I move that this section be deleted.
State Property Bill, 1954—Committee and Final Stages.
Sections 1 to 17, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 18.
As members of the Seanad will remember, I indicated on the Second Stage of the Bill last week that I would ask the Seanad to delete this section. This section provided that by means of legislation by reference parts of the Real Property Limitation Act, 1874 would apply to State property under this Bill. Since the Bill was published, we have had some discussion with people in respect to this section, and it would appear that there might perhaps be some doubt as to whether the legislative references in the section are, in fact, adequate. There is under consideration a new Statute of Limitation Bill which will deal with limitation as a whole and in a more modern way. On consideration, therefore, I think it would be better if we did not deal with this particular aspect of limitations in this Bill, that we delete the reference to it here and deal with it later as part of the general picture, and as a whole, when the other Bill comes before the Oireachtas. For the benefit of those who are not lawyers, may I say that statutes of limitation as such are, of course, the means by which what are commonly known in lay language as "squatters' rights" are determined, as well as the number of years for which there must be what is known as "adverse possession" in order that those squatters' rights become effective. I ask the House, therefore, to delete the section and so enable us to deal with the matter as part of the more comprehensive Bill which we shall propose in the near future.
Can we have any indication when the legislation promised will be introduced?
I can assure the Senator that it will not be unduly delayed.
That does not give me any indication.
It is being pushed ahead as fast as possible.
This is a long overdue Bill, as you will admit, and I congratulate the Minister on bringing it in, but we do not want any further delays on it.
I do not think the deletion of Section 18 will affect the point the Senator has in mind.
Section 18 deleted.
Sections 19 to 39 inclusive, Title and Schedules, agreed to.
Bill reported with amendment and received for final consideration.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."
There are certain properties which are controlled by the State or, rather, occupied by the State, and I should like the Minister to give us some information about them. For example, the General Post Office premises in O'Connell Street, I understand, are not State property, and I should be glad to know if there is any possibility of the State getting the ground rent of that property back to its own control. It seems extraordinary to me, if my information is correct, that the ground rent of the General Post Office in Dublin should belong to what I might describe as a non-national. It is a serious reflection upon us and I should like to know if there are any other State properties, or properties occupied by the State, which are not in their direct ownership and which would be recoverable and could become State properties as such?
I am rather flattered by the suggestion of the Senator that I would have the answer to such a large question up my sleeve. There are, of course, many properties held by many people, including the State, subject to rents of one sort or another. Whether the General Post Office is one of these or not, I am afraid I am not aware, but this Bill does not deal at all with the acquisition by the State of new properties or new interests in property of the type the Senator has in mind. It is a Bill merely designed to regulate the properties already vested in the State, or which become vested in the State by any process. The question the Senator raises, if it is a fact— and I quite candidly do not know whether it is or not—is one which would fall, I suggest, to be considered, with other problems regarding rents, by my colleague, the Minister for Justice. I have no doubt that the Senator will get such information as the Minister may have, if he takes it up with him.
I raised the question only because I understand that the rents I have mentioned were formerly Crown property and I wondered at what point they had ceased to be Crown property, became State property and then non-national property.
That is taking place for a long time.
The Senator is putting an even greater tax on my memory.
Question put and agreed to.