Seanad Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 22 Jul 1964

Vol. 57 No. 19

Local Government (Sanitary Services) Bill, 1964—Committee and Final Stages.

SECTION 1.

Mr. Fitzpatrick

I move amendment No. 1:

In line 11, before "or" to insert "canal, cliff, river, dock or quay or any part of any of the foregoing".

The object of this amendment is to widen the definition of "dangerous places" to include any "canal, cliff, river, dock or quay or any part of any of the foregoing" which is dangerous. I know the Minister is of the opinion that the definition as it stands at present is wide enough to include any of these places. However, there is quite a school of thought that feels that the definition as it stands does not include canal, cliff, river, dock or quay. It is highly desirable that it should be beyond doubt in the Bill that any of the places I have mentioned which are dangerous come within the scope of the Bill and should be dealt with by the local authorities as suggested in the Bill.

It is perhaps significant, or perhaps not, that most of these places with which I have dealt in my amendment would ordinarily be the responsibility of the local authority or a Department of State. For that reason, if for no other, it is desirable, if not essential, that they should be written into this Bill in order to put it beyond doubt. There are many spans of canal in the city and other parts of the country which are a positive danger to young children and where children and others have lost their lives. It is desirable that these places should be protected as far as reasonably possible.

The Minister on the Second Stage complained that if "canal" were inserted in the Bill, it might be held that there would be an obligation on the local authority to fence the entire canal. As the Minister knows, the legislation with which we are dealing is permissive legislation. In my amendment, I think I put that beyond doubt by saying "or any part of the foregoing", thereby making it clear that I do not intend to deal with an entire canal, an entire river or dock or quay, but only such part thereof as may be dangerous.

In the city of Dublin and in the city of Cork, some of the docks could and should be protected better than they are in order to render them less dangerous. Without going into particular evidence, we know that in Cork city and in this city tragedies occur year after year and unfortunately these tragedies usually occur at well-defined points on these docks. I think, with a little thought, these places could be made safe and it should be possible to make it impossible or less likely for vehicles to drive into them. If the words "dock or quay" were written into this Bill in black and white it would bring home to the responsible authorities that they had an obligation and that the public considered there was an obligation on them to render these places safe.

The Minister thinks the definition is wide enough as it is. If the Minister repeats that case today, as I am sure he will, in order to avoid talking again, I should like to ask him whether he will give us his assurance that these places—dangerous canals, dangerous docks, dangerous quays, dangerous cliffs—which are frequented by the public should be made safe by the local authority, and that in so far as he can influence the local authorities to make them safe, he will do so. That might go a long way towards meeting the case I am making.

Mr. Desmond

The line suggested by Senator Fitzpatrick is reasonable because it sets out clearly that canals, rivers, docks and quays should be included. In so far as docks and quays are concerned, there have been tragedies in both Dublin and Cork. In Cork, the local authority have given a great deal of attention to this matter and have protected a certain portion of their quays. Because of the shipping involved, it has to be done slowly and carefully.

Undoubtedly the local authorities in such areas are alive to the dangers. They were giving attention to preventive measures, even before the Bill was heard of. While, as I say, there have been tragedies in big centres like Dublin and Cork, there also have been drownings in smaller centres throughout the country in rivers and streams. I suppose that when the draftsman mentioned streams, he meant to include many of the rivers throughout the country because the smaller rivers are often described as streams. However, in most of those smaller rivers, there are deep pools which can be just as dangerous as derelict quarries or, might I say, dangerous buildings?

Everybody realises that the Bill is important because of the various problems it attempts to tackle and remedy. However, it does not go far enough in regard to the prevention of drownings in rivers and streams. Would it be too much to ask that local authorities be instructed to erect discernible notices near dangerous spots in rivers and streams in their respective areas? I realise many of them have large areas to cover.

Where there are pools in rivers, young people on holiday or otherwise are inclined to bathe or attempt to swim. They do not know until they enter the water what the depth is and many lives have been lost because of this lack of knowledge alone. If local authorities or the owners of land on either side of the river were able to erect clear, discernible notices on the banks, I submit a great many tragedies would be averted.

I suggest therefore that we would be going a long way towards preventing drownings if we could instruct both local authorities and private owners to have such notices erected and displayed clearly and legibly. I realise that in the larger centres great progress has been made to provide facilities to teach young people in school and after school how to swim. In country areas, these facilities are still not available although measures are being taken to provide them in the future. In the meantime, lives will continue to be lost by non-swimmers bathing in pools unless there are public warnings or unless they know beforehand the depth of the water they are entering or, possibly, the strength of the current they are likely to encounter. Since we met here last week, two youths, neither of whom was from the locality, neither of whom was a swimmer, were drowned not so far from Dublin because they lacked knowledge of the depth of the pool they were entering.

An Cathaoirleach

We are now going outside the scope of the Bill.

Pádraig Ó Siochfhradha

Tar éis dom an Bille seo do scrúdú, bhuail smaoineamh mé. An féidir cosc do chur le daoine dul i mbaol báis sna h-áiteanna seo—dam, bank, dump, canal, cliff, rivers? Ní dóigh liomsa gur ceal eolais ar an ndainséar atá ionta go mbáitear daoine sna h-áiteanna seo ach go dtéann siad iontu agus go bhfuil siad sásta dul sa bhfiúntar agus ná bíonn aon oiliúint orthu féin chun teacht slán as. Sa Bhille tá tagairt do "stream" ach so leasú tá "canal, cliff, river, dock or quay or any part of any of the foregoing."

Maidir le canáil, conas a chosnófar canáil? Tá breis agus céad míle de chanáil idir Baile Átha Cliath agus Gaillimh agus ní féidir é sin ar fad do chosaint. Ní chosnóidh duine ar baol ach a dhícheall féin. Tá an rud céanna ann maidir le céanna. Ní féidir cosaint do chur ar ché Baile Átha Cliath nó cé Chorcaí chun daoine óga do choimeád ó bhaol sna háiteanna sin. Raghaidh siad thar falla má chuirtear falla ann agus báfar iad, cuid acu, tré thionóisc, tré nea-eolas agus tré mheabhair-thuiscint ar a bpáirt féin.

Sé an focal sa leasú is mó a chuireann mí-shásamh orm ná "cliff". Conas a chosnófar duine ar an "cliff"? Tá na céadta míle de "cliff" ar fud na hÉireann ar fad. Ní féidir daoine do chosc ó dhul in aice leo, ná dul síos iontu ná dul ag dreapadóireacht iontu. Is an-deachair ar fad an rud é duine do dhéanamh freagrach toisc go bhfuil faill ar a chuid talún féin ar bhruach na farraige. Conas is féidir iachall do chur ar an bhfear sin fógraí agus cosanta do chur ar na faillte sin? Ní dóigh liom gur féidir é agus ní dóigh liom gur ceart bheith á éileamh ar aon duine ach an oiread. Is teora ar a gcuid feirmeacha agus ar a gcuid talún iad agus má táimid ar intinn gurab iad na daoine gur leo iad a bheadh freagrach i mbaol na n-áiteanna sin, ní dóigh liom go bhfuil an ceart againn agus ní dóigh liom gur féidir é do dhéanamh ach an oiread. Raghaidh daoine óga, leanaí ag dreapadóireact ar na faillte ag lorg neadacha éan agus uibheacha éan agus ní choscfaidh fógraí iad. Tá a fhios acu go maith go bhfuil baol ann agus téann siad sa bhfiúntar.

Is dóigh liom go bhfuil cuid de na rudaí sin do-dhéanta agus nár cheart dúinn bheith ag éileamh ar chomhairle chontae nó ar fheirmeoir cois na farraige cosaint do chur ar an bhfaill atá ag gabháil lena chuid talún. Tá sé mí-réasúnta. Dá mbeadh falla sé dtroithe de chloch ann ní choscfadh sé daoine óga ó dhul go dtí na háiteanna baolacha sin. Sin é mo thuairimse agus is dóigh liom gur ceart dúinn ath-mhachnamh do dhéanamh ar chuid de na rudaí atá i gceist anso.

Minister for Local Government (Mr. Blaney)

The arguments that could be advanced on this amendment have already been pretty well detailed by the last speaker. There is also the fact that the Senator who proposed this amendment is aware of the views I expressed in the Dáil on a similar amendment. I feel the same way about this amendment, that it would extend beyond reasonable limits the powers that are required by our local authorities to safeguard the lives of the public in matters such as dangerous places and that in so far as specific danger spots on any of these places such as canals, cliffs or rivers, are concerned that the Bill is drafted so that these can be dealt with. The reference to "or land", etc., in the actual section is that which I am relying on, and which I am advised is quite reliable, to give to the local authorities sufficient power to deal with any specific danger spots arising on any of these more extended places such as canals, cliffs, docks, rivers, quays, and so on.

In answer to the query put by Senator Fitzpatrick, there will be a circular letter of instruction overall going out to our local authorities if and when this measure becomes law enumerating the various things that they might do in so far as these matters are concerned and in so far as dangerous bathing places are concerned, which are also probably the cause of some fatalities over the years. Indeed, this is a matter which has been brought to the attention of local authorities on several occasions by way of circular letter during my term in Local Government, and, I am sure, during the terms of office of my predecessors.

It all comes back to the point on which Senator Desmond finished, that is, that far too many people cannot swim and the reason they cannot swim is that they have not the facilities. That is a matter in which I have been interested for quite a considerable time. While the progress in providing throughout the country, particularly in provincial towns, adequate swimming facilities is slow, I am still hopeful that greater progress will be made and that a greater number of properly equipped swimming pools with instructors will be available to our people in future and that we will not have people drowning merely because they have never got instruction in swimming and do not know anything about swimming. That is all I wish to say on the amendment.

Mr. Fitzpatrick

The case that has been made against the amendment is impossibility of performance, shall we say, that it would be so difficult to guard all the places that I want guarded that we should not include provision in the Bill for doing so. I do not suggest, as I said in moving the amendment, that every mile of the canal from Dublin to Galway should be fenced. That would be impossible. But, there are stretches of canal along roads where it would be comparatively easy for the local authority to erect a fence and make it safe for children, adults and vehicular traffic.

I do not want to be referring to the type of tragedy that has taken place in this city as recently as today but this is the last opportunity that we will have of dealing with this Bill and I feel it my duty to do so. I would have done so if this tragedy had not arisen.

In Cork last year, a whole family were annihilated because they drove into the dock there, apparently at a place where danger could be anticipated and where a happening of that sort could be anticipated.

In this city, I do not think it is an exaggeration to say that it frequently happens that cars drive into the Liffey at unprotected spots. I say that it should be possible to protect these spots along the docks in this city and that the loss of life is such that there is an obligation on the authorities concerned to take steps to do so.

I do not know whether the Minister intends that when this Bill becomes an Act the appropriate authorities, be they the Dublin Port and Docks Board or some other local authority, should take steps to make places that are likely to lead to this type of fatality safe. If the Minister does intend that, I cannot see any objection to writing the word "dock" or "quay" into this definition. I do not know whether or not the Minister does intend that because he has not said in so many words that he believes that when this Bill becomes law there will be an obligation on local authorities to make the sort of dangerous spots that I have mentioned safe and I repeat that I deliberately put in "or any part thereof" to ensure that I could not be accused of asking for the impossible.

This definition section is peculiar. For instance, the word "stream" is included but the word "river" is left out. I believe obvious danger spots on canals and quays should be made safe. I do not know yet whether the Minister intends that they should be made safe under this Bill or whether he intends that the matter should be left in mid-air, and that when the Bill is passed, it can be said by some people that there is no obligation on the local authority to do so-and-so, and other people can make the opposite case. If that is the way it is intended to leave the definition, I respectfully say it is quite unsatisfactory.

Seán Ó Donnabháin

Apparently it is very difficult to get a definition to cover every single instance, and the discussion here this evening so far has not enlightened us any further. That brings me to the fact that two authorities are contradicting each other in regard to facilities at a place which is well known to the citizens of Dublin, the Bull Wall. The Port and Docks Board, as mentioned by the last speaker, have put up a notice there: "Danger. Beware. Persons bathing here are in grave danger of drowning." Within 150 yards of that notice, Dublin Corporation have provided amenities to facilitate swimming and, therefore, to facilitate people in drowning themselves. There is no doubt that on a bank holiday or at a holiday week-end, there will be 10,000 people along that beach. Nobody pays any attention to the Port and Docks Board notice. There was at one time a dangerous place called Curley's Hole which is non-existent now and there is no danger around the beach except for a little channel which may be six inches deeper than the main level.

When one authority put up a notice indicating the danger and the other provide steps and other bathing facilities, one realises how impossible it is to get an agreed definition. I do not think arguing about a comprehensive definition of a "dangerous place" will take us any further.

Mr. Fitzpatrick

Senator Ó Donnabháin has made a much better case than I have for this amendment. He has argued strenuously in favour of clarity, exactly what I want here. I want the position clarified. Public authorities differ about what is a dangerous place because there is no proper definition to guide them. That is what I want in this section.

Mr. Brady

There is a long coastline in Clare and we were the first county in Ireland to start a life-saving association. Lifeguards were trained and appointed to places like Lahinch, Miltown Malbay, Spanish Point and Ballyvaughan. It is very gratifying to note that since that step was taken, there has not been a single casualty. These people are appointed every year and are paid by the local authority. In regard to swimming pools, of which the Minister has spoken, there is a swimming pool now approved for Ennis. The county council gave them a very big grant and they also got a very big grant from the Minister. They must provide £7,000 or £8,000 themselves. They ran carnivals and other functions and are only £1,500 short of the target. Next year there will be a first-class swimming pool in Ennis, a town which has expanded enormously. As regards the point made by Senator Ó Donnabháin, I believe having trained lifeguards along these resorts or bathing places is one of the most important means of making these places safe.

Mr. Mooney

I am sure Senator Fitzpatrick does not seriously suggest we should build a wall along all the canals and along the Atlantic in order to protect the people of this country from drowning. I see in the following section a provision whereby the local authority may decide what is a dangerous place. Dangerous places are discovered only when something happens. There are places which are known to be dangerous, and despite that fact, fatalities will happen there. We have only to examine the roads of the country to realise that although they are supposed to be as safe as we can make them, accidents still occur at an ever-increasing rate. The country is served with waterways and lakes. In the district from which I come, lakes adjoin public roads. People must be aware of the danger of going into these places.

Senator Desmond mentioned the question of instruction in swimming. I understand the Red Cross Society carry out courses in swimming at Gormanston Castle. There is a course of instruction proceeding there at the moment. These courses are available to any area that requires them, even though there may not be a swimming pool in the area. If there is a safe swimming place in the area, the Red Cross are prepared to carry out instruction in swimming and lifesaving. Of course, it is very hard to get local people interested in these matters until a tragedy occurs and then everybody becomes interested.

As far as dangerous places are concerned, I know that once such places have been brought to the notice of the local authorities, they endeavour to remove the danger. This has happened in the case of bends on roads where accidents have occurred. I believe the amendment is well met in the subsequent section of the Bill. It gives power to the local authority to deal with any dangerous place that may come to notice, despite the fact that it is not specifically mentioned in the Bill.

Mr. Blaney

I am satisfied that this Bill does give the power that those who are finding fault with it would wish upon it through this amendment. I am satisfied that we have the necessary powers to deal with any dangerous place, be it named or unnamed here. The fact that they are not in the Bill by name does not take away from the powers that lie there. On that basis, I am quite happy with the Bill as it stands.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Ted O'Sullivan

I wonder if we could get agreement — we had agreement last week—to finish this Bill tonight? Does that agreement hold and will we finish the Bill tonight?

Mr. Fitzpatrick

Speaking for myself, I anticipate that we should finish tonight without difficulty.

Mr. O'Sullivan

Is it agreed we sit late?

An Cathaoirleach

Is the House agreed to sit after ten o'clock, if necessary, to complete the Bill?

Mr. Crowley

We understood last week that the Bill would finish tonight.

Mr. Desmond

We should try to finish by ten o'clock.

Mr. Fitzpatrick

I move amendment No. 2:

In line 13, to delete "person" and substitute "member of the public".

This is an amendment to the definition of dangerous place: "dangerous place" means an excavation, quarry, pit, well, reservoir, pond, stream, dam, bank, dump, shaft, or land that, in the opinion of the sanitary authority in whose sanitary district it is situate, is or is likely to be a danger to any person. In this respect I think the definition has gone to the other extreme. The purpose of the Bill is to protect members of the public from coming into contact with dangerous places or structures. Under this definition, as I see it, a farmer or private individual having on his land a well situate a mile and a half from a public road, at the end of a long lane, can be called upon by the sanitary authority to fence that well because it could be dangerous to any person. A member of a man's own household could be injured or drowned by falling into the well. Before I go any further I should like to know whether the Minister agrees with my views on the definition.

Mr. Blaney

No. There is no question whatever that that phrase is conditioned by the phrase "in the opinion of the sanitary authority". I do not see the purpose of the amendment at all.

Mr. Fitzpatrick

The purpose of the amendment is to substitute "any member of the public" for "any person". It would be unreasonable, I think, to call upon a private individual to fence a well or pond on his own land which would not be in any way dangerous to the general public. On the last amendment, the argument was that what I wanted was too wide. I did not think so because the amendment was restricted by "any part thereof". Here we have a very wide definition and one which, in my opinion, would empower an unreasonable sanitary authority to call upon an individual to fence or make safe something that could not possibly constitute a danger to anyone but himself. I do not think that is the intention of the Bill and substituting "any member of the public" for "any person" would get the definition that is really required.

Mr. Blaney

It is true that under the definition here a person might be called on to do something, but there is no obligation on him to do it. Therefore, if the danger is a danger only to himself, and an unreasonable sanitary authority call upon him to do something unreasonable to protect himself, he can refuse, and the only way out for the sanitary authority then is to spend their own money doing something unreasonable in an unreasonable way in an unreasonable place. I do not believe we would ever get such a concatenation of unreasonableness.

Mr. Fitzpatrick

They can subsequently charge the owner.

Mr. Cole

I do not understand the reason for substituting "any member of the public" instead of "any person". Occasionally on private properties, and quite a distance from roads, there are places which are extremely dangerous for children. While I agree with the Senator in some respects, there are dangerous places where children might be inclined to enter. I think such places should be protected. I think there is an obligation on the owner to protect them. While owners cannot be compelled, they should at least be advised as to the protection of such places and I should be a little strict even if these places are away from where the general public would go as opposed to a person.

Mr. Yeats

I do not quite follow Senator Fitzpatrick's distinction between other people's children and children of the occupier. I cannot understand why he should prevent other people's children from being drowned and not worry about his own. I should think he has a greater or, at least, an equal responsibility to his own family. There is nothing new in requiring a householder to fence off a dangerous place in order to protect his own family. There is a law of long standing that all open fires must have a guard and people can be, and often are, prosecuted for not having a fireguard. Yet, that is a case in which only their own children are involved. Members of the general public would not have access. It is a salutary thought that a man should be required to have his own open fire safeguarded in this way and, if he is required to protect his children in that way, I cannot see why he should not be obliged to fence an open well outside his back door. If the well were a mile and a half away, and the chances of his or anybody's children falling into it were remote, then it would be unreasonable to require him to do anything about it. If Senator Fitzpatrick's amendment were accepted, it would mean that, if a man had a dangerous well just outside his own back door, nobody could require him to do anything to protect it. That would be a much more unhealthy situation than running the risk that a local authority might be unreasonable.

Mr. Sheldon

On the point of somewhere being remote from anywhere, I should imagine it is the hidden danger in a remote place which is the greater danger. The unexpected quarry hole at the back of a hill that the odd hiker comes across is surely a greater danger than something which is obvious to everyone. I do not follow the reasoning that, if it is at the end of a long lane away from someone's children, that makes it necessary to ensure that a very dangerous place is protected. I could not follow Senator Fitzpatrick in that part of his argument and on the question as to when a person is not a member of the public, or vice versa, I just do not know. Again, since the power which the sanitary authority would have is a limited one, I cannot see any great hardship. Perhaps Senator Fitzpatrick can now make clear what is the nice distinction between a member of the public and a person.

Mr. McDonald

I should like to support Senator Fitzpatrick. I see no reason why farmers, or people in general, should be put to the expense of making places safe for trespassers. I see no reason why farmers or property owners should be compelled to hang red lights on every quarry, hole or crater on their property. The hazard, whether a cliff, a crater or a hole in the ground, is not dangerous to the person who knows it is there; it is dangerous only to the trespasser, and if he is inclined to trespass I would be inclined to put down a tripwire for him.

Mr. O'Reilly

Surely it is something new to argue that property owners have not got some responsibility or liability to the public? They have a liability to the public and that is a well-known principle in law. If there is a construction on a property which would normally be regarded as a hazard, the owner is responsible for it, even in relation to trespassers. I think the statement just made does not help Senator Fitzpatrick but has done him immense damage.

Mr. Fitzpatrick

I hardly think that Senator Ryan would accept that statement of the law which the Senator has just made.

Mr. O'Reilly

I do not expect Senator Fitzpatrick to accept it. If people used commonsense in interpreting this, it could never be expected that local authorities would go around setting up a sort of second police force looking for things which would be dangerous to one set of people and possibly not dangerous to another. What is dangerous to children may not be dangerous to adults. Local authorities would be placed in the position when they would become a nuisance. It would be better to leave the position as it is.

Mr. Fitzpatrick

For the purpose of clarification—as long as we know what we are doing in this measure, we will get some place—is it the intention that all wells, shall we say, on private property should be fenced and made safe for the general public, for the owner and for his household? I do not know whether that is the intention or not.

Mr. Blaney

The Senator knows the intention very well but lest he mislead the House, dangerous places to be dealt with are those that are such in the opinion of the sanitary authority, and they have adequate power in this Bill to look after them. As far as what they are going to cover, I am not going to be led into making a general statement on the position of every well.

Mr. Fitzpatrick

Obviously, the Minister is not prepared to say. He prefers to leave the matter this way.

Mr. Blaney

He is just not prepared to have the Senator say it for him.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Section 1 agreed to.

Section 2 agreed to.

SECTION 3.

Mr. Fitzpatrick

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 4, before subsection (3), to insert a new subsection as follows:

"( ) Subsection (2) of this section shall have effect only for a period of five years from the date of coming into operation of this section."

This is the section which deals with dangerous structures and it is a very far-reaching section. Subsection (2) gives to a sanitary authority the right to enter upon and demolish a house without serving notice on the owner or the occupier if they think it necessary to do so in the interests or the safety of any person. I said on the Second Stage that that is a power which I would agree to give to a sanitary authority with the greatest reluctance. I repeat it is a power which enables the sanitary authority to enter into a house without notice, demolish it and level the site. In the light of the events which have happened in the city of Dublin in the past couple of years, it is apparently considered that this drastic subsection is necessary. I concede that, because structures did fall without notice, but I do say, without apology to anybody, that if the authorities concerned had been carrying out their obligation to inspect the buildings and had listed them as dangerous, or as buildings which were about to become dangerous, they would not have fallen and it would have been possible to go in and serve notice on the owners or occupiers and to have given them an opportunity of repairing them, if they could be repaired, or if not, of demolishing them.

As I say, I am prepared to agree to give this power in subsection (2) as a temporary measure, until such time as immediately dangerous buildings are demolished and the people in them re-housed. I do not think it should be a permanent feature of our legislation that a sanitary authority can enter a structure and demolish it, without first consulting the owner and giving him an opportunity of objecting to the proposal. I repeat that if a proper system of inspection is carried out, this subsection will not be necessary. The object of my amendment is to suggest that this drastic emergency section should remain in force for five years only. Surely in that period the various public authorities should have put their houses in order and it should not be necessary to have legislation of this type any longer.

An argument is always advanced against an amendment of this sort that local authorities can always be relied on to act reasonably, that Departments of State can always be relied on to act reasonably. One could carry that argument to any length and say that there is no objection to giving complete and absolute control to a local authority, without any appeal to anybody. That would be a dangerous thing to do. This section is necessary at present but it is a very dangerous move. I am firmly convinced it should not be made permanent and that it should only be for a trial period of five years. There is ample precedent for that type of legislation.

Mr. Sheldon

I took it that the purpose of this section, and in particular of subsection (2), was to deal with emergencies or obviously pending emergencies. I take it that what Senator Fitzpatrick wishes to put in its place is a system of inspection by which there may be foreknowledge of a building which may be about to become dangerous? That sounds well but it is very difficult to carry out in practice. I know of one very substantial building which getting on for ten years ago, was inspected by a qualified architect who said he would not guarantee the roof for three weeks. Yet it is still there. Two years ago, another eminent architect expressed the same view. I am not using this to show that architects are fallible but to show that if we had a system of inspection, we would probably discover that nine-tenths of the city of Dublin would not be passed by a competent architect for the simple reason that he dare not do it. I am sure if an architect looked at the building in which we are at present, he would not put his pen to paper to say it would be standing in a year. They must be on the safe side against any possibility of accident.

I do not think a system of inspection would work. The whole thing would become stultified because, very naturally, you cannot get qualified men to put their names to a certificate saying that this is a perfectly safe building. I believe this can be done only in an emergency type of way as envisaged in the Bill. I cannot see, once you get rid of the argument on which this is based—that you can tell in advance whether the building is safe—that there is any point in limiting it to five years. A house could fall in five years and three months. If you had not made provision, the Oireachtas would be in a very sticky position because they limited it to five years and someone got killed three months after that period.

Mr. Blaney

I believe the emergency powers contained in this subsection are something that will be required always and not only now. Emergencies can arise from unusual natural causes. Usually severe fires or storms can affect one building more than another. A building might be quite sound now and an hour later might be an emergency case which should be cleared and demolished as soon as possible. Therefore, this is not just an emergency section dealing with any particular period. As Senator Sheldon said, if we limit it to five years, in five years and a day, we might have something happening on which this provision could have had some effect. This is not just for next week or next year. It is something which will be useful perhaps in saving lives years and years from now.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Fitzpatrick

I move amendment No. 4:

In page 5, before subsection (7), to insert a new subsection as follows:

"( ) This subsection shall apply to a person who—

(i) is tenant of a dangerous structure or any part thereof and is required to vacate such structure by reason of the service of a notice under subsection (1) or paragraph (a) of subsection (9) of this section or by reason of a court order made under paragraph (b) of subsection (9) of this section,

(ii) was not by virtue of his tenancy under legal obligation to prevent the structure from becoming a dangerous structure,

(iii) became tenant of the structure or any part thereof not less than six months before service of a notice on the owner under subsection (1) of this section."

The object of this and the following amendment is to provide that the landlord of a dangerous building which is used as a dwelling house and demolished under this Act shall pay compensation to the tenant thereof. I know this matter was dealt with at some length in the Dáil and I do not propose to go into it at great length here. I merely repeated this amendment to show we still believe there is a necessity for it. I have personal experience of a case in which a house had been in the occupation of one family in a town for approximately 100 years. The rent was as low as 2/6d. per week. The landlord allowed it to fall into a state of disrepair. It was condemned by the local authority, who took steps to get possession. The tenant had no answer. He was ejected from it. When this happened, this site immediately became a valuable asset in the hands of the landlord. The object of these amendments and the case made in the Dáil is to provide that in such a case compensation should be paid to the tenant who is disturbed. I do not think that is unreasonable. I do not propose to put it any further than that.

Mr. Blaney

As suggested by Senator Fitzpatrick, the effect of these amendments would be to introduce a statutory obligation on the owner to pay to the tenants certain compensation if they are evicted or removed by action of the local authority. This is a new and radical departure as far as the relationship between owner and tenant is concerned. We do not have it in the present housing code and at this stage it is not proposed to introduce it into the new housing code, either. I said in the Dáil that, if this is something the Oireachtas feel is required, it would be much more appropriate to the landlord and tenant legislation. If that is the mind of the Houses at any given time, what we do here should not reflect on the merits of it. I am not reflecting on the merits of it, either. I am merely saying that this is not the appropriate legislation in which to do it. It can be put in at the right place in due course by means of an amendment to the Landlord and Tenant Acts.

Mr. Fitzpatrick

When a house is demolished, the tenant loses all his rights under the Rent Restrictions Act and the Landlord and Tenant Acts. I suggested on Second Reading that perhaps some section should be put in, or some amendment made, that would give the tenants certain rights, for example, the right to build on the cleared site at a reasonable rent, to be fixed by the court, if necessary. I do not think that is unreasonable. It is obvious the Minister will resist this amendment here. Would he say if he would consider the position in his comprehensive Housing Bill and consider conferring on the deposed tenants the right to build on the cleared site at a reasonable rent, if the tenant wishes to do so?

Mr. Blaney

I have already indicated to the Minister whose responsibility it is to make any changes in the Landlord and Tenant Acts the views expressed in the Dáil. I would further undertake to draw his attention to the further views expressed on the same matter here with a view to introducing some amendment to the Landlord and Tenant Acts.

Mr. Fitzpatrick

I am not clear whether the suggestion of giving the tenant the right to build or not was made in the Dáil.

Mr. Blaney

The additional views expressed by Senator Fitzpatrick will be conveyed, as were those expressed in the Dáil, to the Minister with a view to his having a look at them.

Mr. Fitzpatrick

I am satisfied with that.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 not moved.

Question proposed: "That section 3 stand part of the Bill".

Mr. Cole

Section 2 of the Bill deals with dangerous places, and in section 5 there is what amounts to an appeal to the District Court. Apparently there is no such appeal in section 3. Under subsection (5) (a) (i) of section 3 a district court may:

direct the person to carry out, within such time as the Court may consider reasonable and may specify in the order and in accordance with the terms of the notice, the works specified in the notice and authorise the sanitary authority to carry out the works aforesaid if the person does not comply with the provisions of the order, or

Under section 3 a person would have no appeal or no opportunity of varying the Order. That is how it appears to me. I may have missed some section that gives that power. I could quite understand a sanitary authority going a bit beyond their powers in trying to be oversafe or, perhaps, on the report of an architect which another architect might consider had gone beyond the ordinary reasonable grounds of safety. It appears to me that if the district court were of opinion that a sanitary authority had gone beyond reasonable bounds it might hold up an application. I wonder can a district court hold up such an application? I should not like to see that happening, and I am wondering is there some simpler way such as putting in some appeal under which the district court might vary the suggestion of the sanitary authority.

Mr. Blaney

So far as I can outline the situation in regard to this section, it is that if a notice which is served is not complied with, the person who failed to comply with it would be brought before court, and the reasonableness or otherwise of the terms of the notice would, without question, be taken into consideration by the court in hearing the terms of the complaint. If the notice were found to be unreasonable I feel it would probably be thrown out of court.

Mr. Cole

I think that would be an unsatisfactory way of dealing with it. If the district court could be given power to vary, I think it would be a more suitable way, but so far as I can see the court has power only to throw out the application.

Mr. Blaney

I have considered this question and I feel that if it were found that the terms of the notice were unreasonable, probably at the instigation of the justice or the judge, agreement would be reached, even though there would be no statutory obligation on either side to accept it. Other than that I should not like to comment.

Mr. Fitzpatrick

Is the Minister satisfied that the court has power to inquire into whether the notice is reasonable? I do not think that is clear in the section which says:

Where a person does not comply with an order of the District Court under subsection (5) of this section, he shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds.

Subsection (5) says that the court "may direct a person to carry out, within such time as the court may consider reasonable and may specify in the order and in accordance with the terms of the notice, the works specified in the notice and authorise the sanitary authority to carry out the works aforesaid if the person does not comply with the provisions of the order". Is the Minister satisfied that gives discretion to the court?

Mr. Blaney

I would hesitate to comment on what the courts will regard as their discretion in regard to this or any other proposal. I would have no doubt whatsoever that if the courts feel the person before them is wrongfully there they will operate a discretion to rectify the situation.

Mr. Fitzpatrick

If they have a discretion under the section. That is the point.

Question put and agreed to.

Section 4 agreed to.

SECTION 5.

Mr. Fitzpatrick

I move amendment No. 7:

To delete subsection (3).

This is a simple amendment which may be moved without any great argument. Section 5 provides for an appeal to the district court in certain circumstances, but subsection (3) of section 5 states that a decision of the district court under this section shall be final and unappealable. I think that, generally speaking, every defendant brought before a district court has the right to appeal against an order of the court, if he or she is dissatisfied with it, to the circuit court. Some years ago, there was a type of order such as binding to the peace which could not be appealed against but I think one of the Acts gave the right of appeal even against that order of the district court.

This measure deals with rights and property and confers on the sanitary authority the right to go into a dangerous place and to make it safe. The sanitary authority then has the right to acquire the dangerous place, if it thinks fit. The aggrieved person is given an appeal here to the district court. It is a great pity that the right of appeal from the decision of the district court is taken away. It is a tendency which should not be encouraged. In a matter as important as rights and property, a person should have the right of appeal at least to a judge of the circuit court.

I made the case on Second Reading that very often district courts dispensed rough and ready justice. The litigants there very seldom have the assistance of counsel. In a matter of this sort, questions of law could be, and quite often are involved. It is desirable that the person affected should have the right to appeal to the circuit court and should have the assistance of counsel.

I pointed out on Second Reading, too, that counsel seldom appear in district courts and, if they do, are brought there on special terms. However, they appear as a normal course in the circuit court. There is no question of urgency in this section. In my opinion, there is no reason why a person should be deprived of the right which practically every defendant has whose case is tried in the district court, namely, the right of appeal to the circuit court. That is all I ask for in this amendment.

Mr. Blaney

The bringing of the case to the district court in the first instance really arises from a person who has received a notice about a dangerous place being aggrieved. The decision of the court is a decision relating to whether the place complained of is dangerous. The district court having made its decision as to whether the place is dangerous, it is only right and proper that there should not be protracted legal proceedings which would only have the effect of prolonging the period during which the danger would be allowed to exist.

Lest the House may feel that this is a new departure, that we have not had it before, I would point out that we have had it as recently as the Sanitary Services Act, 1962, and the Fire Brigade Act, 1940. In the experience of the House, of the legal profession and of the courts, I have not become aware recently or during the years since the 1940 Act that there was any abuse or any taking away of people's rights as a result of the operation of this type of enactment. I do not think that what is sought is necessary, since the question to be settled is whether the place is dangerous within the meaning of the Act. That is something which it is within the competence of the district court to decide. When they have decided, there should not be any real need for or question of putting it further to a higher court or of getting further legal aid in order to determine the fact in another way.

Mr. Fitzpatrick

Surely the same case could be made on any decision of fact in the district court?

Mr. Blaney

We could say that also after the third, fourth or highest court had heard it, if we wanted to take that view.

Mr. Fitzpatrick

That is the other extreme.

Mr. Blaney

Yes.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Section 5 agreed to.

SECTION 6.

Question proposed: "That section 6 stand part of the Bill".

Mr. Fitzgerald

What type of land is envisaged in this take over:

A sanitary authority may acquire by agreement or compulsorily any land situate in their sanitary district that is a dangerous place or that has ceased, by reason of the carrying out of works under this Act by the Authority, to be a dangerous place.

What type of land could one define as being dangerous, before or after?

Mr. Blaney

As I understand it, the section gives sanitary authorities power to acquire, by agreement or compulsorily, land which is dangerous or which has ceased to be dangerous because of works carried out by the authority.

Mr. Fitzgerald

Is it the type of land that is in question? Assuming it is dangerous, what would the danger spring from? It might be a disused quarry or old sandpit or something like that which would then be levelled out, reclaimed, developed. Is that the type of land envisaged in this section?

Mr. Blaney

Yes.

Mr. Fitzgerald

There are rather wide powers in the section.

Mr. Blaney

Of course, there are. Of necessity, the powers have to be wide, as is evidenced from the lack of power that has made itself felt around Dublin in the recent past.

Mr. Fitzgerald

Take old woods, and so on. I can envisage an official viewing lands as hazardous or dangerous and using the powers he has under this section to have land developed which he might think dangerous when there might be no danger there at all.

Mr. Blaney

That, the owner can contest. In fact, that is the last matter to be dealt with.

Mr. Fitzgerald

It is in the contesting of it that I see the danger. If an owner can be brought to court merely because an official thinks disused sandpits, and so on, are dangerous because children are playing around them, might roll into them and might suffer minor injuries, that would be dangerous. I cannot see the sense of the section at all.

Mr. Blaney

That is, provided that the members of the local authority who provide the money for all actions of the officials are also so remiss as to allow that type of procedure to take place when their officials could better be employed.

Mr. Fitzgerald

I understand you will not find members of local authorities remiss in that respect. Members of local authorities have quite enough to do without trying to keep people of this type out of private property.

Professor Stanford

This House is always careful about these powers of compulsory acquisition. I should be grateful if the Minister would explain to us what is the point of the second clause "... or that has ceased, by reason of the carrying out of works under this Act by the authority, to be a dangerous place." I can see the reason for the first part of the section.

Mr. Blaney

Local authority money will have gone into it. This would be one way, probably, in which they could utilise it to some useful purpose and get some of their money back in making it a non-dangerous place.

Professor Stanford

I am not quite happy about that. I think it is perhaps late to do anything about it now, but if a piece of ground or a man's land has been improved compulsorily he should have the option of paying the cost of the work. I agree with the previous Senator that there is some danger in the second part of this section.

Mr. Mooney

Under the legislation in relation to derelict sites, has the local authority not power to serve notice on the owner of the derelict site and, on his or her failing to carry out the work, can the local authority not move in and do it and also acquire the property after the work has been done?

Mr. Fitzgerald

This is land, not a derelict site.

Mr. Fitzpatrick

The section means that a local authority may move in and acquire a dangerous place, be it land or water, or the local authority may make that place safe and then may move in and, because they have done so, acquire it compulsorily. That is the authority this House is conferring on a sanitary authority: there is no doubt about it.

Mr. McDonald

Did the Minister say the power under this Bill will be vested in the local authority or will it be a managerial function?

Mr. Blaney

Managerial.

Mr. McDonald

What is the use, then, in reminding Senator Fitzgerald that members of local authorities have the spending of the money, if this is a managerial function?

Mr. Blaney

The local authority still have to provide the money, regardless of whether it is a major job or otherwise. The money must be provided for many of these acts which are carried out by the managers and officials. If the money is not provided, there is very little the managers or officials will do at their own cost.

The other thing I should like to say is in regard to acquisition, after a site has been improved on and made non-dangerous. That work will have been carried out by the local authorities to make it non-dangerous. The work will have been carried out only after the owner of the property has been given an opportunity to do the job himself. In other words if he has property, say, a quarry being filled in, though he may not have got it done, it is a good piece of property and is still worth while filling in. It will not be filled in without informing him beforehand and without giving him an opportunity to fill it in and retain it for any useful purpose which it may serve.

In addition, where he is asked to fill in such a quarry, he can appeal to the Minister, even in the final instance where he failed to do what he was requested to do by the local authority. This section is not as bald as it appears. It is pretty well hedged in.

Mr. Healy

As a member of two local authorities, I want to place on record that we welcome this clause in the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 7

Question proposed: "That section 7 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Cole

The section says a sanitary authority intending to acquire any land compulsorily under section 6 of this Act shall—we then come down to paragraph (d) of this subsection which says:

give a copy of the notice referred to in paragraph (c) of this subsection.

The word "give" is rather unusual. Subsection (ii) of this paragraph says:

every (if any) owner of the land, whose name and the address at which he ordinarily resides can be ascertained by the sanitary authority by reasonable inquiries.

The man might be abroad. Is the word "give" not rather unusual?

Mr. Blaney

I do not think it is. This word has been used in previous Acts and it is probably that which the Senator is recollecting at the moment. The Derelict Sites Act may have had the word.

Question put and agreed to.

Sections 8 to 10, inclusive, agreed to.

SECTION 11.

Mr. Fitzpatrick

I move amendment No. 8:

In subsection (1), line 44, to delete "the" where it secondly occurs, and substitute "that".

This is what the Minister would call a drafting amendment. The proposal is to delete "the" and substitute "that". I do not propose to have any argument about this. In my opinion, the word "that" is better. If the Minister is satisfied "they" is a better word, I shall leave it to him.

Mr. Blaney

For once, we are agreed on this. I agree the word "that" is better but I am satisfied "they" will do and it would be unwise to change it.

Mr. Fitzpatrick

It is a small change. It might be described as a niggardly one.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Section 11 agreed to.

Sections 12 to 23, inclusive, agreed to.

Schedule agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment.

Agreed to take remaining Stages today.

Bill received for final consideration and passed.

The Seanad adjourned at 9.10 p.m.sine die.