitation."
The introduction of this amendment is to allay certain fears that were expressed by house-owners, that the provision in this section might impose on them definite responsibility in a way that would give them no power to recover from a tenant damages that had been deliberately brought about by a tenant.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Section 31, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Section 32 put and agreed to.
I move amendment 10:
Section 33, sub-section (2). To delete the sub-section and to substitute the following new sub-section therefor:—
"(2) Any expenses incurred by a local authority under this section in obtaining possession of any building or of any part of a building may be recovered by them summarily before a court of summary jurisdiction from the owner of the building or, if there is more than one owner, from the owners thereof and the provisions of sub-sections (2), (4) and (5) of Section 8 of this Act shall apply in relation to any such expenses in like manner as those provisions apply in relation to expenses incurred by a local authority under that section."
This is to bring the section into harmony with Section 8 whereby the court has power to allocate over the various owners the cost incurred under that section. As drafted, sub-section (2) might mean that one of the owners might be proceeded against for the cost under this section.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Sections 33 to 47 put and agreed to.
SECTION 48.
I move amendment 11.
Section 48. To delete the section and to substitute the following new section therefor:—
"48.—Unless the Minister shall in any particular case otherwise direct or agree, the costs payable by a local authority in respect of the acquisition of land for the purposes of the Housing of the Working Classes Acts shall be regulated by the General Order dated the 16th day of April, 1884, as amended by the General Order dated the 17th day of May, 1920, made in pursuance of the Solicitors' Remuneration Act, 1881, and the provisions of the said first-mentioned General Order as amended as aforesaid shall, with the exception of Clause 6 and Rule 11 in Part I of Schedule I of the said Order, apply accordingly."
Under an order of 1859, there was a certain scale of fees set out for the remuneration of solicitors. Subsequent to the passing of the Solicitors' Remuneration Act of 1881, another scale of fees was set out in an Order of 1884. The original scheme was based on certain fees paid in respect of itemised details of work done. The new scale, in so far as compensation was involved, bore definite relation to the amount of compensation awarded. Under Clause 6 of the 1884 scheme, the solicitor had the option of telling his clients that he proposed to operate his fees on the old scale. The new scale provided for fees that were reasonable compensation for the work done. Under Rule 11, the scale did not apply to the Land Clauses Act nor did it apply where a local authority was buying land and the cost of the solicitor in connection with the acquisition had to be paid by the person concerned.
Local authorities are rather careful that their titles are perfect, and we naturally want to see that continued. Representations have been made by the city corporation that in connection with the purchase of land, where exhaustive inquiries have to be made and the amount of work involved in the proving of title is considerable, the solicitor's fees on the old scale—the pre-1884 scale—reach very considerable proportions at times. The original clause here proposed that solicitors in future would be paid on the new scale. Attention has been drawn to the fact that the compensation payable in certain cases may be very small, and that owners of property whose solicitors have gone to considerable expense in preparing elaborate titles, may find themselves getting a shilling or two as compensation. That is not intended. We provide under Section 50 that a simpler proof of title, such as is sometimes availed of in connection with the Labourers Acts, may be accepted by a local authority where the local authority are satisfied that it is sufficient. We are bringing in the new Section 48 to enable the Minister where, under the post-1884 scale of costs, real hardship would be involved, to provide that the other scale or some other suitable scale shall be applied.
Under Section 48 as it stands in the Bill, the solicitor for the person whose property is being taken, no matter what the amount of compensation or purchase money is involved, will be limited to a scale. The scale is a percentage of the purchase money. In most cases, local authorities are not satisfied with a mere declaration of title. They want to have what is known as a complete title—a forty years' title absolutely cleared up. In a case where the purchase money or compensation is extremely small, the solicitor for the owner would only get a miserable sum—probably a few shillings—for doing this extremely difficult and responsible work. The section which it is proposed to substitute for the present Section 48 gives the Minister, in a case like that, the right either to agree as to a sum for costs or to direct the solicitor to tax his costs in the ordinary way, item by item. That is only just, because it would be a very great hardship on the owner and on his solicitor if Section 48, as it stands in the Bill, were allowed to remain.
I wonder would the Minister be satisfied if this section were slightly varied? I agreed with Senator Brown that in some cases the cost of proving title is very great and the investigation of title very troublesome. But there is another side to the question. If solicitors are to get from 40 to 60 guineas for investigating title to a house, the administration of this Bill will be very much impeded. Under the Labourers Acts, the costs of the solicitor to the district council constitute a considerable item in the cost of the buildings. If the Minister commits himself to allowing the scale costs on investigation of title in the case of every parcel of property taken up, he will find the legal expenses under the Bill to be enormous. A case like this may also arise—a solicitor for an extensive landowner furnishes his abstract and proof of title in respect of one parcel of land. He is allowed full costs in respect of each item. That is quite fair in respect of the first parcel. But six months, or a year, afterwards another parcel of land may be required from the same owner. The solicitor has nothing to do but take the papers out of the pigeon hole and send them out again. He will be paid his full bill of costs for the second time.
The Minister will not allow him to be paid that.
That is what the Senator says. The amendment states: "Unless the Minister shall in any particular case otherwise direct or agree..." In order to prevent the solicitor getting full costs in respect of each edition of his papers, the Minister has to do a specific thing. In the ordinary way, the solicitor gets full costs.
It is the other way round.
"Unless the Minister shall in any particular case otherwise direct or agree——"
Would it not be better to state that the Minister may in a particular case direct that the full scale of costs shall be allowed?
Is the Senator talking of the pre-1884 scale or the post-1884 scale?
I am talking of the scales in existence at present, in respect of which we have practice from day to day, the scale on which solicitors to the district councils send in very big bills of costs from time to time. The Minister has considered this matter very carefully. If he thinks that his form is better than the form I suggest, I have nothing more to say. But I think that the form of this section ought to be seriously considered. If a solicitor prepares an abstract of title in a particular case, he should be entitled to his full costs. But he should not get full costs, as a general rule, if he sends forward the same abstract of title on a second or subsequent occasion.
The effect of the proposed new section is that the solicitor for the owner or vendor will only get the scale fee—a percentage of the purchase money—which may be large or small. In addition, in a case where hardship might be caused the Minister may direct that costs on a higher scale —item costs or some sum for costs— shall be paid in respect of the work done. If the Seanad does as Senator Comyn suggests, it will take away the whole effect of this section—namely, that in the ordinary case solicitors are only to get the scale fee.
I look at this question from the other point of view. Suppose the property acquired is very highly valued and that there is no trouble in proving title——
There is generally less trouble in proving title in a case where the purchase money is large than there is in other cases.
What would be the remuneration of the solicitor then?
It will not be a payment for work done; it will be a payment according to the value of the property. I should like to know whether the Dublin Corporation has been consulted in regard to this amendment and whether they have any views upon the relative merits of the two forms. I can say nothing about the merits of the amendment, but I have information before me showing that the legal costs of the Dublin Corporation in acquiring and clearing a certain site amounted to £750. It seems to me that one of the purposes of this Bill is to ensure that capital costs be kept down. Local authorities who may have to pay a heavy sum for property in respect of which there is no excessive trouble in proving title should have some protection in the case of highly-valued property as solicitors are to have protection in the case of lowly-valued property.
I think that the costs that Senator Johnson speaks about would naturally be fixed on the old scale we are trying to remedy at the very urgent insistence of the Dublin Corporation.
As to these two forms, which do they prefer?
What the Dublin Corporation wants is 48 as against the old business. We are here giving them in our amended Section 48 the newest scale. That is what they want, but we are safeguarding the case in which wrong may occur by reason of introducing a scale of costs which is based on the percentage of compensation.
Is the Minister satisfied that he will not have to give more than a percentage?
I am really surprised at the credulity of the Minister if that is so.
Amendment put and agreed to.
New Section 48 agreed to.
The Seanad went out of Committee.
Progress reported.
The Seanad adjourned at 7.15 p.m. until 11.30 a.m., Friday, 11th December, 1931.
