Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 17 Sep 1941

Vol. 84 No. 18

In Committee. - Neutrality (War Damage to Property) Bill, 1941—From the Seanad.

Minister for Finance (Mr. O Ceallaigh)

There are 26 amendments from the Seanad, all of which I propose to accept. The majority of them, as set out on the Order Paper, are either drafting amendments or amendments consequential on several important changes that I agreed to make in the Bill as it passed through the Seanad. I might say that the important amendments are numbers 5, 9, 12, 13, 15 and 17. These, or one or two of them at any rate, are fundamental changes. The other amendments, as I say, are either drafting or consequential amendments. No. 1 is a purely drafting amendment, and I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 1:—

Section 3. In sub-section (1), paragraph (d), line 4, the word "may" deleted and the words "has suffered or shall" substituted therefor.

Mr. Byrne

I should like to know whether the Minister has given any consideration to a new development that has arisen in connection with damage to property, and that is through engineers discovering or apparently discovering, when roofs and ceilings are taken down, that there was damage already existing in the houses before the bombing took place. The result is that they are not offering any compensation and not completing the repairs in the case of such alleged damage, which might not have been discovered for another 40 or fifty years were it not for the bombing. These people who had damage done to their roofs and ceilings, and where the girders were afterwards found to have been defective, are now left practically homeless and are not able to find the money to repair the damage. For instance, I have a letter here from a resident in the North Circular Road. This woman has got an estimate for £480 to repair a house which the engineer declares was in a bad condition before the bombing took place, but the bombing completed the damage and left such houses in the condition in which they now are.

Does the Minister propose to deal in any way fairly and adequately with such persons who own property which has suffered damage? In this case the property was let in flats to lodgers, and the original owner has now lost her means of living as a result of the damage. I think that something ought to be done in the case of damage which the engineer alleges he cannot repair because of the conditions laid down. I hold that the repair of that damage ought to be undertaken by the Government. I understand that a Minister and another Government have accepted full responsibility in such cases, and I think that these people who have no money to repair their houses ought to be better treated by the Government.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy will understand that this Bill cannot be amended any further. He must simply take these amendments now and either agree or disagree with them.

Mr. Byrne

I want the Minister to give fair play to the citizens who have been suffering considerable hardship as a result of this damage.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I take it, Sir, that any discussion, except on the amendments, would be out of order. However, I might reply to the remarks of Deputy Byrne and say this. This is a War Damage to Property Bill, and I do not see how I can be asked to pay for damage that did not occur——

Mr. Byrne

But it did occur.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

——as a result of war damage. If the engineers decide that it is not damage to property that was caused by things arising out of the war, then under the terms of the Bill, at any rate, I cannot see how I can be expected to pay for it.

Mr. Byrne

Ceilings and roofs were taken down by engineers to repair, and the engineers afterwards said that they found girders and so on to be defective.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

If the Deputy will read the amendment, as it has come from the Seanad, he will see that this is simply a drafting amendment.

Mr. Byrne

But I am trying to get an opportunity to draw the Minister's attention to this matter.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy will not get an opportunity when he is out of order.

Mr. Byrne

Sometimes, at the risk of being out of order, I expose a grievance in the hope that the Minister will remedy it.

Question put and agreed to.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 2:—

Section 3. In sub-section (1), page 4, at the end of the sub-section, a new paragraph added as follows:—

(e) every person who, by reason of an injury to which this Act applies to a building, has suffered or shall suffer loss (other than loss by an injury to his property) in respect of which compensation may be awarded under this Act.

This is a drafting amendment that arises because of the important amendment, No. 15, on consequential loss.

Question put and agreed to.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 3:—

Section 4. In sub-section (6), line 58, after the word "particulars" the words "in his possession or procurement" inserted.

I think this could be described as a drafting amendment also.

Question put and agreed to.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 4:—

Section 4. At the end of the section a new sub-section added as follows:

(8) Every communication to the Minister from an applicant or other person making an application under this section may be sent by post addressed to the Secretary, Department of Finance, Upper Merrion Street, Dublin.

This provides that communications to the Minister from an applicant or other person making an application may be sent by post.

Question put and agreed to.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 5:—

Section 5. In sub-section (1), line 1, the words "shall consider every" deleted and the words "within 12 months after receiving an" substituted therefor; and in line 2, the words "and shall" deleted and the words "shall consider such application and" substituted therefor.

This was an amendment that gave rise to considerable debate when the Bill was before the House here, and Deputies on all sides of the House pressed me to put a limit of time on myself or on the Department for consideration of an application, and also obliging the Minister to make an offer within specific limited times. I resisted the amendment here, but having given way on certain other amendments in the House, it made my position on this point weaker, and I decided to give way on this amendment. If the House accepts the amendment the Minister will be obliged to make his offer within twelve months of receiving the application.

Mr. Cosgrave

I presume the House is not to infer from the amendment that consideration of applications will be postponed for 12 months, and I take it that twelve months is the maximum time allowed to consider an application and that every care will be taken to expedite decisions?

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I have asked the Department to set up a special section and to do everything possible to ensure that these applications are dealt with as expeditiously as is humanly possible.

Question put and agreed to.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 6:—

Section 5. In sub-section (1), paragraph (a), line 4, after the word "offer" the words "in writing" inserted.

This is a drafting amendment.

Question put and agreed to.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 7:—

Section 5. In sub-section (2), paragraph (c), line 21, before the word "accept" the words "in writing" inserted.

This is also a drafting amendment.

Question put and agreed to.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 8:—

Section 5. Before sub-section (3), a new sub-section inserted as follows:—

(3) Any specified sum of compensation under this Act offered by the Minister under this section may, if the Minister so thinks fit, include a sum in respect of the costs incurred by the applicant in respect of the application to the Minister.

This amendment was introduced to make it clear that a sum in respect of costs incurred by the applicant may in suitable cases be included in the offer of compensation.

Question put and agreed to.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 9:—

Section 6. In sub-section (2), page 6, paragraph (i) deleted.

This matter was debated at length in this House. Deputy McGilligan was very much interested in it, and on consideration of the arguments put up here, and in the Seanad later, I decided to forego all costs that I previously held I ought to get if the applicant failed in his appeal to the courts.

Question put and agreed to.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 10:—

Section 6. In sub-section (2), paragraph (j) page 6, in lines 43-44, the words "subject and without prejudice to the provisions of the next preceding paragraph of this sub-section" deleted.

This amendment is consequential on amendment No. 9.

Question put and agreed to.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 11:—

Section 8. In paragraph (a), subparagraphs (i) and (ii) deleted.

This is also a consequential amendment.

Question put and agreed to.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 12:—

Section 8. In paragraph (a), line 13, after the word "stamps" the words "other than any such stamps forming or included in a philatelic collection or kept by the owner as part of his stock-in-trade as a philatelic dealer" added.

This is an amendment brought in at the request of certain Senators to provide that special compensation may be allowed in respect of a philatelic collection in the hands of a private owner or dealer.

Mr. Cosgrave

What description must a man give to himself to be regarded as a philatelist?

Mr. O Ceallaigh

If he has had a collection which has been destroyed, he may claim for it.

Question put and agreed to.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 13:—

Section 8. Before paragraph (b) three new paragraphs inserted as follows:—

(b) the aggregate amount of the compensation awarded or payable in respect of watches, jewellery and articles of personal ornament (other than any such articles which were kept by the owner as part of his stock-in-trade or were, when the injury occurred, specifically insured against loss by at least one of the following, viz:—fire, burglary, and theft, whether such insurance did or did not apply to the injury) injured in any one injury shall not exceed five per cent. of the total amount of compensation under this Act awarded in respect of property (other than buildings and other than chattels to which either this paragraph or the next following paragraph of this section applies) injured by that injury;

(c) the aggregate amount of the compensation awarded or payable in respect of coins, legal tender and other Government notes, bank notes, and other currency of this or any other country (other than any such articles which were, when the injury occurred, expressly insured against loss by at least one of the following, viz:—fire, burglary, and theft, whether such insurance did or did not apply to the injury) shall not exceed five per cent. of the total amount of compensation under this Act awarded in respect of property (other than buildings and other than chattels to which either this paragraph or the next preceding paragraph of this section applies) injured by that injury or the sum of twenty-five pounds, whichever is the lesser;

(d) the amount of compensation in respect of any chattel which is excluded from either of the two next preceding paragraphs of this section by reason of its being insured in the manner mentioned in that paragraph shall not exceed the sum for which it is so insured;"

Deputies will remember that this matter was debated at length in this House. We originally excluded payment for watches, jewellery, coins, banknotes, etc. In the case of watches, etc., the measure of the compensation, except in the case of specific insurance, will be a maximum of 5 per cent. of what is awarded in respect of the applicant's property (other than the building), exclusive of the chattels now made eligible for the payment of compensation. The measure of compensation in the case of coins, banknotes, etc., is the same, but with an overriding maximum of £25. Where there is specific or express insurance the limit of compensation will be the sum insured. The Dáil will appreciate that losses of this type are incapable, normally, of satisfactory proof, and for this reason it is essential that overriding maxima be laid down. Generally, in this matter, on the advice and at the suggestions of certain Senators, I consulted leading insurance authorities to ascertain what was done by insurance companies in similar cases and I am following in this matter the procedure usually adopted by such companies.

Question put and agreed to.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 14:—

Section 10. In sub-section (1), lines 42 and 43, page 8, the words "provisions of the next following sub-section" deleted and the words "subsequent provisions" substituted therefor.

This is a consequential amendment on amendment No. 15.

Question put and agreed to.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 15:—

Section 10. Before sub-section (2), page 8, a new sub-section inserted as follows—

(2) Where a building has sustained an injury to which this Act applies, the following provisions shall apply and have effect, that is to say:—

(a) compensation under this Act may be awarded to a person who carried on a trade, profession, or business in the said building in respect of his loss of earnings from the said trade, profession, or business where by reason of the said injury it is, during any period, impossible or impracticable to carry on the said trade, profession, or business, but such compensation shall not exceed 15 per cent. of the annual rate of the earnings of such person from the said trade, profession, or business as carried on in the said building during the 12 consecutive months or the period during which the said trade, profession or business was so carried on (whichever is the lesser) next preceding the date on which the said injury occurred or the sum of £150, whichever is the lesser;

(b) compensation under this Act in respect of loss of employment may be awarded to an individual who was, immediately before the said injury, employed in a trade, profession, or business carried on in the said building and has, by reason of the said injury, lost his said employment either permanently or temporarily, but such compensation shall not exceed 15 per cent. of the annual rate of his earnings in that employment during the 12 consecutive months or the period during which he was in the said employment (whichever is the lesser) next preceding the date of the said injury or the sum of £150, whichever is the lesser.

This is one of the principal amendments made in the Seanad. It broadens very considerably the definition of consequential losses for which compensation may be claimed. The effect of the amendment is to allow compensation for loss of earnings resulting from damage to a building up to 15 per cent. of the annual amount subject to an overriding maximum of £150 for any one claim. Deputies will recall that when Section 10 was previously discussed in this House it was severely criticised and, in response to the representations then made, I inserted a provision in the Bill covering removal expenses and alternative accommodation with a maximum of £50. This met the more immediate and serious forms of consequential loss, and it was considered, I think, that it represented a substantial advance on the Bill as introduced.

When, however, the Bill in its amended form came before the Seanad, Section 10 was again attacked on the score that it covered only this limited category of consequential loss and that even within the restricted category compensation was subject to the maximum of £50. On the Committee Stage, I was induced to agree to drop the money limit altogether and to pay compensation without limit in respect of such expenditure as I was satisfied was reasonably incurred. At a later stage I was pressed to allow compensation for other classes of consequential loss, particular stress being laid on trade losses and loss of employment and also losses sustained by persons taking in lodgers or letting houses or rooms. I could not in any circumstances agree to bring in consequential loss generally, without restriction as to category or amount, but I was impressed by the case made for providing compensation for people whose livelihood is adversely affected and the amendment now before the Dáil is the result. It enables compensation up to, roughly, two months' wages to be paid to a worker who loses his employment as a result of his employer's business premises being destroyed or damaged; similarly, something like two months' earnings may be paid to the trader himself. This gives the parties concerned time to look round and meets the cases that were represented to me as most typical and frequent; all the poorer cases at any rate, and cases in which real hardships might arise are covered.

The amendment leaves the final decision in the hands of the court, as in the case of other claims under the Bill. This I consider preferable—both from the administrative angle and in view of the amount of money that may be involved—to retaining complete discretion in my own hands. Having regard to the concessions I made in bringing in these new categories of consequential loss, I felt I must retain the existing limit of £50 for removal expenses and alternative accommodation. Accordingly, I did not proceed with an amendment I had tabled in the Seanad in fulfilment of my earlier promise to cut out the limitation.

Mr. Cosgrave

This amendment certainly effects an improvement on the Bill as it was when it left this House. There is one point in connection with this amendment which is of some importance to people affected. The longer the delay that takes place before compensation is paid, the less the value of the compensation relatively to the person concerned. If, for example, it takes 12 months from the date of the passing of the Bill to assess compensation and then 12 months to rebuild, the compensation is really 7½ per cent. on two years' trading. Arising out of that, can any facilities be afforded to get reconstruction under way at an early date? The compensation in that case will be far bigger relatively than if it were to take two years.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

Of course, there is always the chance and a hope maybe that the costs of building might fall. They might also rise, but there is a chance there.

Mr. Byrne

Does the Minister consider two months' wages sufficient for people who lose their employment and who have no chance of getting any other employment? I am aware that at least five grocers' assistants and three or four butchers lost their employment and have no hope of getting employment or of the premises being reinstated for one or two years. What is to happen in these cases? Surely two months' wages is not sufficient?

Mr. O Ceallaigh

That, of course, is in addition to whatever they are entitled to under the law arising out of unemployment.

Mr. Byrne

Otherwise the dole—two months' wages and the dole.

Question put and agreed to.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 16:—

Section 13. In page 10, lines 4 and 5, the words and figures "or paragraph (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 18" deleted.

This is a purely drafting amendment and is consequential on amendment No. 22.

Question put and agreed to.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 17:—

Section 14. In line 12, after the word "Act" the words and brackets "(other than compensation to which a reinstatement condition is attached by the Court or a condition in the nature of a reinstatement condition is attached by the Minister)" inserted.

Section 14 as it stands enables a debt due to the State to be deducted from any and every compensation award. The amendment restricts the application of the section to awards to which no reinstatement condition is attached.

Mr. Cosgrave

I am not opposing the amendment, but we ought to remember that when originally the right was given to Ministers to deduct moneys due to the State there was a general withholding of those moneys owing to the disturbances of the period.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

Quite a lot of Acts have been passed since which contained the same provision.

Mr. Cosgrave

I know that, but we ought to get away from it. To my mind it is a blot on our legislation.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

The Minister for Finance does not think so.

Mr. Cosgrave

We cannot make the case that there is always civil disturbance. Any person reading this would come to the conclusion that the State was regarded by people as a legitimate cockshot. That is not the case. After the 20 years in which the State machinery has been in motion there ought to be no occasion for this sort of thing.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

It was always the law even before this Dáil was set up. It was part of the British law.

Mr. Cosgrave

That is news to me. If that is so, I am sure the Minister criticised it on some occasion and now he is recommending it. It is not a characteristic of cases in court between people. We ought to get away from it sooner or later.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

If I owed money to Deputy Cosgrave, his solicitor would see to it that the money I owed him would be deducted before he paid me for any property I might be selling.

Mr. Cosgrave

That is a very nice question.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I think it is common practice.

Mr. Cosgrave

If it is, there is no necessity for it here.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

It is safer to have it there.

Question put and agreed to.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 18:—

Section 16. In sub-section (2), in lines 14 and 15, page 11, the words and figures "paragraph (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 18 or paragraph (b) of Section 19 of this Act" deleted and the words and figures:—"of this Act and any payments made by him in such year under paragraph (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 18 or sub-section (2) of Section 19 of this Act" substituted therefor.

This is a drafting amendment.

Question put and agreed to.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 19:—

Section 16. In sub-section (2), after the word "Act" in line 15 the words "and any payments made by him in such year under paragraph (e) of sub-section (2) of Section 20 of this Act" inserted.

This is also a drafting amendment.

Question put and agreed to.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 20:—

Section 16. In page 11, lines 16 to 21, inclusive, deleted.

This is also a drafting amendment.

Question put and agreed to.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 21:—

Section 17. The following subsections added to the section:—

(3) The expenses incurred by a local authority under this section shall be raised and defrayed in like manner as expenses incurred by such authority under the Public Health Acts, 1878 to 1931, are raised and defrayed.

(4) Where expenses are incurred under this section by the board of health of a county health district, such expenses shall be charged equally over the whole of such district.

(5) Where before the passing of this Act, any expenses were incurred by a local authority in making any entry or doing any act rendered lawful by sub-section (2) of this section and such expenses were, in the opinion of the Minister for Local Government and Public Health, properly so incurred, the following provisions shall have effect, that is to say:—

(a) such expenses shall be deemed to have been incurred under this section and this section shall apply and be deemed always to have applied to such expenses accordingly, and

(b) if any sum was, at any time either before or after such expenses were incurred, included in any rate in order to defray such expenses, such rate shall not be or be deemed ever to have been invalid or irrecoverable merely by reason of such inclusion.

(6) A local authority may, for the purpose of defraying expenses incurred by them under this section, borrow under the Public Health Acts, 1878 to 1931, as if such purpose were a purpose for which such authority is authorised to borrow under those Acts, but money so borrowed shall not be reckoned as part of the debt of such authority for the purposes of any limitation on borrowing imposed by those Acts.

This amendment was put down at the instance of the Minister for Local Government and Public Health. It prescribes the manner in which a local authority is to defray the expenses it incurs on the repair of damaged property, etc., and enables it to borrow for that purpose.

Mr. Cosgrave

This is the only amendment which affords me an opportunity of raising the question I put earlier in connection with the Dublin Reconstruction Act. That Act contained two very useful sections. One provided that a person was not liable for rates from 1922 to 1926 unless there was a temporary structure erected on the site. The second provided in respect of restored property that the person would not be liable to have his rates assessed on a higher valuation than was in force in 1922. The Minister desires that reconstruction should take place as soon as possible. One way of making reconstruction attractive would be to indicate at an early date that it was proposed for a period, let us say of ten years—whatever the period was in the Dublin Reconstruction Act—the rates assessable on the property would be the same as they were on the date of the damage.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I think there is a case for what Deputy Cosgrave suggests. I have already called the attention of the Minister for Local Government and Public Health to the matter, and I know that the matter is under consideration at present. There are a number of other useful and helpful things of a similar kind in that Act, and the Ministry is considering these things at present.

Mr. Cosgrave

Very good.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

In that connection also Deputy Cosgrave mentioned the question of advances. I will call the attention of the Minister for Local Government to that matter, and if he is bringing in a Bill dealing with these miscellaneous matters, perhaps he may see his way to bring in something dealing with that matter. We cannot, however, do anything with regard to it in the present Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 22:—

Section 18. In sub-section (1), page 13, paragraphs (b), (c) and (d) deleted and a new paragraph substituted therefor as follows:—

(b) if an application is made to the court for compensation under this Act in respect of the said injury and the court determines that the applicant is entitled to compensation under this Act in respect of the said injury, the court in assessing the amount of such compensation shall comply with the following provisions, that is to say:

(i) the court shall determine the amount of such compensation without regard to the said expenditure by such local authority;

(ii) the court shall determine whether any and, if any, how much of the said expenditure was in alleviation or partial alleviation of the loss in respect of which compensation under this Act is awardable to the applicant;

(iii) if the amount determined by the court under the foregoing sub-paragraph (i) exceeds the amount determined by the court under the foregoing sub-paragraph (ii), the court shall award to the applicant compensation under this Act equal to the difference between these two amounts;

(iv) if the amount determined by the court under the said sub-paragraph (i) does not exceed the amount determined by the court under the said sub-paragraph (ii), the court shall not award to the applicant any compensation under this Act;

(v) if the court determines under the said sub-paragraph (ii) that none of the said expenditure was in such alleviation or partial alleviation as is mentioned in that sub-paragraph, the court shall award to the applicant the amount of compensation under this Act determined by the court under the said sub-paragraph (i).

The position under the Bill as it left the Dáil was that where a local authority came to the rescue and incurred expenditure—say, in a cash advance for furniture or clothing, or on repairs carried out by themselves, or in recouping the cost of repairs carried out by the owner's own contractor— the amount of such expenditure as might be determined by the Minister fell to be deducted from the compensation awarded by the court; the court was required not to have regard to such expenditure or make any allowance or deduction in respect thereof. It was felt, however, on further consideration, that where a claim goes to the Circuit Court the court should finally determine—subject, of course, to any appeal to a higher court—all relevant matters and fix the net compensation payable, and that the Minister should have no discretionary functions in regard to deductions in respect of expenditure by the local authority. Accordingly, this amendment was introduced to ensure that the matter would be left entirely to the court.

Mr. Cosgrave

That is an improvement.

Question put and agreed to.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 23:—

Section 19. In page 13, all words from the word "compensation" in line 29 deleted and the following words and paragraphs substituted therefor:—

"an application is made to the court for compensation under this Act in respect of the said injury and the court determines that the applicant is entitled to compensation under this Act in respect of the said injury, the court shall, in assessing the amount of such compensation, comply with the following provisions, that is to say:—

(a) the court shall determine the amount of such compensation without regard to the said expenditure of money in such reinstatement or repair;

(b) the court shall determine whether any and, if any, how much of the said expenditure was in alleviation or partial alleviation of the loss in respect of which compensation under this Act is awardable to the applicant;

(c) if the amount determined by the court under the foregoing paragraph (a) exceeds the amount determined by the court under the foregoing paragraph (b), the court shall award to the applicant compensation under this Act equal to the difference between those two amounts;

(d) if the amount determined by the court under the said paragraph (a) does not exceed the amount determined by the court under the said paragraph (b), the court shall not award to the applicant any compensation under this Act;

(e) if the court determines under the said paragraph (b) that none of the said expenditure was in such alleviation or partial alleviation as is mentioned in that paragraph, the court shall award to the applicant the amount of compensation under this Act determined by the court under the said paragraph (a).

The position in relation to Section 19 as it left the Dáil was much the same as in the case of Section 18, and amendment 23 was introduced to bring the court procedure as regards expenditure by a Government Department into line with what is provided for in the case of expenditure by a local authority.

Question put and agreed to.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 24:—

Section 19. At the end of the section in page 13, a new sub-section added as follows:—

(2) The Minister shall, out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas, recoup to every Minister of State, the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland, and the Irish Land Commission respectively all (if any) money expended by him or them in any such reinstatement or repair as is mentioned in the foregoing sub-section of this section.

This is a drafting amendment.

Question put and agreed to.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 25:—

Section 20. The following subsections added to the section:—

(3) The expenses incurred by a district planning authority under this section shall be raised and defrayed in like manner as the expenses incurred by such authority in the execution of the Town and Regional Planning Acts, 1934 and 1939, are raised and defrayed.

(4) A district planning authority may, for the purpose of defraying expenses incurred by them under this section, borrow under the Town and Regional Planning Acts, 1934 and 1939, as if such purpose were a purpose for which such authority is authorised to borrow under those Acts.

(5) In this section, the word "site," when used in relation to a building, includes any yard, garden, or other land attached to such building and forming one enclosure with it.

This amendment was put down at the request of the Department of Local Government and Public Health. Sub-section (3) prescribes the manner in which the expenses of a planning authority are to be defrayed and sub-section (4) authorises borrowing.

Question put and agreed to.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 26:—

Schedule. Paragraph 2 deleted and the following paragraph substituted therefor:—

2. A preliminary order shall not be made save within—

(a) where the relevant injury to which this Act applies occurred before the passing of this Act—whichever of the following periods ends later, that is to say, three months after the occurrence of such injury and four weeks after the passing of this Act, or

(b) where such injury occurs after the passing of this Act—three months after its occurrence.

After the Bill was passed by the Dáil it was learned that the Dublin Corporation feared the four weeks period specified in paragraph 2 might be too short for all cases. Consultations took place at the City Manager's office and it was ascertained that in the case of the damage that has already occurred the four weeks is sufficient, but that if extensive damage took place after the passing of the Act a three months' period would be desirable. The amendment provides accordingly.

Mr. Cosgrave

It does not refer to the damage already done.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

No, they tell me it is not necessary.

Question put and agreed to.

Reported that the Committee had agreed to all the Seanad amendments.

Report agreed to.

Message to be sent to the Seanad accordingly.