I move:
That Seanad Éireann approves the following Order in draft:
Housing Act, 1969 (Continuance) Order, 1981,
a copy of which Order in draft was laid before Seanad Éireann on 7 December, 1981.
Housing Act, 1969 (Continuance) Order, 1981: Motion.
I ask the Seanad to endorse the resolution passed yesterday by Dáil Éireann authorising the Minister for the Environment to make an order continuing the Housing Act, 1969, in operation until the end of 1984.
The 1969 Act is a temporary measure which was designed to prevent the unwarranted demolition or change of use of habitable houses. Under the provisions of the Act 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 grant permission, with or without conditions, or may refuse the permission sought.
At least 38 housing authorities have availed of the powers made available to them by the Act. However, the controls have been utilised consistently only by a few — principally by the Dublin authorities and Cork Corporation. These authorities have indicated that the Act has helped to preserve a considerable number of houses in their functional areas and they have strongly recommended that the Act should be continued in force.
Up to 30 September 1981 applications for permission in respect of 2,463 dwellings had been made to Dublin Corporation. Permission was refused in 1,045 cases and granted subject to conditions in 1,365. Of the 325 applications received by Cork Corporation in the same period, 222 were granted, 87 were refused and 16 were withdrawn. These figures do not, of course, provide a fair indication of the effectiveness of the Act which has a deterrent value considerably wider than the range of applications. By availing of the powers which it confers, local authorities have secured the provision of numbers of replacement dwellings. Relevant, too, has been the assistance to local finances by the contributions made by developers where permission for demolition and change of use has been granted subject to such contributions.
Where a housing authority has refused permission or granted it subject to conditions, there is the right to appeal to the Minister for the Environment. By the end of September 1981 1,106 appeals have been submitted. Of these 59 were not received within the statutory period, 116 were withdrawn, 879 were determined and the remainder are awaiting decisions.
When previous draft continuance orders were being considered by the Dáil and Seanad the question was debated whether the Act should be continued in its existing form. In 1979 the then Minister of State at the Department of the Environment recommended that the Act be continued for a further temporary period. He felt then that some form of permanent control for the purpose was necessary, but he was not satisfied as to the proper form of such controls. Before making a decision on the matter it was his intention to consult those local authorities who had experience of operating the controlled system. Local authorities were consulted and the investigation established that very few availed of their powers under the Act, preferring instead to use the Planning Act to control changes of use of residential property. Only two local authorities made a case for the retention of the Act but, although both used their powers extensively, neither offered any positive suggestions as to how the undoubted weakness of the Act might be overcome.
In my opinion, there is a need for some control of the type provided in the Act but I am inclined to the view that the control would best be exercised by the planning authorities under the planning code and that whatever legislative amendment is necessary for the purpose in that code should be made. Pressure of other business since last July has prevented the preparation of proposals for legislation along these lines. The position is directly related to the question of reviewing the present provisions governing the withering of planning approvals and permissions, a matter on which important representations have been made concerning which the Government intend to make an announcement in the immediate future. In the meantime it would be undesirable that the powers available under the 1969 Act to those local authorities who use them, should be lost through the lapsing of the Act and I propose to continue them through this order for a period of three years from 31 December 1981. When I ask the Seanad in the circumstances to approve the order now before it I assure the Members of the House quite definitely that the situation will be reviewed in the coming months. If appropriate safeguards can be provided by planning legislation my intention will be to allow the 1969 Act to lapse before the terminal date now proposed. On this basis I commend the motion to the Seanad.
This is a non-contentious order which is acceptable to this side of the House as providing a necessary safeguard. I accept the Minister's point of view that it should be looked at and perhaps updated and any necessary improvements made. It provides the necessary safeguards for keeping housing stock still standing that would be levelled by bulldozers were it not for this provision.
I welcome the Housing Act, 1969 (Continuance) Order, 1981. It is very important, particularly for the cities of Dublin and Cork where the conservation of existing housing stock has been threatened, particularly prior to the original Housing Act, 1969 when buildings not alone in residential use but also of high architectural merit were demolished at short notice. This Act has handed over to the local authorities the opportunity to conserve our housing stock and to do something positive to retain a residential atmosphere in parts of both cities where the movement into commercial use has been far too fast and very changed planning problems have arisen. This Act needs to be strengthened.
I welcome the comments of the Minister of State in relation to the planning legislation and what he might do in the foreseeable future to strengthen it and make it fall in line with the planning arrangements existing in both cities. The development plan can be at variance quite often with decisions taken under the Housing Act by either the local authority or by the Minister. The Act must be dovetailed into the planning arrangements and into more respect for the development plans existing in each city and in other local authority areas.
I welcome the move to review the close association that must exist between the Housing Act and the Planning Act. When we come to review the legislation and reach an amendment to the Planning Act we must ensure that the Housing Act is not used in some curious way under the precedent established over the last ten years when consent given under the Housing Act is, to some extent, taken by the local authorities as having a connection with the proper planning and development of an area and must therefore be implemented and the development plan is not allowed as the overwhelming argument. The development plan brought into being by proper consultation in a city or any other local authority area must be seen to give the fullest control of the development of property and in particular to protect not just residential areas and places which need's that protection but equally the conservation of listed buildings and places of architectural merit. There is a great need to move forward into associating these two Acts and amendment of the Planning Act at an early date.
The Minister is coming before this House to seek a further extension of an order under the Housing Act, 1969. This matter was debated at some length in this House when the then Minister came before the Seanad on 31 October, 1979 to extend the order to 31 December, 1981. The Minister then also referred to the measure as temporary and said that the Department were examining extensively a proposal for a permanent legislative measure to govern this area. The first speaker on the Opposition side at that time was Senator Alexis FitzGerald. I am referring to the Official Report of the Seanad, column 26, volume 93. He said that he did not intend to oppose the motion because he had to support the objective of preserving the housing stock, but that the measure itself showed a lack of concern for proper legislation in this area. I quote from part of his contribution on that:
It is difficult to understand, from a study of this Act and of all the other 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 the 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 made by the ESRI of housing policy.
He went on to say that that time he would be patient. My contribution followed and I said that I found myself less patient than Senator Fitzgerald on that occasion in October 1979 in regard to this very important area of housing policy. We need very badly a broadly-based measure which deals with the problem and it is depressing to come back two years later under a change of administration and find the same approach of continuing a temporary measure which has received a great deal of criticism of its admittedly indirect impact on housing policy and of the defects of that. These were indentified fully on the record of the House in October 1979. It was made clear at that time that we needed proper planning legislation which effectively would ensure both that the housing stock would be maintained in a physical sense and that people would be aware that the housing policy was addressed to the need for housing in areas where people had lived and wished to continue to live.
One of the gravest defects in the 1969 Act which we are in the process of extending for a so-called temporary period is that it can be evaded. It has a number of defects and it does not solve the most serious aspects of the housing problem. This matter has been discussed in both Houses of the Oireachtas since the motions started to come before the Houses for extension of the 1969 Act. The issues were clearly made known to successive Ministers of the Department, and what concerns me is that we are now extending it for a longer period. The last time we applied for an extension it was from 31 October 1979 to 31 December 1981, a two-year period. This time the Minister is looking for an extension to the end of 1984, a three-year period.
What depresses me is that this measure cannot be seen in isolation from other legislation and financing, fiscal and administrative measures in relation to housing. It reveals a lack of concern to deal with the problem, which does not bode well. We are to discuss two other measures in this House in the next day or two on aspects of housing, specifically private rented accommodation and protection of tenants in private rented accommodation, but there has been a failure down the years to have a policy in relation to existing housing stock, to the maintenance and preservation of that housing stock, to the recycling and re-use of that housing stock and to the expansion of the basic stock to meet the growing demands in the greater Dublin area. That is very much reflected in the city of Dublin now. It is reflected in the gaps, derelict sites and destruction in parts of the centre city area, and in the human tragedy of people being displaced and re-housed elsewhere where they do not have pre-existing roots, community facilities, shops, proper transport etc. It is reflected in some of the problems that we are now seeing in a surburban sprawl without proper infrastructure and community planning. I can only re-affirm with an even greater sense of despair the comments that I made in October 1979. I was then on the Opposition side and I was opposing a Minister of the Fianna Fáil administration bringing in an order. Now we have a change of Government but apparently no change of policy in relation to this aspect of the housing problem.
I would like the Minister to give very concrete assurances in his reply to this debate as to what he proposes to do as Minister to provide a broad-based legislative solution in this area. We are tired of assurances that the measure is only temporary and that something will happen. We have had that from successive Ministers in successive Governments. Meanwhile the problems of the 1969 Act and the general state of decline have continued. The 1979 urgency is still here and there is a very real need for a commitment long before the end of 1983 to bring in a broad-based legislative measure which will reflect a planned and thought-through approach to housing which will indentify the very grave problems that we have and we should decide to meet them in that structured and broad-based way.
Any objections which I had on the record of this House in October 1979 to the extension of the temporary order I have today. Any assurances that were given by the Minister then were similar to the assurances given on the previous occasion. I hope that whatever indications of policy in this area the present Minister may give will be convincingly different in his request to the House to give a further extension to the 1969 Act.
Unfortunately I was not present in the House when the Minister had the rather distasteful task of moving this order, but I was in the other House in 1977 when his predecessor, bar two, had the similar distasteful task of moving what was admittedly bad legislation which was to be given a temporary lease of life until such time as the Department of the Environment and the responsible Minister got their Act together and produced proper legislation. In 1979 the same rather distasteful task was imposed upon a new Minister for the Environment with the same kind of assurances. To my regret, a person who is not four weeks in office in his present position is charged on behalf of the establishment of both Government and civil service to come into the Houses of the Oireachtas do ask us yet again to extend bad legislation. It is totally, utterly and completely unacceptable that this should happen. Somewhere within the halls of the permanent Government and the not so permanent Government are a group of people who are responsible for this nonsense. I gave a long, detailed critique in 1977 as to why this Act should not be extended. I gave a long, detailed critique that the House manifestly was failing to do what the primary author of this measure, ex-Deputy Kevin Boland, then Minister for the Environment, or Local Government as it was then, had attempted to do. He had been forced to do it by the likes of myself and other students who took to the streets of Dublin marching to protest against the destruction of sound dwellings when there was a housing crisis in the city. It was hasty legislation, it was bad legislation, extracted out of an unwilling Fianna Fáil administration at that time. It did part of a job for part of the time. It no longer does what the original housing agitators wanted it to so do.
I have every personal sympathy for the present Minister of State at the Department of the Environment who has been handed the brief and told to go in and defend this totally unacceptable position. We have an enormous housing crisis which has been aggravated by disastrous management of our public finances for the past five or six years. This Act does nothing in real terms to alleviate that despite what many of its defenders would argue to the contrary. I rise to speal here because there is nothing nore I can do to put into the record what I hope might be stinging comments in relation to it. Somewhere between Government Buildings in Merrion Street in that padded Cabinet room and the Custom House some group of people have been grossly irresponsible over the last six years and have objectively, consciously or not, misled public representatives, elected representatives of the people, in both this House and the Dáil on this legislation. I make this charge in all seriousness. Somewhere somebody is not doing his or her job. If the politicians of either party's political complexion find the machinery of Government so difficult to operate and to combine with the prospect of political survival, then surely we should be honest with the people and inform them so, and try to reform the system. It is not sufficient for us here to try to put the blame on civil lervants as has been done in the past. The civil service may be grossly incompetent collectively or individually, but they are not politically responsible. Irrespective of the talent individually and collectively in the civil service, at the end of the day the civil service are not politically responsible. The elected Members of this House are responsible. This is one area of legislation in which that responsibility has been scandalously abused in both Houses of the Oireachtas. I will not go into the arguments regarding the legislation because they have been put on the record in the past in this and the other House. I endorse the contribution of my colleague, Senator Robinson, on this matter in every word. I would like a commitment from the Minister of State that this is the last time this order will see the light of day on the Order Paper of either the Seanad or the Dáil.
We are not in any real sense defending the housing stock of the country or providing homes for people who might otherwise find themselves homeless. We are devaluing the process of law-making in general and undermining our won credibility to ourselves and to the public service who have the task of drafting legislation, preparing memoranda and doing the groundwork for which we as public representatives ultimately carry the political can.
I regret very much that i have to put those comments on the record of this House, but I could not possibly let the situation continue. I regret that the Minister of State has the unfortunate task of being personally responsible in a political sense for something that is totally unacceptable.
I understand the frustration of Members of the Seanad at the situation now when a commitment was given some time ago that this order would be terminated and some alternative legislation introduced. I do not want to acept responsibility for the former Government or for any commitment they made. Senator Robinson referred to Senator Alexis FitzGerald saying that he would be merciless if this ever came before this House again, and I suppose that is one of the disadvantages of changing Government. I sincerely accept the views expressed here. I cannot account or do not intend to give any explanation for any form of commitment made here. I accept responsibility for what has happened since the change of Government last July and, even though I have been in the Department as Minister of State for only four weeks, I accept responsibility for my immediate predecessor also.
I assure Senator Quinn that it is not the fault of the civil servants. Over the last five months we ahve had some very contentious legislation, particularly in relation to housing, with much discussion and debate and I had no opportunity ot examine some form of alternative legislation. I asure this House that early in the new year I intend to examine in detail how I can build into our planning laws safegaurds to preserve the housing stock.
All Members here who spoke have agreed and all other Members in both Houses will agree that it is necessary to conserve the housing stock or to have some sort of control. In the absence of more permanent control, unfortunately, I have to come in here today to ask the Seanad to approve of this temporary measure. Long before the termination of this order I will have the matter examined and I assure the House that there will not be an extension of this order.
I thank the Members who sopke on this matter and I have taken note of their comments. It is only a temporary measure which I will have examined in the new year and I hope to have something more permanent to replace that in the not too distant future.
I am grateful to the Minister for the firmness of his personal commitment in this area that early in the new year he will seek to ahve legislative proposals but forward. In his opening speech he referred to the control that could be exercised through planning authorities. The planning authorities very often cannot control effectively in this area. Under the 1969 Act we have seen and can potentially see lack of effective control and the ways in which this can be evaded, ways in which property can be left vacant, geting around the provision. Therefore, the leaving of controls to planning authorities is worrying because they are not at the moment in a number of key areas able to exercise effectively the planning controls they already have. I would ask the Minister to look at it more from a point of view of housing legislation which sets down criteria in itself.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Is the Senator asking a question?
I accept Senator Robinson's point and it is this area that I will examine. I am not sure what difficulties will confront me, but it is in that area that control would be effective and safeguards under the planning laws could be built into legislation. We are very concerned with this and I sincerely hope we can achieve that.
Question put and agreed to.