Perhaps the Cathaoirleach would allow me to make a few remarks on the Committee Stage of this Bill, which properly should have been made on Second Reading.
SEANAD IN COMMITTEE. - DUBLIN RECONSTRUCTION (EMERGENCY PROVISIONS) (AMENDMENT) BILL, 1925. COMMITTEE STAGE.
An CATHAOIRLEACH
I will not prevent you dealing with anything that would naturally arise on the Second Reading. We really had no time yesterday to deal with the matter.
What I desire to say would arise on Clause 2.
Consideration of Title postponed.
Clause 1 put and agreed to.
Motion made: "That Clause 2 stand part of the Bill."
This clause restricts the period for reconstruction from the unexpired portion of two years to a period of three months from the passing of this Bill.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
That is to say, it takes nine months off the period.
Yes. I have not put any amendment down, but I would ask the Minister to give us an undertaking that some reasonable notice will be given to those who have had awards or recommendations made in their favour, before any action is taken under this section. I think they ought to get sufficient notice to enable them to come to agreement with the Minister as regards modification of their ideas and falling in with such ideas as the Minister may have.
I am agreeable to take the recommendations of the Senator into consideration. But I think that is provided for in sub-section (3) of section 7 of the Principal Act:—
"Applications to the Minister by the corporation under this section shall be made in such manner and after publication and service of such notices as may be prescribed by the Minister, and before making an order under this section the Minister shall consider any objections which may be made thereto by any persons interested in the site."
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
I think what the Senator has in mind is that persons interested should get specific notice that their time has been cut down under this Bill in this way. This Bill, not having received much discussion here or in the other House, it is possible that those interested may never hear anything about it, or that they may not get to know that the two years' period has been cut down to one year and three months. I think there should be public notice, or notice of some kind given calling attention to the fact that the period has been cut down in this way. That would stir them up. They are entitled to that notice after all. Probably they have not become aware of the fact that the period has been cut down in this way.
I will undertake that they get notice.
There are not very many of them and, therefore, it would be all the more easy to give notice. There is no doubt that it is possible they may not know of this very drastic cutting down of the period.
I will bring that to the notice of the Commissioners.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 3 put and agreed to.
Motion made—"That Section 4 stand part of the Bill."
This is the clause that gave rise to the adjournment yesterday, because it was so difficult to understand it.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
I think the Senator who was so anxious to get time to understand it has gone to England.
Perhaps I may explain what is done by this section. It is perfectly right. Under Section 9 of the Act which this Bill seeks to amend, it is provided that destroyed buildings within this area are exempt from rates altogether until 31st March, 1926. Accordingly, in a case where the landlord under lease or contract of tenancy was paid an inclusive rent—that is, a rent which included the rent plus the rates —if the tenant had to pay the whole of that rent he would, during the whole of this exempted period, be paying the amount of the local rates to the landlord. The landlord could put that in his pocket and need not pay anything. That would mean that the landlord would be getting money into his pocket which he was not entitled to get. What this section does is to give the tenant the right to deduct from this inclusive rent the amount the rates would be if they had been paid. This also applies to cases where the agreement between the landlord and tenant is either legal or illegal under the Local Government Act. If the agreement is legal, the whole of the rates ought be deducted. If it is illegal under the Local Government Act, the landlord would still be getting the old poor rate, which is a small portion of the modern rate. It is necessary, in order that the tenant should have the right to deduct that portion of the rate, that this section should apply to an agreement which is illegal under the Local Government Act. The section is perfectly right.
Question put and agreed to.
Question—"That Sections 5 and 6 stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.
Question—"That the Title stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.