There are 13 amendments which have been made in the Bill in the Seanad. They are all agreed amendments arrived at after consultation with the various interests concerned—the Corporation, the Government and the property owners—and there was no opposition in the Seanad.
DAIL IN COMMITTEE. - DUBLIN RECONSTRUCTION (EMERGENCY PROVISIONS) BILL, 1924—FROM THE SEANAD.
Amendments 1, 2 and 3 were agreed to.
Amendment 4. Immediately before Section 4 a new Section inserted as follows:—
(1) In this Section the expression "site fronting on an improved street" means any plot, the property of the same person or persons, either directly adjoining any land acquired by the Corporation under this Act for the purpose of improving a street, or between which and such land no building intervenes.
(2) If, on the application of the Corporation, the Minister is satisfied in respect of any site fronting on an improved street that for the general scheme of reconstruction of the area it is necessary either—
(a) to remove any existing building on such site, or
(b) to erect a new building on such site, or
(c) to reconstruct or alter any existing building on such site, he may make an order requiring such removal, erection, reconstruction or alteration to be carried out.
(3) Before making an order under the preceding sub-section in respect of any site the Minister shall give at least one month's notice to, and shall consider any representations made by, the owners, lessees and occupiers of such site.
(4) The provisions of Section 3 of this Act shall apply to the erection of any new building on a site fronting on an improved street as if such site were the site of a building which has been damaged or destroyed in the course of the recent disturbances; and to the reconstruction or alteration of such a building as if such building were an existing building in Upper Sackville Street or Lower Sackville Street (commonly known as "Upper O'Connell Street" and "Lower O'Connell Street" respectively).
(5) Any reconstruction or alteration of a building or any erection of a new building on a site fronting on a new street in pursuance of an order under this section may be carried out notwithstanding that it interferes with any right to light or other easement, but compensation shall be paid to the persons interested in the land to which such right or easement is attached.
(6) Any compensation payable under this section shall be—
(a) fixed by an arbitrator under the rules set out in the Schedule to this Act in the like manner as the compensation mentioned in those rules is to be fixed thereunder, and any appreciation in the value of the land to which the easement is attached by reason of the general reconstruction of the area shall be taken into consideration in fixing such compensation;
(b) paid by the owner of the building by which the right or easement is interfered with and shall in addition be a first charge on such building.
I should like to have an explanation of this amendment and to hear some justification for it.
This amendment gives rather more extended powers to the Corporation than they had under the Bill as originally drafted. It gives power to the Minister on the application of the Corporation, if he is satisfied in respect to any site fronting upon an improved street, that if in the general scheme of reconstruction it is necessary either to remove any existing building on such a site or to erect a new building on such a site or to reconstruct or alter any existing building on such a site he may make an order requiring such removal, erection, reconstruction or alteration to be carried out. And the section also gives power to interfere with various easements attaching to property in this area on condition that proper compensation is allowed.
Question: "That the Committee agree with the Seanad in the said amendment"—put and agreed to.
Amendments 5, 6 and 7 were agreed to.
Amendment No. 8. In Section 6 (4) the following words added at the end of the sub-section: "save that for the purpose of such application the passing of the said Dublin Reconstruction (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1916, shall be substituted for the passing of this Act."
This is another amendment that I would like to have some explanation of so that the meaning of it may be made understandable to the ordinary Deputy.
If this amendment were not accepted the building owners under the 1916 Act would be allowed two years longer in which to rebuild than the builders under the present Act, and it is not considered that it would be justifiable to give them that advantage.
Amendment put, and agreed to.
Amendment No. 9. In Section 7, the figures "1927," line 19, deleted, and the figures "1930" substituted therefor.
Amendment No. 10. In Section 8 the figures "1925," line 22, deleted, and the figures "1926" substituted therefor.
I would like to oppose these two amendments unless there is some justification given for the change. To extend the period to three years would, I think, require some explanation. It appears that the valuation recommended in the original Bill as sent forward to the Seanad dealt with the valuation before 31st day of March, 1927. Now it is proposed to alter that date to 1930. That is to say, to give three further years before any change can take place. I think that requires some justification.
This matter was discussed at length in the Seanad by the various parties represented there. After a considerable length of time I agreed it was only reasonable in a case where buildings were destroyed and where people as a result of the destruction of their premises lost their trade, where it would take a considerable number of years to recover their trade, and considering that the object of the Bill is to promote building, that everything possible should be done to get the builders to rebuild instead of selling the vacant sites. We considered on the whole it was well to allow this concession and that it was only equitable in the circumstances. These people who lost their business suffered sufficiently without asking them to pay rates on houses that will not be completed on that date, or to submit to a valuation that will be considerably higher than what they are paying on at the present time.
I do not remember that any similar consideration was given to people in other parts of the country. It seems to me that the argument that justified the Government in bringing this Bill in in its original form, which was, I understood, the Bill agreed to between the Government and the Corporation has lost nothing in its effect by discussion in the Seanad. The case that was made for 1927 as against 1930 seems to me to be the stronger case, and I would oppose the amendment in the Seanad, preferring to leave the year 1927 rather than to change it to 1930.
I think it would be unfair not to give very much the same consideration to those persons whose property has been destroyed in the last couple of years as was given to persons whose property was destroyed in 1916. In their case presumably the Corporation—I was not there at the time, and cannot express an opinion—but at any rate the Acts of Parliament extended the period from which the new valuation would come into effect for twelve years. A much lesser number of years is inserted here, and I think the Minister for Local Government will have to consider very soon some alteration in the Valuation Act by reason of the extraordinary change that has taken place in the last six or seven or eight years. A very considerable increase has taken place in building costs, and whether the Valuation Office makes allowance for these increases I cannot say, but it is evident that on a house built now the valuation will far exceed what exactly the same class of house built forty or fifty years ago would have been valued for, and the extension in this case from 1927 to 1930 is, on the face of it, perfectly fair and reasonable proportion. Now the facts are that for something like two years, and perhaps longer, the vast majority of those people have not been able to do any business; there are a couple of instances where they have been so enabled to do business. If it were only taking into consideration the allowances that ought to have been made to them in respect of this interruption of their business, then the amendment would be reasonable, and I am only surprised that the owners of property there did not press for the same allowance as was made in respect of 1916. In the cases between now and 1916 there is this difference. In 1916 the City of Dublin was only just re-valued, and new houses built were built at a much lesser cost than they can be built for now. The construction of them at that time was in the ratio of one to two to what it is now. In that respect these people had to make up the difference between whatever compensation they got and the ultimate cost of building, and they had a much larger chasm to make up than those people who suffered at the other end of the street in 1916. In all the circumstances of the case the length of time that is allowed for here is a perfectly reasonable one, and I am not in the least surprised that the Seanad should have put in that amendment.
Would the President agree that the same consideration should apply to the valuation of any reconstructed buildings anywhere as well as in Dublin?
That is a big question, but I would be prepared to give it the most favourable consideration. That proposal, however, does not come within the purview of this particular measure, but the proposition is a reasonable one.
Amendment 9 agreed to.
I would like some justification for the change proposed in Amendment No. 10.
"No building or house destroyed, nor the land on which the same stood, shall be assessed or liable to any local rate before the 31st day of March, 1925."
It is proposed to alter that to 1926. Before we pass that, I think we ought to have the proposed change justified.
The same argument holds in both cases. I was, in fact, dealing with the two amendments together. In a great many cases these buildings will not be completed at that date at all and it is rather unfair to charge rates on buildings that are not earning any income. If we want to encourage building, I do not think we can do so in that way.
Amendment 10 put and agreed to.
Amendment 11.—In the Schedule immediately after paragraph 6 a new paragraph 7 inserted as follows:—
"7. Where the land is the site, or part of the site, of a building or buildings in respect of which a judge has made a report under Section 15 of the Damage to Property (Compensation) Act, 1923 (No. 15 of 1923), the Arbitrator appointed for the purpose of settling compensation shall, in addition to any determination which he shall make for that purpose also fix and determine the value of the land without such building or buildings and as if such report had not been made."
This, I think, is a most important amendment, and it seems to embody a more important principle than any of the others. I would like to hear the Minister's justification of it before voting for it.
I do not know exactly what Deputy Johnson objects to in this amendment. It was arrived at after considerable discussion between the various parties interested. It was with some considerable difficulty that we were able to arrive at agreement between the Ministry of Finance, the Corporation, and the various building owners. This amendment is put in in order to enable a valuation of the site to be made, and in order to arrive at the proper amount of money or compensation to be paid to the Corporation, namely, the difference between the value of the site and the amount of compensation payable to the owner.
We are in a difficulty in this matter. Sometimes we are able to get more enlightenment in regard to amendments which have been the subject of discussion in the Seanad by reading the official debates of the Seanad. In this case it was referred to a Select Committee of the Seanad, and no reports have been published of the proceedings of that Committee, indicating the arguments for or against this condition. The Minister has not attempted to justify his motion to agree with this amendment, and, while I do not pretend to understand it, I suspect it has a particular value to the owners of the sites. That, at once, makes me doubt the wisdom of accepting the amendment, because when you are giving an advantage to the owners of the sites you are taking that advantage from the Corporation, or the public, in some other form. To insert an amendment of this kind requires that it should be justified by arguments in favour of it. No arguments in favour of it have been given, and, because it arouses in my mind a suspicion, I intend to oppose the amendment.
This amendment was not inserted by the Select Committee. It was inserted on the Report Stage. There was a good deal of debate on the point, and though it was not opposed— as it was agreed upon between the various interests—it does not, in any way, improve the position of the owner. The only thing it does, perhaps, is that it puts the Corporation in the position of the owner with regard to getting compensation from the Ministry of Finance. Under the Bill, as originally drafted, the right of compensation was left exclusively with the building owners. The amendment leaves it to the Corporation to get the compensation from the Ministry of Finance.
Is it the Minister's argument that, under the new conditions, the Corporation is in a better position to get the compensation from the Ministry of Finance than it was under the old conditions?
Yes.
Question—"That the Committee agree with the Seanad in Amendment No. 11"—put and agreed to.
The following amendments were agreed to:—
"In the Schedule. Paragraph 7 deleted."
"In the Schedule. All after the figures `1896,' in paragraph 10, deleted."