andMr. Corish asked the Minister for Local Government if he is aware that, in a number of cases where tenants have been evicted from buildings declared dangerous in Dublin, small shopkeepers have been evicted from their premises which were located in these buildings; and that they have been offered no alternative shop sites or compensation; and whether, in view of the fact that these shopkeepers have been totally deprived of their only means of livelihood by the loss of their premises, he will take steps to enable Dublin Corporation to compensate them adequately for their loss.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Displaced Dublin Shopkeepers.
18.
Representations have been made to me recently regarding the position of small shopkeepers following action in relation to dangerous buildings and I am asking for a full report in the matter from the Dublin Corporation.
Could the Minister give me some additional information? Is there any legal provision whereby these small shopkeepers will be compensated for loss of livelihood?
Where they move under the dangerous buildings provisions of the Dublin Corporation Act and the Towns Improvement Clauses Act of 1847, there is no ground on which they can, if they so wish it, be paid compensation.
That is, if they are demolished as dangerous.
Yes, as dangerous buildings.
Would the Minister say whether they can be paid compensation?
There is no way in which in the case of a dangerous building, or in the case of a clearance area being acquired by the Corporation, they can be paid compensation.
I do not want to misinterpret what the Minister said. Perhaps there is some hope for these people.
I would leave it to the Deputy to say so, for the moment.
Has the Minister's attention been drawn to the fact that a number of such small shopkeepers have seen cases of businesses receiving compensation under one Act while they have been denied compensation? The matter is further aggravated by the fact that, being enabled to do so by their financial resources, these people successfully applied to the courts to require the Corporation to take down only the part of the building which is dangerous, leaving very little of the shop in existence. Would the Minister have special regard to the apparently acute injustice of poor people in a small way of business being unable to get so far for want of means to approach the courts to seek the proper order against the local authority?
Out of a total of about 100 in the past 12 months, 25 have been dealt with in that manner, all of whom had to appeal to the Minister. Arrangements have been made where that is feasible and possible. Their part is still there and they are allowed to carry on.
Perhaps the Minister might in this way find a means of protecting these otherwise defenceless small shopkeepers until some modus vivendi can be worked out to ensure that these people, who have been independent all their lives and wish to remain so, will not be turned into unemployed and unemployable people.