Vol. 12 No. 20
I move:—
That the provisions of Standing Orders 86 and 88 as to the giving of notice for the taking of the Fourth and Fifth Stages of a Bill be suspended to permit of the Fourth and Fifty Stages of the Dublin Reconstruction (Emergency Provisions) Bill, 1925, being taken to-day.
Would the Minister tell us exactly what provisions of the original Act this Bill deals with— give us just a general survey? Before one would agree to take all the stages, one would like to have some knowledge of the clauses dealt with in the original Act.
I made a fairly full statement on the Second Reading of the Bill, and I presume the Deputy was not here. The main principle in the Bill is that it affects certain powers which I had under the previous Act, and which I could not exercise for two years. It allows me to exercise these powers within three months after the passing of this Bill. That is the principal object of the passing of the Bill, and that is the reason it is so urgent to pass it. The main Act has been in operation for the last twelve months. but it has had very little results. There has been very little rebuilding as a result of it. I have taken power under the Bill to enable the Corporation to put a site up for auction if a building owner is not rebuilding or if he has ceased building operations after a certain time. I would not have power to enforce that provision for two years as the Act stands. Under this amending Bill I can do it within three months. That is the main provision of the Bill.
After giving what notice to the owner?
He gets three months' notice now. This is a power that will be only exercised in a very exceptional case. It is not a power that is going to be exercised at all generally. I have the power to exercise this jurisdiction with regard to property destroyed in 1916, but I have never exercised that power up to the present. It may not be necessary to exercise this power, but it is necessary to have it.
I hope an opportunity will be given to the aggrieved party— that is the party concerned—so that he will be able to put his case before the Minister and that no arbitrary action will be taken. I drew attention to this matter before, and probably it was on account of that that this provision was put in. The case I put up when the original Act was going through was that in many cases where adjoining property falls vacant, merchants and others purchase that property with the object of making extensions in the future. The time for those extensions, by reason of the falling-off in trade, may not have arrived. If the Minister were to walk in in such cases and compulsorily take the premises from these people, it would prejudice their trade in the future. It was to prevent any arbitrary action of that kind that I drew attention to the matter. Supposing trade is bad, the people concerned will not be disposed to make extensions until there is a probability of trade improving. Still, they would not like to lose the site on which they would make the extension. That is an aspect of the question that I would like the Minister to consider, in case he is asked to use the powers to be given under the amending Bill.
I will take that into consideration. All the safeguards in the original Act are retained in this Bill. It only changes the date on which I will have power to put those provisions into operation.
