I move:
That Seanad Éireann approves the following Order in draft:
Housing Act, 1969 (Continuance) Order, 1979,
a copy of which Order in draft was laid before Seanad Éireann on 24 October, 1979.
Na Rialacháin um Thoghcháin Údarás na Gaeltachta, 1979, ina nDréacht: Tairiscint. - Housing Act, 1969 (Continuance) Order, 1979: Motion.
The purpose of the Housing Act, 1969, was to prevent the unwarranted demolition or change of use of habitable houses which was depleting the housing stock at a time of difficulty in keeping pace with housing demand, particularly in Dublin city. The Act was intended to be a temporary measure, due to expire on 31 December 1972, but provision was included in section 13 to continue it in operation after that date if the conditions so warranted. In fact, as the Seanad may be aware, it has been continued in force since by the Housing Act, 1969 (Continuance) Orders, 1972, 1974 and 1977 and will expire on 31 December 1979, unless continued by an order made by me after it has been approved by resolution of each House of the Oireachtas.
The Act requires generally that the permission of the housing authority must be obtained for the demolition or change of use of any habitable house. In determining an application for permission under the Act a housing authority must have regard to the state of repair of the house to which the application relates and to the adequacy of the supply of dwellings in its functional area. An authority may either refuse permission or grant it with or without conditions.
While the powers made available by the Act have been utilised by at least 38 housing authorities, in practice most use of the controls has been made by Dublin and Cork Corporations. Statistics furnished by these two authorities of applications made to them and of their decisions thereon indicate that the Act has helped to preserve a considerable number of houses.
Up to 30 September 1979, a total of 2,021 applications for permission had been made to Dublin Corporation. Permission was refused in 886 cases and granted subject to conditions in 1,135. Of the 257 applications received by Cork Corporation in the same period 181 were granted, 61 were refused and 15 were withdrawn. However, these figures do not of themselves show the full measure of the Act's effectiveness. Account must also be taken of its deterrent value and of the number of replacement dwellings provided or capital contributions made to local housing authorities where permission for demolition had been granted subject to these conditions.
Where a housing authority have refused permission or granted it subject to conditions there is a right of appeal to the Minister. By the end of September this year, 802 appeals had been submitted. Of these, 48 were not received within the statutory period, 112 were withdrawn, 585 were determined and the remainder were under consideration.
Despite the upward trend in housing output in recent years and the substantial number of houses which have been preserved in a habitable condition or improved with the aid of Government incentives, a case can still be made for some form of control over the change of use or demolition of habitable houses in order to facilitate commercial or industrial development which, due to economic factors, can often be financially more rewarding, especially in major urban areas, than retaining existing houses for residential purposes.
In November 1977, when a motion proposing to authorise the continuance in force of the 1969 Act for a further two years was being debated in the Seanad, the Minister for the Environment indicated that the drafting of permanent provisions for the type of control exercised under the Act was being considered. The matter has, in fact, been reviewed in some depth and, while I am naturally concerned to ensure that controls are in existence which would help keep the loss of residential accommodation to a minimum, I am not sure that permanent legislation on the lines of the 1969 Act is the best way to deal with the situation. Also, I have some reservations about the form and extent of the controls, the degree of flexibility to be allowed and the question of compensation where a refusal of permission or the imposition of conditions might give rise to genuine hardship. It is possible that the objectives of the 1969 Act could be achieved by modifying the present planning code, in the process simplifying the adminstrative controls to which an intending developer is subject at present.
In the circumstances I am reluctant at this time either to allow the Act to lapse at the end of the year or else to proceed with the enactment of permanent provisions without being fully satisfied that they are warranted. I propose, therefore, before deciding what future policy should be adopted in relation to the controls, to have a detailed analysis carried out, in consultation with housing authorities and with other Government Departments concerned, of all the cases dealt with under the Act so far. This will take some time. In the interim I feel that it would be desirable to retain the existing controls. The draft order now before the House proposes to continue the 1969 Act in force for a further two years to 31 December, 1981. I commend the motion to the House.
I do not intend opposing this Motion, but only just, because I think the objective of the Housing Act, 1969 has been, so far as I can judge, correctly stated by the Minister of State in his opening speech as being concerned with any depletion of the housing stock in keeping pace with housing demand. In so far as the type of controls in this Act which this order is proposing to continue serve in any degree that purpose and in the absence of any alternative before the House, my party will agree to the motion. Let us appropriately concentrate on what the Minister of State has correctly stated to be the object of the Act and which is being continued, that is, the prevention of the depletion of the housing stock. To some degree, perhaps at some cost to the nature of the controls contained in the Act, economic, social or environmental, cultural if you like, this Act has done something to prevent that depletion.
It is difficult to understand, from a study of this Act and of all the different codes which apply to the matter of the provision of houses of which one of the most important is the fiscal code, what is the overall policy of Government on this matter. I submit to the House that the object of housing policy should be to house people, not to build houses, particularly if the overall effect of the different codes is to let fall into disrepair through lack of maintenance, through lack of activity in the matter of maintenance, existing stock which could be available to house people or be more efficiently altered to house people and to build houses in green fields instead.
The order proposes that we should continue the Act for two years. In the meantime, two years having passed since we continued the Act already, consideration is to be given to the alternative set of structures to replace this particular item, which is only one item in all our legislation and policy with regard to this vital human matter of ensuring that our economic resources are applied with a real priority for the people and with the greatest efficiency and justice for the people.
I look forward to being here when this order expires. If I am here and if another similar order comes before this House I shall be merciless in judgment of the Executive who would dare present it to us. I am just about patient with regard to the order. It is only fair that not merely the Minister, the entire governmental system, the bureaucracy or whatever, but everyone should have an opportunity of studying the very comprehensive review which is being made by the ESRI of housing policy. The number of the publication escapes me. It is because I am against hasty decisions, because I think the change here should be made in terms of an overall policy and because I think there are reasons other than those specified by the Minister for controlling change of user, reasons of a cultural character, for example, and indeed for some reasons given by the Minister, that I do not oppose the motion.
I do not find Senator FitzGerald's patience justified, having regard to the record of the attempts to renew by motion for further periods this Housing Act, 1969. The fact that the Minister of State is here today reflects an abject failure by the Government to come forward with a proper housing policy in this area, and it is all the more astonishing because in 1977 when a similar motion was before both Houses to continue the Act in force for a further two years the Minister for the Environment at the time gave assurances that this legislation would be forthcoming. I think it is worth putting these points on the record of the House and Senator FitzGerald should be merciless when he hears what was said at that time by the Minister. He said, in introducing a similar motion in the Dáil in December, 1977 as reported at column 865 of the Official Report:
The circumstances which give rise to the need for the controls in the Act still exist, and are likely to continue in some areas. Accordingly, it is considered necessary that with some amendments, there should be permanent provisions for the type of control in the 1969 Act. The drafting of such provisions is at an advanced stage and I hope to include them in a forthcoming Housing Bill. In the meantime, I consider it essential that the existing controls should not lapse at the end of 1977. The object of the draft Order now before the House is to continue the 1969 Act in force for a further period of two years up to 31st December, 1979, by which time I am confident permanent legislation will have been enacted.
Later on in the debate at that time in December, 1977, when Deputy Ruairí Quinn had criticised in very effective terms the deficiencies of the 1969 Housing Act, the Minister replying made it even clearer that there was legislation practically ready to be introduced into the House. He said at column 883:
In my opening statement I said that legislation of a permanent nature would be brought in in the near future. Even though we are looking for a two-year extension it is not anticipated that we will require that extension. It is our intention to introduce the legislation next year and make it effective next year. We decided to look for two years to be absolutely safe lest anything might delay this legislation.
Yet this afternoon we have the Minister of State coming in and introducing this motion but seeming not to have any idea of where he is going. He is reluctant, he is not sure, he wants more time, he wants to continue thinking. That is because there is no housing policy in this area, because the Government have failed in the two-year gap which we gave them very reluctantly in 1977 to come forward with a proper policy in relation to protection of housing stock, to the whole question of control of vacant houses. Despite the number of houses that are lying vacant in Dublin at the moment when we have the worst housing crisis in the history of the city, the Minister is much less certain of where he is going now than the Minister for the Environment was in December, 1977.
I must say that I would ask Senator FitzGerald to re-consider his patience on the matter and to be merciless, because nothing else is warranted where there is concerned a Government that made a firm commitment that legislation would be brought in to improve the deficiencies of the Housing Act of 1969—and it is deficient. It has a very one-dimensional approach to the protection of housing stocks, a protectiveness in a statistical way. It does not meet the needs of people who need housing. It does not protect the social residential character of neighbourhoods. It does not prevent the erosion of the housing stock in real terms in Dublin and it has had very little real beneficial effect. The figures bear this out to a considerable extent, because the Minister by putting together figures up to 30 September, 1979, says that there was a total of 2,021 applications for permission under this legislation made to Dublin Corporation but the figures that were given by the Minister for the Environment in December, 1977, show that at that time there were 1,710 applications which had already been made. So effectively between December, 1977, and September, 1979, there were only a further 311 applications of which 155 were refused by the Corporation. Some of these would have been granted on appeal.
This shows that what is being achieved is very minimal in this particular legislation. It is a very limited protection to housing stock to require that it be replaced by the provision of alternative accommodation. There are grave defects in that provision of alternative accommodation, because even if an applicant gets permission to demolish on the condition that the applicant will provide alternative flats, for example, there is no requirement in the legislation that that accommodation be let. There are examples in the city of where although flats have been built to satisfy the conditions under the 1969 Act they have not been let and they remain idle, some of them on the top of blocks owned by State-sponsored bodies. It is deplorable and shocking that a Government have so little concern for the huge housing crisis in the city of Dublin that a two-year period would be allowed to pass in this way, and we move from a Minister who appeared to know what he intended by way of replacing this defective legislation which does not protect housing stock in the full sense, which does not form part of a progressive housing policy to ensure that people are housed in the areas where they grew up, where they have social links, where they want to be housed and which does not ensure that we do not have the scandal of so much unoccupied housing in the city of Dublin which is lying vacant and on which it is hoped that in the future the developers will be able to make speculative profits.
Given the extent of the housing crisis in Dublin, given the fact that there are 6,000 families on the housing list and a further 2,000 on the transfer list, it is very hard to be patient in taking part in a debate when the Minister of State shows this completely ineffectual capacity to tell us what he is going to do. He wants another two years in this area. Are we to see further deterioration of the existing housing stock in Dublin? Are we to see more houses left vacant until they deteriorate to such an extent that it will be easier to get permission to develop them? When are we to see a certain leadership in this area which will make it possible for the local authorities, for the Dublin City Council, to play their part in reversing the present trend, in trying to come to grips with the housing list as it exists at the moment? When are we in Dublin to have a housing list which allows us to house people who are ordinary families, because that does not happen any more in Dublin? You have to have chronic illness or chronic problems in order to have enough points to be allocated a house, and therefore I find it very difficult to be sympathetic to the Minister's request for a further two years because there was no evidence as it happens that when a further two-year extension was given in 1977, the Government did a single thing about this very important part of the housing problem. It is only part of it but it is a very important part of it.
We do need proper planning legislation effectively to ensure both that the housing stock is maintained in a physical sense and that people are aware that the housing policy which is being implemented is one which places their needs and their needs for housing in the areas where they wish to be housed as a priority and that it is not possible to evade the intention of the 1969 Act. One of the gravest problems of the 1969 Act is that it can be evaded, that it has a number of defects, that it does not solve the worst of the housing problems. Therefore, as Deputy Quinn did in 1977 in the other House, I oppose a further extension of this Housing Act of 1969 because I believe the Government have done nothing at all in the two-year interval about this most important social problem, and I am absolutely staggered that the Minister of State is less sure of where he is going now than was his Minister in December, 1977, on one of the most serious social issues facing the city of Dublin.
I hope the word goes forth from this House that the Government, having assured us that there would be permanent legislation before November 1979, now come into the House looking for a further two years because the Minister of State does not know what he is going to do. He is uncertain; he is reluctant; he is unsure; and he needs more time to think about it. There is not any more time to think about the deterioration in the housing stock in Dublin, the crisis that faces so many families in Dublin, and the lack of an overall housing policy which will enable the housing authority, the Dublin City Council, and the Dublin County Council, to meet their commitments to the people who desperately need housing. Therefore, I intend to oppose this measure. It is a disgrace and a defeat for the Minister to come in looking for a further two year extension of the Act.
Since it appears that, despite what Shakespeare suggested, the quality of mercy is becoming rather strained, I will just make a few brief remarks. Anything that can save habitable houses is to be commended at any time. As the Minister for State said. "The purpose of the Housing Act, 1969, was to prevent the unwarranted demolition or change of use of habitable houses which was depleting the housing stock at a time of difficulty in keeping pace with housing demand, particularly in Dublin city". Of course, I am not very familiar with the local scene in Dublin. I know a fair amount about it in a general way, but I do know something about housing throughout the country. All one needs to do in passing through the various counties of this State is to keep one's eyes open to see the enormous strides being made in the matter of housing. It is fair to say that possibly no other Government have done more, are doing more, or will continue to do more for housing than the present Government.
A further problem has come to light within the past few months. We felt it was there all the time, but now it has been proved beyond all doubt, and neither of the two previous speakers made reference to it, that is, our increasing population. The recent census returns show that the population is increasing at an enormous rate, faster than in any other country in western Europe. Together with that extraordinary increase in the population, thousands of people are coming back here to take up employment and to live here. They prefer to live here than elsewhere. They are coming back not by the hundreds but by the thousands. So the housing problem is getting bigger and bigger, and no matter how fast we can build houses, we cannot build enough. We can never have enough houses built. If the extension of this order helps in any way to ease the problem then if we are sincere in our anxiety to have people housed, we should be unanimous in commending its extension.
Senator FitzGerald queried the overall housing policy of the Government. I should like to inform him that such a policy exists and, in general, it follows the criteria suggested by him, that is, to ensure that people are properly housed in appropriate accommodation, at a cost or a rent they can afford. This is to be achieved not only by new buildings—and the number of new houses being completed has been rising—but by conserving existing houses. This conservation is being secured not only by negative controls like those under the 1969 Act, although these are important, but by schemes of grants and loans which are more generous, more wide-ranging, and more flexible than any schemes operated by any previous Administration. In 1977 my Department allocated, 11,211 house improvement grants. Last year the total was 24,496. So far this year 37,000 applications for grants have been submitted to the Department. Combined with the negative controls under the 1969 Act and the planning code, this great volume of work must make a tremendous impact on the quality of the national housing stock.
Senator Robinson suggested that the 1969 Act has been largely ineffective in preserving houses in Dublin. She based her criticism on statistics of applications to the corporation for permissions under the Act. I should like, however, to draw her attention to the comment in my opening statement that:
these figures do not of themselves show the full measure of the Act's effectiveness. Account must also be taken of its deterrent value and of the number of replacement dwellings provided or capital contributions made to the local housing authorities where permission for demolition had been granted subject to these conditions.
Senator Robinson also stated that I do not know where I am going in relation to the conservation of existing stock.
Where is the Bill promised two years ago?
I said in my opening statement: "I propose, therefore, before deciding what future policy should be adopted in relation to the controls, to have a detailed analysis carried out, in consultation with housing authorities and with other Government Departments concerned——
I thought it was at an advanced stage two years ago.
——of all the cases dealt with under the Act so far. This will take some time." I am also considering the possibility of providing a new framework within the planning code rather than within the housing code. Before a firm decision is taken the analysis to which I have referred must be carried out in full detail.
In conclusion I should like to thank the Senators for their contributions and to say it is clear from the points made during the debate that the motion now before the House should be carried. I said in my opening address that housing output continues to increase. This is true and, while it must be accepted that new houses are essential, it is important also that the existing housing stock should be preserved where possible, not only for social and economic reasons but also because it contains much architectural merit. I should like to assure Senators that any constructive suggestions made during the debate will be borne in mind when future policy on housing controls is being determined.
Could I ask the Minister one question? He has given us very interesting figures for the increased number of grants in response to applications for money to conserve the existing stock of houses. I will not make another speech, but these are figures essentially indicating public expenditure for which the taxpayer has to pay. This is my question. Is there in the local authority code authority given to local councils to go into the business of acquiring existing houses, whether rented or not, for the purposes of maintaining them, altering them, doing whatever is required of them, to rent them? If there is such a provision, perhaps the Minister would tell me what it is, though I know this is a jungle. If there is such a provision can the Minister say if the policy is applied anywhere of operating it in the code?
There is an alternative which would not cost the taxpayer money. It could be a profitable venture for Dublin Corporation, for example, if we take a city which is so hard-pressed with this problem, to buy rent controlled dwellings and wait until the unfortunate protected tenants' interest expired, and meanwhile maintain the premises and make them available to other people at a profit to the corporation and not at a cost to the taxpayer.
In reply to Senator FitzGerald, housing authorities have authority under the Housing Acts to purchase houses, to renovate them and to lease them to tenants. Generally speaking, it is not the policy of housing authorities to do so for a few reasons. Dublin Corporation tidied up Sean Mac-Dermott Street on a few occasions, but it was not very successful.
Why did they not buy the Dublin artisans' dwellings?
I could see local authorities running into difficulties as regards the purchase price of these houses if it became known that they were purchasing houses on the open market. They would be in competition with private enterprise. We all know how the price of houses could be pushed up if it were known that local authorities were interested in the purchase of these houses. By and large this is what happened to the vast majority of local authorities who tried to use these powers under the Housing Acts.
The policy is wrong.
They have the power to do it, and it is entirely a matter for the housing authorities.
Could I ask the Minister for clarification, because he has not resolved the difficulties I raised at the beginning? In 1977 the Minister for the Environment said there was a Bill at an advanced stage to provide permanent controls such as those under the Housing Act, 1969. It appears that the Minister of State here today is indicating a change of Government policy. Is that correct? Has there been a change of Government policy in this area, or what has happened to those proposals which were at an advanced stage in 1977?
No. There is no change of policy. When the proposals that were in mind in 1977 were examined, drafting difficulties developed and other difficulties were encountered which were not envisaged originally. These included maintenance and improvement of deteriorating buildings and compensation for refusal to allow permission for demolition and change of use. These were some of the principal problems which arose at the time.
What is the present position?
The present position is that this whole matter is under consideration. I am having the matter examined carefully to see whether it would be more appropriate to have it incorporated in the planning code rather than in the housing code.
So there may very well be a change in the attitude or the position of the Government?
Depending on the results of the examination being carried out at present.
Question put and declared carried.
- Na Rialacháin um Thoghcháin Údarás na Gaeltachta, 1979, ina nDréacht: Tairiscint. - Bille na dTithe (Gaeltacht) (Leasú) [Bille Airgid Deimhnithe]: Céim an Choiste agus na Céimeanna Deiridh. Housing (Gaeltacht) (Amendment) Bill, 1979 [Certified Money Bill]: Committee and Final Stages.
- Ar ais chuig clár ábhair
- Na Rialacháin um Thoghcháin Údarás na Gaeltachta, 1979, ina nDréacht: Tairiscint. - Local Government (Toll Roads) Bill, 1978: Second Stage.