Prior to the Adjournment, I had been making the point in relation to amendment No. 5 in my name that the words, "the transfer of the property and rights of the Commission to Dublin Corporation" should be put in place of the words, "the transfer of the property, rights and liabilities of the Commission to Dublin Corporation." This amendment would have gone with amendment 7 which has been ruled out of order by you, a Cheann Comhairle, on the basis of involving finance. That amendment was proposing that all the outstanding financial liabilities of the commission should, on the dissolution of the commission, be assumed by the commission. Here you have a commission taking over the powers of the democratically elected Dublin Corporation and the corporation are going to be handed back this package in three years' time, with any liabilities that have been run up by the commission, without yea or nay.
I made the point that I am particularly concerned about possible compensation claims arising from planning. Dublin Corporation have their own development plan for the area. It is operative at the moment. Property holders within that area know their position with regard to the particular zoning or classification for their property. This commission will set up a planning scheme for the area and if there is conflict between the scheme as set up by the commission and the development plan of the corporation there is, at least, the possibility of a constitutional case in regard to property rights of the individuals concerned. The Minister made the point earlier that he did not see a situation arising, and if he did that it would be in the last month or two of the operation of this commission, of passing on liabilities to the corporation. I suggest that if at an early stage in its operation it interferes with particular development proposals of individuals in the area and that if the development plan is in contradiction with that of the corporation, there is the possibility of compensation claims. As the Minister will well know, compensation claims of that order would stretch for two to five years through the courts. Would the Minister clarify the position as to whether the proposition I have just put forward is factual?