Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 4 Jul 1923

Vol. 1 No. 30

THE CIVIC GUARD (ACQUISITION OF PREMISES) BILL, 1923. - SECOND STAGE.

Mr. O'HIGGINS

This Bill is rather urgently required. At the moment only about four hundred and twenty Civic Guard Stations have been established. The total establishment provides for eight hundred and seven stations, and there has been considerable difficulty in placing the Civic Guard, even in such important towns as Mallow, Carrick-on-Suir, Claremorris, and other large centres. I have a recollection that it took considerable negotiations before we could open a station in Tullamore. The underlying principle of this Bill is simply that in the face of a big common need, an urgent public necessity, I submit it is necessary to ask individual citizens to waive the fullness of their legal and property rights. We ask power for the Board of Works to acquire premises compulsorily. Naturally, in the exercise of that power the greatest possible care will be taken to see that the minimum of hardship or inconvenience is inflicted on citizens, but that it is necessary to get the Guard out quickly should be obvious to everyone. We are within, I suppose, a couple of months of an election, and generally, it would greatly expedite the return of the country to normal conditions to have a full police establishment in the shortest possible space of time. I think that there will be very little question about that. The State has always, in the face of public needs, encroached upon the property rights of individuals to a greater or lesser degree. They have taken land compulsorily for railways, and public works of that kind, and we now ask for compulsory power to acquire premises for the establishment of the police. Section 1 of the Bill provides for that power, and Section 2 provides that due notice be given by the Board of Works to people whose premises it is proposed to acquire. Section 3 is an important section, and deals with the terms on which premises may be acquired:—

"All premises acquired by the Commissioners under this Act shall be acquired for such term of years and at such rent as may be agreed between the Commissioners and the occupier, immediate landlord, or owner (as the case may require), and in default of such agreement shall be taken by the Commissioners on a yearly tenancy terminable at the end of any year of the tenancy by either party on giving three months' previous notice in writing, and subject to a yearly rent to be fixed by the Commissioners.

Whenever the Commissioners acquire any premises under this Act any person (other than a caretaker) who was put out of occupation of such premises or any part thereof in order that the same might be used for the accommodation of members of the Civic Guard shall be entitled to reasonable compensation for disturbance, the amount of which shall in default of agreement be fixed by the Commissioners."

That seems arbitrary, to say that in default of agreement, the amount of compensation shall be determined by the party taking the premises compulsorily, but that is simply a starting point. There is a provision under 5 for an appeal from the decision of the Commissioners, and in order to appeal they must have something to appeal from. The Commissioners, therefore, state the amount they are prepared to pay in compensation, and the aggrieved person has his right to appeal, under Section 5 to this panel of referees appointed under Sections 33 and 34 of the Finance Act.

The Bill is retrospective. It will deal with a few cases where a certain degree of compulsion was exercised in the acquisition of premises. Compensation and the rent that will be fixed under the machinery provided by the Bill will go back to the date on which the Civic Guard entered into occupation. I doubt if it is necessary to urge again on Senators the absolute imperative need of an early distribution of this force in full strength.

Col. Sir HUTCHESON POE

The powers which it is proposed to confer on the Ministry in this Bill are undoubtedly drastic, inasmuch as it entitles them to acquire premises, whether they are occupied or unoccupied. Still, I think in the circumstances which the Minister has pointed out, the necessity for getting the Civic Guard distributed through the country in the interests of future peace, and to meet the growing demand from different parts for the services of these men, we have no course but to pass the Bill as soon as possible. The only thing I would like to urge, as was urged below, is that care should be taken not to disturb schools by acquiring them for the use of the Civic Guard. One of the Deputies mentioned that, to his knowledge, two large schools—he did not say where —had been taken for the military. The students had been dispersed, the teachers had been discharged, and, of course, the education of that district had suffered enormously. Schools are very convenient buildings for such a purpose as this, and I hope that the Minister will be able to assure us that every care will be taken to interfere as little as possible in the acquisition of premises with buildings used for this purpose.

Mr. HAUGHTON

I am glad that that point is raised by Senator Colonel Sir Hutcheson Poe—the question of schools and educational establishments. I am sure that the Government will use discretion as to the premises that they acquire. I am personally acquainted with a large educational establishment in the South of Ireland which has been greatly inconvenienced by its occupation for some months by the military authorities, and the school has been greatly injured, financially and otherwise, in consequence. I know it was inevitable at the time when it occurred, but I am sure that the Government will use all discretion in the buildings that they endeavour to acquire.

Mr. FARREN

I notice in Sub-section (2) of Section 3 "whenever the Commissioners acquire any premises under this Act any person other than a caretaker who was put out of occupation of such premises or any part thereof in order that the same might be used for the accommodation of members of the Civic Guard shall be entitled to reasonable compensation for disturbance, the amount of which shall in default of agreement be fixed by the Commissioners." I cannot understand why a person who can least afford being dispossessed of premises is not entitled to compensation the same as everybody else. An unfortunate caretaker of premises may hold these premises to be part of his wages, but if he is dispossessed and put to the same inconvenience as anybody else still he can get no compensation. I think that caretakers should be entitled to the same ratio of compensation in proportion to their loss as anybody else. They will have to remove their furniture and look for new places in many cases, and they will have to pay rent though they have not being paying it before. As I have stated, in many cases the accommodation provided is portion of the wages. In most cases accommodation is given to caretakers by reason of the fact that they supervise premises in other than business hours. I think you are going to do an injustice by this to the one section that can least afford it.

Mr. JAMESON

I think the powers in Section 1, Sub-sections (a) and (b) are very drastic indeed. They would enable the Commissioners to acquire any business, premises, shops, places where manufactures are carried on, and any premises of any description. I do think that there should be some clause protecting an owner who can show that premises which the Commissioner wishes to acquire are essential to the business that he is carrying on, and that he ought not have to look for compensation for a thing that could not be compensated for at all. If in a country town a man had some store, or some part of his buildings which is essential to the carrying on of his business, as we know there are in a great many towns, and if he cannot get other premises they might absolutely destroy the business of the individual by taking these premises, and if in any way a clause could be devised which would enable the individual whose premises are to be taken to be granted the right to prove that these premises are absolutely necessary to the business carried on and ought not to be taken, it would meet the case. I cannot see how anybody can be compensated, even under Clause 5, for some premises essential to his business being taken from him. I should hope that there was some way of drafting an amendment or a clause on that one vital point.

Mr. O'FARRELL

Section 4 of the Bill provides that the powers conferred by the Bill shall operate only for one year. What will be the position at the end of that period? Will the ordinary law operate then, subject to the provisions of the Rent Restrictions Act, or will the Commissioners of the Civic Guard be still able to retain these premises, irrespective of the fact that the owners may desire to regain possession? It is laid down that three months' notice in writing may be given terminating the contract, but the assumption in Section 3 is, that the original contract shall be for not less than one year, I take it. At the end of that time will it be within the power of the owner of such premises to serve a three months' notice? Will this Bill prevent him regaining possession of these premises provided that he requires them?

Mr. O'HIGGINS

At a rough guess, I should say that the position at the end of the year would be that the Minister for Home Affairs of the day will be asking power to prolong the life of this Bill, but it was not thought right that a Bill giving rather drastic powers of this kind should have a longer single lease of life than just one year. It may be just possible that within the year the Civic Guard will be able to find accommodation voluntarily, and naturally it would be very much preferred if it could be managed in that way. No one likes the principle or the idea that the State should simply walk into the premises of a citizen and say that they needed them and that they must have them.

I am not so optimistic as to believe that the housing question or the question of accommodation generally throughout the country will be considerably less acute than it is in twelve months time.

Now, Senator Jameson dealt with the compulsory acquisition clause and spoke of the compulsory acquisition of stores or business premises. I take it that in a general way it must be left to the discretion, and good sense of the Commissioners of Public Works, to see that the minimum of hardship or inconvenience is inflicted in putting into force the powers conferred by this Bill. Section 5 gives powers of appeal from the decision of the Commissioners, either on the question of rent or compensation. I think that the panel of Referees, in judging the question of rent, will advert to the loss incurred by the owner because of the taking over of a particular premises. There are things that you cannot provide against, absolutely, by legislation. It may be pointed out, that under this Bill, we could take over Clery's as a depot for the Civic Guard, and possibly, if that argument were to be put forward it would be unanswerable, but it is not a thing that a responsible public Department is at all likely to do, and, similarly, dealing with the towns throughout the country, in which it is proposed to establish stations, the Commissioners will take care to advert to the hardships that will be inflicted, and to the amount of inconvenience. Senator Farren asked why no compensation is to be given to caretakers. Premises occupied by caretakers, I think, are strictly unoccupied premises, with simply a paid person looking after the house and taking care of it for the owner. The question of compensation, or of alternative accommodation, for such caretaker, would become very much a matter for his employer. Assume that the premises, instead of being acquired compulsorily, were acquired voluntarily by agreement on the question of rent, what would be the position of the caretaker in that case? We could not accept the principle that the State, acquiring premises under this Bill should in every case, where there happened to be a caretaker in occupation, compensate that caretaker for disturbance. The business of a caretaker is essentially a matter of contract and employment, and we do not propose to alter that situation.

Mr. FARREN

Perhaps I might be allowed to point out that the Minister for Home Affairs in his reply has dealt only with the extreme case. The case he dealt with is not the one we have in mind at all. The Minister has dealt with the position of persons employed as caretakers looking after empty buildings. Now, what I have in mind is premises that may be acquired in which there is a caretaker who has apartments in the building as a consideration, and as portion of his wages. It is a common practice in this country, and people are employed in certain firms and are given accommodation as caretakers, and this accommodation is portion of their wages for looking after the premises other than in business hours. I do not anticipate there are many people who will suffer disturbance in such cases, but I would point out that the clause as it stands is liable to do great injustice to some people. I think there is no necessity for having the clause in the Bill as it stands, at present. If you deprive a person of regular employment such person is entitled to compensation, and if a premises is taken and that accommodation in that premises is portion of the wages paid to a caretaker, then such person is entitled to compensation. As I say, I do not think that there will be many such cases, but still care should be taken that no injustice is done.

AN LEAS-CHATHAOIRLEACH

I did not call Senator Farren to order, because a good deal of latitude is allowed on the second stages of Bills, but I think the proper procedure is that instead of raising a point which it would not be in order, at this stage, to debate with the Minister, the Senator would do well to reserve it for Committee. However, we have always had a good deal of latitude at this stage of Bills, and I consider it is the correct attitude to take up, but the real place to debate a particular point like that raised by Senator Farren is in Committee.

Motion made and question "That the Bill be now read a second time," put and agreed to.