This whole Section is a very complicated one, and it was felt when it was before the Seanad that it was very difficult to make amendments A conference was held this morning with some Senators who were interested in the subject. It would, perhaps, have been better if we could have had the conference earlier, because, even though with only a few people present, many of the provisions in the Section made it difficult to arrive at anything that would satisfy all the points of view put forward. It is suggested, however, as a result of the discussion, to eliminate Sub-section 9 altogether. Sub-section 9 was put in originally for the protection of various people whose property had been injured or destroyed, and who, the Government thought, might not be sufficiently fairly dealt with in the other provisions of the Section. The Sub-section itself has been changed and expanded from time to time since it was first drafted, and other changes have been made in Section 10 itself, and we have come to the conclusion that, as the rest of the Section now stands, a slight amendment will make Sub-section 9 unnecessary. A person under this Section is entitled to have a full re-instatement condition attached to his decree if he shows reasonable cause. We believe that where any place was occupied as a residence or maintained as a residence the Judge would certainly agree that it was a case for a full re-instatement condition. There are circumstances in which a Judge, of course, might not agree that a re-instatement condition was reasonable, or might not agree that the cause shown was reasonable cause; that is, where there was a very large house which had been only partially occupied, a house, say, with 100 bedrooms. The Judge would not regard the evidence put forward in regard to that house being used by the applicant or his family as a case in which there should be a full re-instatement condition. In that case it would be open to the Judge to give a partial re-instatement condition and to allow a substituted building to be erected, a building that would be suitable to modern times and the circumstances that exist at present. As Sub-section 8 previously stood in such a case the total amount that might be awarded was limited by the estimated market value, to the amount by which the market value of the injured building was reduced by the injury. We are dealing with a case where the fixing of the market value would be exceedingly difficult. If it is a very large house there is no market value that can be arrived at as there is no sale for that kind of a house. These houses from the point of view of saleability are certainly white elephants and it would be practically impossible to arrive at anything like the market value. It is proposed then to alter Sub-section 8 and to deal with it in this way; Section 10, Sub-section (8): to insert after the word "but" in line 51, the words—
"Nevertheless so that
(a) in any case in which the injured building was at or about the time of the injury ordinarily maintained as a residence for the applicant or his family the total amount of the compensation shall not be less than the probable cost of the erection of the substituted building; and
(b) in every other case.”
Section 10, Sub-section (9)
To delete the whole of the Sub-section.
Then it goes on to say that in every other case it shall be limited as previously. There still remains the case of the person who might not desire to re-build a residence, and we thought of such people in drafting the original Section 9. However they are provided for, I think, in two ways. In the case of some of these buildings there might be a market value. There would be a very low market value, that is the market value that would arise from the possibility of the acquisition of such buildings by institutions. We know that big houses that would not be used for anything else have been acquired by institutions and a certain price has been paid for them. If the owner did not want any reinstatement condition attached he might rely on Sub-section 7, which says "The compensation in any case in which no reinstatement condition is attached to the decree shall not exceed the amount by which the market value of the buildings was reduced by the injury." That deals with the case of a person who does not want to re-build anything. It was felt that there were peculiar circumstances and that we should not think solely of the Government point of view in dealing with people whose houses had been burned out and who might not wish to reside again in the neighbourhood or to erect any building. The point of view has been put up from time to time to the Government that where no rebuilding was going to be done there should be no compensation.
Of course that is not a point of view that has been accepted by the Government. Compensation could be given on the basis of market value where any market value could be established. Under Sub-section 5 the Judge might attach a partial reinstatement condition if the person did not wish to rebuild a residence there. He could under the provisions dealing with partial reinstatement, which are 10 (2): "A condition (in this section called a ‘partial reinstatement condition') that the compensation shall be applied in or towards the erection on or near the site of the injured building of another building (in this section called a ‘substituted building') of a nature named by the applicant and specified in the decree and differing from the nature of the injured building."
An amendment proposed by Sir John Keane has been accepted, which enables a substituted building to be erected anywhere in the Saorstát, provided it will serve a housing need. The Definition Sub-section of this Clause 10 states:—"A substituted building may consist of one or more attached, detached or semidetached houses, whether dwelling houses, offices or business premises or such other structure as the Judge may approve." It may be a building of any nature approved by the Judge and erected anywhere provided it serves a housing need. In dealing with cases where people might not wish to rebuild residences where they were destroyed they could erect other buildings on the spot and get their compensation in that way. They may erect a substituted building anywhere they will serve a housing need in the Free State, and in case they were not going to rebuild at all, or made no case that would appeal to the Judge for the attachment of even a partial reinstatement condition, they would have to rely on the institution price that might be paid for the building that was destroyed. I think if the amendment was adopted, if Sub-section 9 is deleted, and if this amendment is made to Sub-section 8, any possible cases that may arise will be fairly covered by the Bill. On the other hand the Government is sufficiently protected, because under Sub-section 5 the Judge will not give a partial reinstatement condition where there would be an unreasonable discrepancy between the cost of erecting the substituted building and the market value thereof when completed. That would prevent the erection of enormous structures. In the case of a house partially destroyed with the walls standing we are quite satisfied that under 3 B the owner is covered. There certainly will be reasonable cause for a full reinstatement condition, which will mean that the applicant will get the full cost of putting the building back into its original condition, minus the difference in value that may arise, because in the reinstatement the value of the building may be very considerably increased.
