Derelict Sites Bill, 1960—Committee Stage.

SECTION 1.

Mr. O'Quigley

I move amendment No. 1:

In line 26, after "land" to add the following: "other than land used for agricultural purposes which is not situate alongside a main road or county road."

The purpose of this amendment is to narrow somewhat the defination of "land" as defined in Section 1. Everybody will be agreed that there is an urgent necessity for clearing and removing derelict sites from towns and villages, and indeed I would go further and say within a reasonable distance of the main thoroughfares throughout the country, for the purpose of creating a good impression not alone among tourists but among the citizens as they pass along these thoroughfares. We cannot be unaware of the fact that there has been a great deal of emigration from rural Ireland, which recently has taken the form of whole families closing down their dwellings, locking them up and leaving them unattended. As I say, that is something of recent origin.

I am quite well aware from my own experience of people who close down their dwellings and bring their families to England solely for the purpose of earning sufficient capital to come back and settle down at home. That type of person is frequently met with in the west of Ireland. It is often a surprise to me but there have been quite a number of people who have left what would be regarded as good jobs in London and returned home to the old family place and re-established themselves on small farms.

I have no doubt that buildings which are already in a poor condition, when neglected for a period of even two or three years will come under the definition of "derelict site" as set out in Section 1 of the Bill, and I want to avoid the possibility that the local authority, which I take it would be the county council in all of these cases, will have the right to serve notices by posting them on stable doors, and so on, in the absence of people in England and will demolish the buildings and clear the sites. As the Bill is drafted, it appears to me that that power is being vested in the local authorities and I do not think it is either desirable or necessary that it would extend to sites of the kind I have in mind in rural Ireland. For the protection of the people to whom I have referred the Minister and the House should accept the amendment.

Minister for Local Government (Mr. Blaney)

I would be happy, to a degree, if I felt that the operations under this enactment would be as sweeping as Senator O'Quigley would seem to contemplate. It would appear that his view is that local authorities throughout rural Ireland will go about seeking sites that they may declare derelict in out of the way places as well as on the roadways and adjoining the roadways in their functional areas. I cannot see this happening. I cannot even see the stage anticipated by the Senator being approached even remotely. Apart altogether from that, the idea that we can tie up the closing of farmsteads with the exclusions from this measure seems to be a rather queer way of approaching the matter.

If a site is declared to be derelict for any of the various reasons stated in the Bill, the clearance of that site is in the public interest. The safeguards for the owner or occupier, or non-occupying owner in this case, are fool-proof. It is a question of the common good and the public interest being considered in relation to the neglect of private property in given circumstances. I cannot see that Senator O'Quigley's amendment is one that is called for.

Secondly, the amendment, to a large degree, would nullify the very basis on which this measure rests, that is, that the public interest and the common good must be regarded and where that in some way impinges on a private individual it does so only where there has been neglect to the extent that property or premises have become derelict. I do not think it is right to regard such property as being sacrosanct as property properly maintained by the owner or occupier would be.

Mr. O'Quigley

I fear the Minister has not applied his mind to what is contained in the amendment. What I am seeking to do in the amendment is to exempt land used for agricultural purposes and which is not situated along a main road or county road, that is to say, the ordinary derelict sites that are in the heart of the country and that might become the subject of interfering local authority officials for one reason or another. I have no doubt that the Minister will state that the local authorities are extremely responsible people. I have no doubt that that is so but if one were to listen to the Tánaiste on the Fluoridation Bill on the last occasion, he brings all local authorities to the level of a letter signed "Democrat" in a copy of the Evening Mail, which the Tánaiste read to the House for its edification. When a Minister of State of such high rank as the Tánaiste takes that view of local authorities, it behoves us in this House of Parliament to take particular care as to the power we vest in local authorities.

The Minister speaks about the common good and the public interest. All legislation is directed towards the common good, and the Minister is familiar with the phrase "in the public interest". We must bear in mind, however, that within that large context of the common good and the public interest, it is necessary to define with some precision the kinds of things we want local authorities and other such bodies to do and not to do. The Minister has not at all addressed himself to the real possibility that some people may get in touch with local authorities and say they are not at all happy to have "Jack Johnson's" old shed which is along the road into their house maintained in that condition. All they have to establish is that it is in a derelict condition and affects the amenities of the neighbourhood, even though the proprietor of that building intends to return to this country when he has earned sufficient money in England. It is perfectly obvious that the Minister has no regard or sympathy for the plight of people who are forced to emigrate from rural Ireland: when they are gone, their votes are gone and the Minister is not concerned with whether this Bill will affect them adversely or not.

Mr. O'Quigley

I raised the problem of emigration and Senator Carter reduced it to a problem of migration. That is what you do when elections are coming on and when the figures published recently in England are not favourable to the Government.

An Cathaoirleach

We shall not discuss emigration on this Bill. Will the Senator keep to the amendment?

Mr. O'Quigley

Mr. Blaney

The Senator sounds very convincing but I am afraid I am not convinced. Candidly, I do not follow the Senator's reasoning although I agree that in his profession he should undoubtedly have a fair grasp of the difference between various words such as these. Nevertheless, in the ordinary usage I have no doubt in my mind— and in following this matter up since his amendment was put down my view has been confirmed—that the word "offer" in the context to which the three amendments relate is in fact better. If there is anything in it—and there may not be much between the two words—the word "offer" has it. I am quite satisfied about that.

Mr. O'Quigley

Evidently the Minister has given this a great deal of consideration. I should like him to tell the House, as this matter is of some consequence to my mind, what consideration swung him over on the side of continuing to use the word "offer" rather than the word I suggest, "proposal"?

Mr. Blaney

It is the Senator who is suggesting that the word "offer" is not the proper one to use. He sounds convincing but he has not convinced me. Probably he can convince the House and he may yet be able to convince me that his proposed change of words is correct.

Mr. O'Quigley

The Minister is avoiding the issue. He says that he has taken the trouble—and I am sure he has—to go into this matter and that there is not a great deal of difference between the two words "offer" and "proposal" in this context, but that, whatever was in it, to his mind, lay on the side of the word "offer" used in the Bill. I have clearly indicated that in our system of law the word "offer" has a particular signification. It has not that signification in the context of Section 2.

In this case what would in fact happen is that the local authority would say to the owner of a site which they believed to be derelict: "This site is derelict; it will have to be cleared. What are you going to do about it?" That is ordinary English but they are not asking him to make an offer. They do not tell him to come along and offer to do anything. He is being compelled, under the threat of the local authority coming in and clearing the site at his expense, to do something. They are asking him what in those circumstances he proposes to do. An offer, to my mind, is something connoting voluntary action on the part of the offerer. That is not this case. Reading this, I can see the lawyers wondering what possessed the Oireachtas to use this word when an ordinary word such as "proposal", "plan" or "scheme" would be much better in the legal context than the word "offer".

Mr. O'Reilly

In my view the Senator has confused himself. Many people will agree that it is common enough for, as Senator Sheridan puts it, legal luminaries to confuse themselves with words——

Mr. O'Quigley

It is the Fianna Fáil legal luminaries that Senator Sheridan was talking about.

Mr. O'Reilly

Would the Senator who is now interrupting explain how a proposal can exist unless it contains an offer? It is my view that a proposal cannot exist unless it offers to do something and it appears to me that because of the legal phraseology with which the Senator would like to impress the House, he wants this word changed from "offer" to "proposal". The word "offer" is more definite and people with ordinary common sense using it will take a particular view. It is not ambiguous.

Mr. Ryan

I disagree entirely with Senator O'Quigley on this section. The word "offer" is quite correct here because what is happening is that the local authority has power to do something, to force an occupier to do a certain thing but, before doing so, it asks him if he wishes to make any offer which, if it is the proper kind of offer, if it meets the situation properly, will be accepted and this will enable the local authority to avoid taking any further action.

It is quite clear that the phraseology to which Senator O'Quigley has referred is in fact incorporated in this section because in subsection (2) it says that the local authority may accept "the offer" made by the occupier. So far as phraseology is concerned, that makes it quite clear that the draftsman had it in mind and in fact has used it very effectively. We might consider a very common legal situation that is similar to this, where a litigant is about to take action against somebody and the defendant-to-be is given an opportunity to make an offer in settlement of the demand. If the offer is sufficiently good the litigant will accept it. The situation the draftsman has in mind here is very similar, and the word "offer" used in this context is used quite correctly. The word "proposal" would confuse the issue and make the position less clear.

Mr. O'Quigley

Senator O'Reilly is always extremely helpful. Beyond saying that, I do not propose to deal with any of the points he made. Surprisingly, Senator Ryan has been more than helpful to me, on this occasion at any rate, because he has highlighted the point I was making. The two elements in the law of contract are offer and acceptance. Under this section a local authority will, with all the power given to it by the Oireachtas, supposedly enter into a contract with the owner of a derelict site. Of course, nothing could be further from the truth. There is no question of a contract being entered into between a local authority and the owner of a derelict site where that owner does not want to do anything about the site, has never wanted to do anything, would never make any offer, or do anything about the site, but for the fact that the Oireachtas proposes in this measure to vest in the local authority power to compel such an owner to do certain things; and, if he does not do them, the local authority may do them at his expense, charge him accordingly, ultimately vesting the property in themselves.

There is no question of the normal freedom ordinarily involved in the law of contract as between a willing offerer and a willing acceptor which would warrant the use of the word "offer" in this particular section. Senator O'Reilly is quite correct in his reference to the word "accept". That appears in the section, but there is nothing further from the truth than saying that this is a contract entered into. I have stated my view as to the manner in which the section should be worded. Evidently my amendment is not acceptable and I, therefore, beg leave to withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments 3 and 4 not moved.

Mr. O'Quigley

I move amendment No. 5:

In subsection (3) (i), line 22, to delete "the owner aforesaid" and substitute "the person to whom notice has been given as aforesaid".

As I understand the position, under Section 2 of the Bill, notice may be given to the owner. The owner, in the case of a leasehold property, will be the lessor; the person who occupies the property will be the tenant. It seems to me as if notice can be served upon either under this section and I am not clear as to whether there is a distinction between "owner" as defined in Section 1 and the owner who occupies, or is entitled to occupy as set out in subsection (1) of Section 2. The best method of dealing with the position would be to use the phrase "the person to whom notice has been given as aforesaid". That would capture the occupier and the owner, because it would refer clearly to the person who had been served.

Mr. Blaney

My advice is that the words "owner aforesaid" mean, and can only mean, the person to whom notice has been given. That covers the point the Senator is trying to cover in his amendment.

Mr. O'Quigley

I am not too happy about that because under subsection (1) the local authority may give the owner who occupies, or is entitled to occupy, notice in the prescribed form. Those are two distinct persons. In subsection (3) (i) there is a reference to "the owner aforesaid". Now there are two owners aforesaid—the owner who occupies and the owner who is entitled to occupy. One or other, or both, may be served with notice.

Mr. Blaney

Not both.

Mr. O'Quigley

That is far from clear. This is the kind of thing which will cause trouble later. There would be no ambiguity if the amendment were accepted. The amendment makes the position crystal clear and leaves no room for either confusion or ambiguity. I can do no more than draw the Minister's attention to these matters.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. O'Quigley

I move amendment No. 6:

In subsection (4), line 33, before "or" to insert "or, in the event of the failure of the owner to carry out properly such works as he may have agreed with the local authority to carry out, the local authority may carry out such works and claim from him the expenses incurred by them in so doing,".

In the event of the owner failing to implement the offer accepted by the local authority I want to ensure that such failure will be visited with the same consequences as if the owner had not made any offer at all. It is only fair that the owner should have notice that if he fails to discharge his offer the local authority will be empowered to go in, clear the site, charge him for the clearing of it, and acquire the land. It would make for better administration in the clearing of derelict sites. Possibly the Minister will inform us that this kind of notification will be given to owners of such sites.

Mr. Blaney

In so far as the prescribed form of notice is concerned, I have given an undertaking to forward a copy of the prescribed form to a member of the Dáil who raised a point similar in some respects to that raised now by the Senator. If the House is not sitting when I come to make these regulations, I shall be only too happy to give a copy of them to the Senator or, indeed, to the House as a whole. These regulations will contain in the prescribed form the matters to which the Senator has referred in order that the owner may be aware of what will happen if he does not follow up his offer.

Mr. O'Quigley

I am grateful that the Minister has made the kindly offer to furnish these regulations to us. In those circumstances I think the amendment has served its purpose and I ask leave to withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed: "That Section 2 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Burke

I should like if the Minister would explain a statement made in the Explanatory Memorandum. It says:

If the land continues to be a derelict site after the time specified in an accepted offer, the local authority may enter on the land, carry out appropriate works and recover the cost from the owner who made the offer.

On the Second Stage I mentioned a difficulty I saw because the maximum compensation is £100. I envisage the case of a very large derelict site in a town or city where the owner is not able to sell the site. He is then required by the terms of this Bill to remove the derelict buildings so that it will not continue to be a derelict site.

Thank you.

Question put and agreed to.

Sections 3 and 4 agreed to.

SECTION 5.

Question proposed: "That Section 5 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. O'Quigley

This is a very important section in that it provides the machinery by which a person aggrieved by service of a notice by a local authority may appeal to the Minister. In connection with the Bill this Minister has already indicated that, where it came to a dispute between an individual and a corporation, he was always on the side of the individual against the corporation. Consequently, people might be put off their guard in thinking a person can appeal to the Minister, having in mind the Minister sitting before us in the House who has expressed that view. But it is not every Minister who would adopt that attitude of favouring the individual rather than the local authority.

I would be glad if the Minister would indicate what form these appeals to the Minister for Local Government will take. There would be little difficulty if the Minister set up a court of appeal in which the arguments for the local authority and the affected owners would be heard. But that is not likely to happen. I am wondering whether appeals in this type of case will eventually be determined by the Minister upon a reading of a whole series of submissions from one side and the other. I have no doubt at all that is a most unsatisfactory procedure. If the appeal is to be determined in person by the person who is Minister for Local Government at the time, that will be a change from what I might call the official outlook, the outlook of county managers and Ministerial advisers.

Most of us would like to be assured that these appeals would eventually be determined in person by the Minister, but if that be the case, it may well impose an unnecessarily heavy burden upon the political heads of the various Departments. If the Minister is satisfied that Ministers of State are equal to that kind of thing and have time for it, that is another day's work. However, I believe these matters should be determined by short appeal to the district court, which can hear both sides and deal with these matters in summary fashion without any great expense. I should be pleased to know if the Minister is in a position to state whether all these appeals will be determined in person by the person who is Minister for Local Government at the time.

Mr. Blaney

I pointed out to the Senator on the Second Stage that appeals under this section relate merely to the question of whether a requirement by a local authority of works to be done by an owner is in fact a proper requirement, whether it is fair and just, and so on. It all comes down to a question of judgement as to whether what the local authority asks the owner to do is, in all the circumstances, a fair and just request under the provisions of this Bill. That the Minister should have the deciding word as distinct from referring the matter to the courts is relevant to this section, in that he has available to him the services of people who are experts in judging such matters as these and upon whom he can call at any time.

My attitude, and I think that of all Ministers for Local Government and, indeed, all Ministers, in relation to the individual versus the corporation, as mentioned by the Senator, would undoubtedly be, in the case of a doubt, to come down in favour of the individual. It will be a matter of judgment as to the amount of work necessary in any given circumstances. The Minister in question will have available to him expert advisers. That will be a far better way of determining these appeals. It will be far less costly and less protracted than having recourse to the courts.

In subsection (3) of this section, there is what I must regard as a drafting error. Subsection (3) (a) provides:

Whenever a local authority make a vesting order, they shall within fourteen days after making the order—

in case all the land comprised in the vesting order is in the same ownership, post a copy of the order on or near the land...

That is clear enough——

...and in any other case, post a copy of the notice on or near the land of each owner...

There is no reference in the world, and certainly there is no reference in the section, to a notice. It seems to me that it should be "...post a copy of the order on or near the land of each owner..."

Mr. Blaney

That is certainly a word to which one might take exception at first glance and, in fact, exception was taken to it at first glance by me. I may say this is not a good answer to the question, but it is really the best answer. The most illustrative answer is to ask: what notice could there possibly or conceivably be other than the order already referred to?

Mr. O'Quigley

We are a House of the Legislature and our function here is to legislate in as clear and unambiguous a fashion as we can. When the Minister tries to equate "notice" with "order," he is asking us to swallow too much. The fact of the matter is that "notice" is a misprint for the word "order." There are no two ways about it. We should not ask the public, or the courts of justice who may be called upon to construe this section, to say: "Well, the Legislature obviously knew that `notice' was the same thing as `order' and deliberately put `notice' in the Bill." There is no justification for the explanation by the Minister of what I believe to be purely a printing error. I do not want to make any other point than to say: "Here is a printing error which we should amend." It is as simple and brief as that.

Mr. Blaney

I do not quite agree. I took the same view as the Senator when I first saw it, but I take a different view now. I ask this question in no flippant manner: what could possibly be posted, under this section, on such property other than the order? What other type of notice: yesterday's newspapers or this month's Dublin Opinion?

Dr. O'Donovan

This is legislation. We are not writing letters to one another, or exchanging New Year greetings, or anything of that sort. A word is a word and has a meaning— indeed at times a very specific meaning. You cannot switch the word "order" to the word "notice" in a paragraph. You just cannot do that. There is no method of doing it that is known to me. I do not profess to be a keen student of languages in this sense, but from time to time, of necessity, I have had to look at the meaning of words. When the word "order" is used right down through a section, you cannot change it to "notice." The subsection says: "...post a copy of the notice..." I take it that is where the owner cannot be found or something like that.

Frankly, I think we cannot get away from the fact that the word should be the same all through the section. If it is intended, as the Minister suggested in his question, to be the same word, then it ought to be the case right through the section. I have heard nothing about this matter previously. I have not studied the Bill. If it has some other meaning, I am not aware of it. If the Minister is aware of some other meaning I am quite prepared to accept the Minister's view of it.

I do not know how this happened. It may well be that somebody had something in mind or that Senator O'Quigley's view on the matter is correct. It is only a matter of changing the word. That can be done in this House without amendment. A word like this can be changed. Nobody would make any point about it. Since the Minister asked the question, I want to make the point quite simple. The word "order" is not the word "notice".

Professor Stanford

It seems to me that "notice" is a much better word here. It is a broader word. The distinction seems to be this. The "order" is the statement that you must do certain things with the site.

The "notice" can be concerned with the whole thing. It can give the date on which the order was made and any preamble and additional information which is significant. In other words, the notice can give the date of the making of the order and various other details which need to be posted on the site. The order is the legal statement saying you must do this or that whereas the notice gives a wider range of facts which may be valuable for the purpose envisaged in this section.

Mr. Barry

I am a layman. Is there a reason for the change of wording? Is there a reason for "order."

Mr. Blaney

Not that I am aware of.

Mr. Barry

Why change it?

Mr. Blaney

Why should we change it back?

Dr. O'Donovan

If the word is intended to be the same word, then it should be the same word.

Mr. Carter

Obviously, it is not intended to be the same word.

Mr. O'Quigley

I should not like to have to deal with Senator Stanford in a court of law because of his ingenuity in trying to impart into the word "notice" in a subtle fashion a meaning that is not there. If the Minister would only admit it, this is a drafting error. I insist it should be changed. We are not constituted into a revisory Chamber of the Constitution and tolerated and paid by the people to do so. The function of this House is to consider legislation in every detail and express its views about it as a Second House of Parliament.

Putting it at its lowest, here is a human kind of drafting error. There was a juxtaposition of the words. You will see, running through legal documents, that whereas you serve a civil bill if the person is out of the jurisdiction you will otherwise serve him a notice. There is a difference between notice of an order and a copy of an order. It is the same kind of thing as we had here on the Bill which constituted Córas Tráchtála into a State body. The present Minister for Industry and Commerce then said: "I agree with Senator O'Quigley. It is manifestly wrong. However, the Dáil has now risen and we must pass the legislation now as it must go through before a certain date." At that time, I reluctantly agreed. I will not permit a thing of this kind to go through now. That is not what the Second House of the Oireachtas was constituted to do.

Seán Ó Donnabháin

Strange to relate, I would agree with the Senators who have suggested this. From the phraseology of the clause I think the word "notice" is inappropriate though I think you can have a notice, a sheet of paper, a poster on which an order is printed and the word "notice" would be different from the word "order" in that case. But, from the phraseology of the clause here, I think the meaning would be far more suitably shown by using the word "order" instead of "notice." I suggest, if there is no difficulty, the House could change the word "notice" to "order." I believe "order" is more satisfactory from the way it is raised there.

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

I agree with the proposer although I cannot use that word because he has not proposed an amendment. I want to express my surprise at Senator O'Quigley——

Mr. O'Quigley

I did not see it in time.

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

——because he did not think fit to submit it as an amendment to the House. However, as he has now submitted it to us, it is inescapable that we must change the word. The paragraph reads:

There will be more sites derelict if we hold on much longer.

Dr. O'Donovan

They have been a long time derelict.

Mr. O'Quigley

We want to legislate properly but we are legislating in a manner which is a disgrace. I am not going to be a party to legislating in a manner which is a disgrace to a House of Parliament.

I want to direct the attention of the House to Section 3 where it refers to the service of a notice in the prescribed form. Subsection (2) of the Section states:

"A notice under this section shall include an estimate of the cost of the works specified in the notice."

This is an entirely different type of document from the type of document we are talking about in Section 9. Subsection (3) of Section 3 states:

Whenever a local authority give a notice under this section to any person, the local authority shall, within fourteen days after giving the notice to the person, post a copy of the notice on or near the land to which the notice relates.

That is perfectly intelligible but it is not intelligible in the sense in which it is used here and no amount of dickering round with regulations that may be made under the Act can cure this kind of deficiency. It would be better if the Minister accepted what is the apparently unanimous opinion of this House, from Senator Ó Donnabháin, who rarely finds it possible to agree with me, right through to the other people who were convinced on argument, that this is an amendment which ought properly to be made. It is one which Senator O'Donovan has been suggesting can be made within the rules of this House on Report Stage. A slip of this kind—it is no more than a slip, unless it is inflated into some important matter by the Minister or some other people—can undoubtedly be corrected on the Report Stage and need never go back to the Dáil.

Mr. Blaney

If, as the Senator said, this is a matter which comes within the competence of the House to deal with and can be dealt with here on those conditions, I should be happy to accept the amendment and get the Bill through.

Professor Hayes

I should not like the Minister to be under any misapprehension. Is the Minister accepting the view that the word "notice" can be changed into the word "order" without going back to the Dáil?

Mr. Blaney

That is what is being put to me by Senator O'Quigley. If that view can be upheld and if this would be regarded as a printer's error and dealt with within the House, I should be quite happy to accept.

An Cathaoirleach

This would call for a drafting amendment and not a verbal amendment. In that case, I fear it would have to go back to the Dáil.

Professor Hayes

It seems to me that the word "notice" has no meaning in the context. I do not want the Minister to accept something on grounds which might prove afterwards not to be valid. I would be inclined to agree that if we take out the word "notice" and put in the word "order," it must go back to the Dáil. That is not such a grievous thing. It would be better to send it back to the Dáil properly drafted and amended than that this House should let it go without having taken notice, if I might make the pun. There is a mistake in this.

Mr. Ryan

I think it is necessary to make this change. Otherwise, I can see a local authority being put in a very difficult position if they attempt to make a vesting order and if there is any objection to it for any reason and the matter is brought to court. The fact that they have not complied with this section can be argued very strongly because if they posted the order, they will be told that they have posted a notice or if they posted a notice, it is not clear from the section what the notice should contain. Although there is some difficulty about making an amendment at this stage, I believe that, unless it is made, a local authority at some time in the future may find themselves in an extremely difficult position and may be precluded, in fact, from making a vesting order to such an extent that it would be impossible to make a vesting order until an amendment is introduced at some future stage.

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

I do not feel that we in this House should be prevented from making this change from "notice" to "order" by the consideration that it would then have to go back to the Dáil because the underlying assumption there is that we can talk our heads off but must not amend anything.

Senators

Hear, hear!

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

I do not accept that assumption. If we are prepared to make it, we cannot make this amendment because it will have to go back to the Dáil. That would apply to all our amendments and it would be a tacit admission that we are wasting time putting down amendments. I feel that argument is irrelevant.

An Cathaoirleach

May I make this suggestion to the House? Let us continue the discussion on the Bill and should the Committee Stage finish before the tea adjournment, allow the Minister to come back on the Report Stage at 7 o'clock. That would give him an opportunity to look into this matter to see if he can agree to the amendment. Would that meet the Minister?

Professor Hayes

With all respect, there does not seem to be anything that the Minister can do about it. I am not saying that to the Minister personally, but for anybody in the Minister's position. If the word "notice", as has been demonstrated on both sides of the House, is the wrong word, then we certainly should put in the right word. The fact that that will mean that another month will pass before the Bill is enacted and come into operation is not really an unsurmountable difficulty. This matter has waited for years and it can wait for another month.

There is no doubt at all that we ought to insert the correct word and there is no doubt that this type of amendment is not something which the officials of this House or the other House could do. The changing of the word "notice" to the word "order" is a very substantial change on the face of it. It may be a printer's error but that is a different thing. It seems to me that consideration of the matter by the Minister will not carry us any distance and that the change should be made. As I say, it is just too bad but it cannot be helped. Our duty is to see that things are right and in this case there is no doubt at all that the object is to make things right by taking the word "notice" out and inserting the word "order". If there are other results then they are simply unavoidable.

Dr. O'Donovan

I regret to disagree with so experienced a Senator as my colleague, Senator Hayes, but on the occasion to which Senator O'Quigley referred, in relation to the Córas Tráchtála Bill, I consulted Standing Orders afterwards and there was no doubt left in my mind that a verbal change could be made. To my mind, this word "notice" in the section means nothing. Clearly, the word should be "order". That is my opinion and I think it right that I should express my opinion irrespective of what decision is taken. Every aspect of this matter should be considered. There is no doubt in my mind that under Standing Orders this House has the right to put in the word "order" instead of the word "notice" in a case like this, without the need arising to return the Bill to the Dáil. That is my firm view until somebody gives me a legal opinion to the contrary. I looked up the matter on the Córas Tráchtála Bill when there was a phrase in it which meant nothing and to my mind this House is entitled to make a change.

Professor Quinlan

I should like to submit that it is not for us to consider whether this should or should not go back to the Dáil. If an amendment is necessary we should go ahead with it or else dissolve and not be fooling ourselves by saying that we cannot change it because the Dáil is not in session.

Senator Ó Ciosáin referred to Section 10, subsection (1), which refers to vesting orders and the prescribed form of these orders. I believe there is nothing to prevent the prescribed form of order describing the form of order as containing the word "notice" and that that notice so prescribed by Section 10 (1) would conform to the majority of views as expressed here and avoid the conflict that now seems to arise between the use of the two words.

Mr. Lenihan

There is a lot in the point made by the Minister, that the order could be made in the form of a notice and therefore "notice" and "order" in subsection (3) (a) would in fact mean the same thing. The reason I disagree with the Minister in stating that that would cover that particular case is that subsection (3) is a vital subsection. That would be all right if the courts merely interpreted a section that was not of such importance but the section says: "Whenever a local authority make a vesting order, they shall within 14 days after making the order...", and it is a fundamental proof of making a vesting order that a copy of the order shall be posted up. The courts in interpreting any matter of such fundamental proof would look into it very closely and for that reason it would be much more appropriate if there was one form in each of the two alternative methods of posting up the order. It should be either "notice" in both cases or "order", to have the matter clear. If there is to be a distinction in the language used it will only make for litigation.

Mr. O'Quigley

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 10.

Question proposed: "That Section 10 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. O'Quigley

This is a section which, frankly, I do not understand. A local authority makes a vesting order. I can understand that operates by virtue of this statute to vest the property the subject of the vesting order in the local authority but what I do not understand—and this is the point to which I should like to direct the Minister's attention specifically—is why the device is being adopted of registering these vesting orders in relation to these derelict sites in the manner prescribed. Perhaps the Minister would indicate why the title of local authorities could not be registered under the Local Registration of Title Acts because a lot of that property will be property which is freehold in character and if somebody is buying from a local authority and the local authority are selling this to somebody, I do not understand how people are going to search in the Registry of Deeds against the title of the previous owners and in the Land Registry subsequently. In fact, I do not understand how it will operate at all.

I can quite see in relation to lands under the 1903 Land Act that in relation to all agricultural land all of that has to be vested upon a particular date by vesting orders in the various tenants and the title of these tenants is subsequently registered in the Land Registry. That is a whole scheme of registration of title in relation to the whole of the agricultural property of this country which is all held upon much the same kind of title. Here we are going to have property which will be held under leases, held on ordinary monthly or weekly contracts of tenancy, and they may also be fee simple property. How all of these will be registered in the Land Registry is something which I do not understand. I do not know how it will work out in practice. Perhaps the Minister would give the House some indication as to what will happen in relation to this property once it is registered in the Land Registry.

There is a second question that I want to ask the Minister. If this property is subsequently sold by the local authority, as it may be, is there any particular provision or can the Minister say how this property will devolve upon an intestacy because land which is not subject to registration under the Registration of Title Acts devolves differently depending on the circumstances surrounding its purchase? I do not understand the section at all.

Mr. Blaney

Might it help the Senator and the House somewhat—although I do not think it will—to know that whatever may be the difficulties as to how it will work, it was during the drafting stages that the Land Registry requested that this would be the form which it would take and they are the people who will have to handle this.

They have requested that it be done in this specified form that we are now talking about under this section.

Mr. O'Quigley

There are various people around the country who happen to own property which is in one state of dereliction or another and property of this kind will, over the years, be acquired and vested in local authorities and then it will be registered in the Land Registry in the name of the various local authorities. That is a very simple procedure. I take it that the local authorities will be entitled to sell this property; if they have to keep it on their hands permanently, it will never produce any revenue for them in the form of rates, nor will they be able to realise the capital expenditure involved in acquiring it or the capital value of the property as it stands? I can see the difficulty of the Minister, but it does not do to say that this is the way in which the Land Registry want this particular section drafted. That is not sufficient, because there are people like myself who take up this and see that land which is held under various forms of tenure is going to be vested, apparently, in local authorities and I do not readily know how any person buying property from a local authority would begin to establish the title of the local authority to this particular property. Would it be registered without equities, discharged of equities? What is the position going to be?

The Minister is right in saying I do not understand the section. I do not understand how it will work and I am not consoled by his saying this is the way the Land Registry want it, because they are a group of officials who want to have this so that they can deal with it in a way most satisfactory to themselves.

Mr. Blaney

As the Deputy will have seen from Section 10 (1) this land will be free from all incumbrances. The local authority may do with it what they think is best in their own and in the general interest. Whether they build on it, use it for some purpose or other, or dispose of it, will be a decision arrived at by them after due consideration as to what is the best use to which they can put it if and when they acquire it.

We are prone to fall into the mistaken idea that the result of this Bill will be large-scale acquisition of sites and land throughout the country. In fact it is the end product of four different stages and it will be on the rare occasion rather than the frequent occasion that lands and sites will be acquired at all. If and when they are acquired, Section 10 (1) provides that they will be free from all incumbrances. The use to which they may be put thereafter is not confined.

No, I did not. As far as I was concerned, I indicated that this could be dealt with on the Report Stage and again I indicated the Minister could have all stages tonight. That was an attempt to be of help to the Minister because I felt that while raising it at this stage I ought to have raised it by way of amendment but even if I put down an amendment at this stage the Minister would still not have the Bill in operation as it would have to be referred back to the Dáil if the section were amended. It was quite untrue to suggest that I was exercising my mind. I happen to take some interest in legislation passing through this House and I examine every Bill, section by section, and I shall continue to do so and to put down amendments if I think it proper to do so. I shall continue, with the help of God, to sift every piece of legislation that comes before us. That is what we are paid for.

Mr. O'Quigley

I move amendment No. 7.

In subsection (1), line 25, before "after" to insert "or such longer period as the local authority may in any case allow".

The purpose of the amendment is to accommodate the law to the natural disposition of our people. We are all inclined to leave things a little late, not to attend meetings in time and so on. Here is a case where compensation may be paid if the person applies within a year after the making of the order. I merely ask that, as is commonly found in all these cases where times at which various proceedings may take place are set out, some latitude be given where a person may be ill or out of the country or unaware of his rights if no great damage can accrue to the other side and they are willing to extend the time.

In this case I would ask that the local authority be allowed to extend the time within which a person may apply for compensation. As it stands, the Bill is too rigid; it is quite easy for something to happen at a time when a person is unaware of his rights; time catches up very quickly. Under this amendment the local authority would be entitled to exercise some discretion in favour of somebody who would otherwise be debarred from getting compensation. I imagine that even the local authority itself would be debarred from paying compensation even though they felt entitled to pay it if the order to pay is not made within the 12 months.

Mr. Donegan

I should like to support Senator O'Quigley. There are many cases where such provisions in legislation would be a great help as for instance in the case of malicious injury claims. There have been cases where, when the time limit had elapsed, individual owners of property were not in a position to assert their rights. I feel that the safeguard—the mild safeguard—suggested by Senator O'Quigley is a good one because it affords an opportunity of dealing with the individual case. I think it is a well-phrased amendment; it does not seek any great change in the Bill and it should be accepted.

Mr. Blaney

Under the 1940 Act which, as somebody has mentioned, was quite a while on the Statute Books and is still there, three months was the time allowed and during all the years since 1940 only one claim is recorded as having been made outside the three months. In this Bill we extended the period of three months to 12 months. Circumstances under this Act are not likely to be appreciably different from those under the 1940 Act and I feel that an adequate advance has been made—more than adequate judging by the history of the past 20 years—in extending the time from three to 12 months. It is for more or less the reasons now being put forward that we did make this extension of time and we felt in making it that if there was any error we were erring on the side of making the period too long rather than too short.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Is the amendment being withdrawn?

Mr. O'Quigley

I should have thought that in any legislation of this kind where a time limit is being provided it would be considered desirable —it is not at all unusual—to allow somebody to have discretion to extend the time where the extension will not do any damage to any of the interested parties. That is quite a common procedure. I have no desire to delay the House. I do not think there is much chance of the Minister accepting this amendment and I, therefore, withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Amendments Nos. 8, 9 and 10, in the name of Senator Sheehy Skeffington, may be discussed together.

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

I move amendment No. 8:

In subsection (1) to delete all words from and including "equal" in line 29 to the end of the subsection and substitute "calculated at the rate of one farthing per acre or per part of an acre."

The first two amendments are different in degree; the third and fourth amendments are consequential. These amendments relate to the compensation to the owner of a derelict site which is being acquired. In the amendment I have moved, I propose that the owner should be compensated at the rate of one farthing per acre. The second amendment is an alternative to that, to meet those Senators who may not approve in full of my first suggestion. The alternative is that the owner should be paid compensation at the rate of 20 years' purchase of the average yearly income derived from the land acquired over the five years immediately preceding the making of the vesting order.

I accept the validity of that argument in the case of some, but what we are asked to do here is to compensate people for the loss of property of the kind specified, and which we can acquire only if we can demonstrate that the sense of responsibility and duty which should accompany ownership, as well as the sense of rights, has in fact been glaringly absent. I suggest that in order to compensate for deprivation of ownership, that ownership should in the past have been justified by use.

By very definition, no use was made of these sites for a long time. No income was derived from them. No rates were paid. No income tax was paid. There can be, therefore, no right to compensation. It is not the practice to rate site values. We tend to put valuation on buildings. Where buildings have had the roofs taken off and have become dilapidated, no rates are collected. Local authorities decide, by implication, that a derelict site has no value, and no rates are collected on it. It is legitimate to argue that compensation should not be paid for a site which has no value.

If the Seanad holds I am unjust in that, I am prepared to concede that that may not be so in certain cases. I would ask the owner of such sites to prove that over the five years preceding the acquisition order, he has been deriving a certain income from the sites and I am prepared to allow him 20 years' purchase of that income. That is the purport of my alternative amendment. If the owner can prove that the site was not valueless and that he was deriving some income from it, and presumably paying income tax on it, I am prepared to say: "All right; let us pass this second, alternative, amendment which will grant such owners 20 years' purchase of the average yearly income over the five years immediately preceding acquisition". I suggest, too, that if they are able to prove that, in many cases that proof may be of interest to the Revenue Commissioners. As I reminded Senator O'Quigley, it is quite common form in judicial circles, when attempting to assess damage done, which appears in the view of the courts to be largely fictional, to assess that damage as being valued at one farthing.

These derelict sites with which the Bill deals are eyesores, and are directly and positively detrimental to the property of other people and to the amenities of the whole community. Not merely have they not been put to good use, not merely have the owners, whom we are asked to compensate, sinned in a negative way by neglect, but they have also sinned in a positive way in making a big and positive contribution to the bad appearance and bad amenities of the whole township in which their dangerous, dilapidated and injurious sites are situated.

This land, in the cases which will come up under this section, will have been lying there probably for long years without the owner doing anything at all about it. It is quite possible—and I made the point on the Second Reading—that while the owner has been doing nothing, while the site has become more and more derelict, more and more dangerous and more and more dilapidated, all this time, due to the initiative of other private owners around the site, or of the community or of the local authority, it is quite possible that the market value of the land as building land has been going up, through no effort on the part of the owner but purely because of the effort of other people.

Under this section, as it is at present phrased, we are being asked to allow the local authority to compensate the owner for the work done on his behalf by other private owners, by the community and by the local authority itself. I suggest that is nothing short of scandalous—the giving out of public moneys to compensate a person for the loss of a value he did nothing to create—quite on the contrary. There is land in this city, used for building purposes and acquired by the Corporation, for which as much as £6,000 per acre has been paid in the past. I suggest it would be quite scandalous if a piece of derelict land, such as described in the definitions I have quoted here, were to be compensated for under the terms of the section to the tune of something like £6,000 per acre to a person who never lifted a finger to develop the site, who in fact has, by his positive neglect, allowed it to become a menace to the whole community. It would in fact be far more equitable, instead of rewarding such an owner for damaging the community, and for pulling down the value of all the adjoining sites, because that is what he has been doing, if he were to be fined rather than rewarded.

Mr. O'Quigley

The Senator does not like property owners.

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

I am very surprised to hear Senator O'Quigley join the good property owner with the kind of property owner whose site has become injurious to public health and to the amenities of the community, and whose buildings have become so dilapidated as to be dangerous and ruinous. It is quite unfair to the decent, reputable and responsible property owner to have them all lumped into one by Senator O'Quigley. That is one of the things we must fight against in this Bill, and for which I am responsible as a Senator and for which Senator O'Quigley is responsible—to make a differentiation between the good property owner and the bad. Senator O'Quigley sees no difference. I am trying to convince him that there is a difference between the propertyowner who sees not merely rights but also duties, and the property owner who talks exclusively about rights, and for whom, I am sure, the Senator would have no sympathy at all if he were to look into his heart sufficiently deep.

Mr. O'Quigley

I never like looking into my heart after a certain man carried out that operation.

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

This question of ownership and rights of property continually vexes Senator Sheehy Skeffington. I concede immediately that ownership of property has duties as well as rights but when he speaks on this question, the boot always seems to be on one foot rather than on the other.

Mr. O'Quigley

The left foot.

Mr. Donegan

I have reminded Senator Sheehy Skeffington two or three times before, but I want to remind him again, that there are such people as poor property owners. In this city, there are a great number of property owners who are poor and there are unfortunate people who have sites or houses from which they gain very low rents. Those poor people are the kind of people who would be hit, as Senator McGuire explained. The sort of example that Senator Sheehy Skeffington gave of land being sold at £6,000 an acre and derelict sites becoming valuable was extraordinary.

If we take this matter in its ordinary context in business all over the world, we find that risks are divided into two categories: the ordinary business risks involved in ownership of property of any kind and the gilt-edged risks which are not risks at all, unless a Government falls or something like that. I feel that the risks must also carry with them the chances, and if it is a bit of a horse race to own property, that has always been the case. There is nothing wrong with a person who owns the horse having the chance of his property appreciating as well as the chance that he sometimes suffers, namely, that his property may depreciate.

Mr. Ryan

I do not think we were expected to take these amendments very seriously. I strongly suspect that Senator Sheehy Skeffington drafted them during the Christmas festivities and decided to carry the joke into the New Year.

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

It is a very good season.

Mr. Ryan

Assuming for the moment that he did mean them seriously, I think the first one is quite unnecessary, because subsection (1) provides that the local authority shall pay compensation of an amount equal to the value, if any, of the estate, interest or right. It is quite clear that the draftsman visualised the possibility that some, at least, of the property owners would be of the type Senator Sheehy Skeffington mentioned. It is quite possible that some of these people from whom the derelict sites would be taken would be irresponsible owners who do not deserve any compensation, but they will fall into the category of irresponsible owners, into which category I think Senator Sheehy Skeffington would put most property owners. If that is the case, there is no necessity to give them any compensation and that is provided for in the Bill.

On the other hand, it must be realised that there will be many cases in which, through no fault of the owner, the land will become a derelict site. In that case, the local authority should be entitled to give him some compensation, depending on the extent to which he is entitled to it. Secondly, I think the tying-down of the local authority to a particular sum, to one farthing an acre, or anything else, is quite impracticable. I do not think it is intended to be taken seriously.

The second amendment specifying 20 years' purchase could be rather dangerous. Under the heading of derelict sites, we might easily have such a thing as a disused coal mine or a disused mine for valuable minerals. Will the local authority be forced to pay 20 years' purchase on a yearly income which in the five years before the coal mine became a derelict site might have been many hundreds of thousands of pounds in the year? If the local authority were tied to that valuation I think they might have to pay far more for a site than the owner would be entitled to receive.

Mr. Barry

I think well-to-do people and big capitalists and the shrewd mainchance people whom Senator Sheehy Skeffington has not mentioned but who we know he believes are a threatening group in all our society to-day do not own derelict property. I think Senator Sheehy Skeffington's amendments are aimed at the wrong target.

Mr. O'Quigley

Like Senator Ryan, I thought when I saw these amendments that not alone was Senator Sheehy Skeffington having a merry Christmas but that he was having a hilarious Christmas. It was funny to see him put down an amendment that people should be compensated at the rate of a farthing an acre, less income tax. If that is his view on compensation, the proper course for him to take is to suggest that we delete Section 11. I suppose that at this merry time of the year we are entitled to a little humour even over derelict sites. It is remarkable, too, that Senator Donegan had in mind the same thought that came into my mind when Senator Sheehy Skeffington was speaking, namely, that Senator Sheehy Skeffington does not know anything at all about the Irish people.

Mr. Donegan

He has not the foggiest notion.

Mr. O'Quigley

All his talk is directed against the big owners of factories in England and America and so on. These people do not exist in this country. There are no big capitalists here who are out to do us for all time and to use the iron heel on the Irish people. Senator Sheehy Skeffington thinks that those people are the owners of derelict sites. He thinks they are now being facilitated after years of neglect, to fall into tremendously big fortunes by way of the compensation they will get through the Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919. I would say that under that Act this amendment is quite unnecessary and that people would get very little compensation even for valuable property—people who, I am sure, the Senator would like to see compensated properly.

I am glad to note from the last speaker that it is not beneath him to express in regard to his colleagues in the Seanad the view which I expressed as to his motives in some of the things he said earlier. However, that is only by the way. I have sympathy with Senator Sheehy Skeffington in that I believe, as distinct from his colleagues' expression, his enthusiasm for the operations which he can foresee under this amendment tends to run away with his possible good sense in dealing with those who have brought about the situation wherein this derelict site business has become almost a national disgrace.

The question of the value of a site and the compensation to be paid is one which I would agree should not be treated in a mere amendment or part of an amendment because of the fact that you would be undervaluing it in some cases and, in fact, overvaluing it in other cases. The alternative of the 20 years'purchase would have an adverse effect. I am not stretching my credulity to the point which Senator Ryan mentioned of a mine becoming a derelict site and his point in relation to the criterion whereby compensation would be paid by the local authorities.

It is quite possible that the 20 years' purchase idea could be an extremely costly and very over-exaggerated compensation for a relatively unimportant site of little value. I think the system proposed in the Bill is the in-between. It is neither the one extreme nor the other and it has the merit of dealing with all these sites regardless of whether the person who owns them wilfully, positively or negatively brought about their state of dereliction, as it were. They will be paid compensation, if any, on the basis of the value of the cleared site, less the cost of clearance. I do not think anything could be more straightforward than that—the market value of the cleared site, less the cost of clearance. let that value be high or low. The fact that it was a derelict site and that we had to bring in this new enactment to clear it and improve conditions in general for the public amenity, the public health and the public good does not mean that, having taken power to clear it by compulsion, if necessary, all else having failed, the person who owned the site should, in fact, be blamed and punished because he has allowed it to get into that condition.

Immediately we start thinking in those terms, we must examine, possibly in detail, the long history up to the present day of how each and every derelict site came to be in its present condition. If we were to be fair and follow that approach, we would have to make the punishment fit the crime and the greater the offender and the longer he has retained a site until it has become injurious to health, the greater would be the punishment of giving him nothing, although it now had reached the state of having a very considerable value.

Today's market value of the site as a cleared site, less the cost of clearance, is far and away the least objectionable manner in which this matter can be dealt with. The owner of a derelict property, if it is valued, must be in very difficult straits, indeed, if he has allowed the site to fall into the hands of the local authority, considering that he will have got, under the terms of this Bill, various opportunities of doing the work himself and it must be that purely from a financial point of view he will have failed to do the work and retain his own site. If it is of considerable value, which, Senator Sheehy Skeffington complains should not be given to him in compensation because he allowed it to become derelict, why has he allowed it to become derelict in a positive way? Certainly he will not have allowed it, as a valuable site, to fall into the hands of the local authority by default of his doing anything with it, if it were more profitable to retain it and clear it himself.

It may be because of his inability, financially or otherwise, to do anything with this site. Therefore, it comes into the hands of the local authority. Suppose the site cost £5,000 or £6,000, why should the local authority come to reap the benefit to the tune of £5,999 19s. 11¾d. with the farthing out for the site? Why should they be given, by virtue of legislation here, even though it is for the good of the ratepayers, the benefit of the values of the sites which they declared derelict and which have fallen into their hands through Acts of the Oireachtas? Why should they be allowed to make money on sites, the value of which is the property of the person owing the site? That is where the money value comes in.

The suggestion by Senator Sheehy Skeffington is that compensation for loss of value, which a person has done nothing to create, is a scandal. I wonder how many people here this evening in their present position—I do not mean in the sense of membership of the Seanad but in the ordinary material sense—can be said to have attained that material state without any particular effort on their part? Is it to be taken that if that is so in the case of a number of people, their material goods could and should be taken from them and that no compensation should be payable to them?

The point was made against me that I did not know anything about the country, since I did not realise that many poor people owned neglected property, and I am returning the compliment in dealing with the number of poor people who have no property at all. Senator Donegan tells us that to own property is "a bit of a horse race". I do not think we will go into that, because I do not think it is fair to the property owners of the country. I regard the ownership of property as being just a shade more responsible than the transactions conducted in a turf accountant's office.

Senator Donegan regards the owning of property as the basis of a lottery or a gamble. I feel that a more responsible attitude towards property would do Senator Donegan good. He tells us that property appreciates in value and that the owner should get the benefit of that. I also suggest that if property depreciates he should not be compensated for that depreciated property on the basis that it is going to appreciate when somebody else works it, when that property improves by reason of community effort and because trains and roads are brought through it through no effort of the owner. Senator Donegan wants these irresponsible owners to be compensated for the great efforts made by other people. It seems to me that that is wrong and irresponsible.

Senator Ryan suggested that perhaps it was the Christmas spirit that made me put down this amendment. Perhaps he regards the Christmas spirit as a bad thing. The irresponsible and grasping property owner acts in the manner of Scrooge, and that does not seem to be the best form of Christmas spirit. It seems to me that the defenders of irascible property owners have Scrooge as their patron saint. The defence put up by Senator Ryan could not deceive even himself. He imagines a derelict site with a coalmine on it which just before the vesting order was made, was making enormous profits. It went "phut", and then for this coalmine—or perhaps it is a copper mine—after twenty years we have to pay excessive compensation under my second amendment. The fantastic, exaggerated example which Senator Ryan felt necessary to bring forward to support his case shows how weak he knows his case to be.

Senator Barry made the point that in this country derelict property is not owned by big capitalists and so on. I did not talk about big capitalists. I talked about irresponsible owners who have allowed their sites to become not merely dilapidated and ruinous but injurious to public health and public amenities. He says that big capitalists do not own such sites. Perhaps, but I suggest that on the day of the passing of this Bill, with its mention of compensation on the basis of the market value of land calculated with a view to what it is going to become, these derelict sites will begin to be bought up. It is with that in mind that I think we should be very careful about the basis on which we calculate future compensation.

Senator O'Quigley was shocked to the core at this attack upon property, and even went so far as to suggest that I was asking for confiscation without compensation, which I think was unfair since my proposal is to give what the Courts themselves regard as a legitimate amount when the damage done is purely nominal, that is to say, a farthing damages.

I would remind the Seanad, indeed, that during the war we passed legislation and approved it in both Houses to allow that farmers who were not developing their land and using it for the national advantage could be deprived of it. We were prepared in the case of irresponsible owners not fully using the land, to deprive them of it. Admittedly the powers were never used to any wide extent but they were voted—similar powers were voted in Britain—on the basis that ownership carries with it responsibilities related to use, and that is the basis and that is the principle upon which I am urging these amendments.

Senator O'Quigley told us that the landlords had long since gone out. I wonder where he lives, certainly not in this country if he really believes that the notion of landlordism has disappeared. I shall not develop that. I merely underline it.

Mr. Burke

The local authorities are the biggest landlords now.

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

Senator O'Quigley gave us his example of the poor widow doing very well out of a pub but failing to insure it. Then he tried to draw tears from us by wondering what on earth would we do about this poor widow. What does the insurance company do with her if she is not insured? Does the insurance company say: "After all, she was earning a good income and her place is burned down; she did not insure with us, but, of course, we will give her a pension"? I suggest that if you have people, be they widows or Senators, who are so irresponsible in business as not to insure themselves against reasonable risk, it is no part of the community's duty to step in and say: "We will compensate you for your own folly". That is what Senator O'Quigley says he would like, and he suggests that that is the "Irish attitude" towards the widow, and one which would demand that, of course, she must be compensated. In fact, the Irish attitude towards the widow is that she does not matter a widow's curse. In point of fact, every time there is any suggestion for a pension for widows in this House, there is hardly a Senator who will get up in support of the view that civil servants' widows should be entitled to pensions, that Senators' widows, Deputies' widows, widows of teachers and so on, should be entitled to pensions. The Irish people, as represented by this House and by Senator O'Quigley himself, do not give a widow's curse about the widow. That is the official attitude

Mr. Burke

This is going too wide.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Senator is not answering Senator O'Quigley's point at all. The Senator is not really dealing with the arguments made by Senator O'Quigley.

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

Senator O'Quigley has invented this totally unrepresentative case and I am reducing it to its fundamental absurdity by dealing with it by the same method, which he does not like when it is applied to him. I would, furthermore, suggest to Senator O'Quigley that hard cases make bad law. I do not know whether he regards himself as a hard case, but this widow he referred to is essentially a hard case, and I suggest that we cannot legislate on such grounds.

I was pleased to note that the Minister saw the serious principle underlying this, and noted that Senator O'Quigley had accused me of "trifling with the House." The Minister talked about compensation on the basis of the market value of a cleared site once the cost of clearing it has been paid for, and he made a case for the legitimacy of that as a basis for the calculation of compensation. I would answer in two parts to that: first during all the period of neglect of this site, which has been damaging to the community, that site may well have "appreciated" by reason of its situation in the community, and consequently the market value upon which we are going to compensate the owner bears no relation to what the owner paid for it or what the owner merits getting out of it. Secondly, during all this time of neglect, that site has been damaging other property and depreciating it and damaging the community; and yet the owner of that neglected derelict site is not being asked to pay any compensation to the community for this past damage done by his own neglect.

Consequently, I would suggest that the Minister's view that compensation should be on that basis is nevertheless a view which would give over-ample compensation for the acquisition of sites in which all the buildings are, in the words of the Bill, in a ruinous, dilapidated or dangerous condition and where the whole site has become injurious to health or to the amenities of the neighbourhood by reason of its objectionable or neglected condition. In those circumstances it seems to me that we should be prepared to pass one or other of these amendments of mine, one of which would pay at the rate of a farthing an acre and the other on the basis of genuine income derived. I should like to ask that they be voted on separately, if we can achieve a vote on them, because while the same basic principle is involved in both amendments, the second amendment would provide that if a person can prove an income, he will be compensated at the rate of 20 years' purchase of the average yearly income over the five years immediately preceding the acquisition. I would therefore press both of the amendments.

Mr. Donegan

Very briefly, I should like to say that the Christmas spirit mentioned in relation to these amendments by Senator Sheehy Skeffington was not the spirit of Scrooge; it was spirit out of a bottle. We felt that he must have been feeling gay when he put them down because they are something that would be associated with fairyland.

I reiterate my view that the owner of property is entitled to take his risk on its appreciation or depreciation and I quote what I said before, that if a factory is built beside a private house and there is a depreciation in the value of that house, the private owner must take it. Similarly, if there is something which is desirable built near a house, such as a sewerage system, a regional water scheme or that sort of thing, the private owner is entitled to his chance of appreciation of his property. That is the only law I know of in relation to property of any kind, whether it be movable property, house property or land. There is no other way. I go so far as to say that the only other way that I know of operates behind the Iron Curtain. The law that I have referred to is the economic law of private enterprise and of the sort of place we live in. Any other suggestion can be attributed to the old-fashioned Shavian socialism which would suggest that everyone who has twopence is bad and everyone who has nothing is downtrodden. That idea is 30 years behind the times. I reiterate that Senator Sheehy Skeffington knows nothing about Ireland.

The mover of these amendments seems to think that he and only he has a right to guard the interests of the poor, that everybody else is out to grind the faces of the poor. He should grow up and realise that there are many members of this House who have a just approach to those people in issues like this. The Senator should not be so childish in this matter.

Mr. O'Quigley

He will not convert the Senator talking in that way.

Mr. O'Reilly

The Senator will not be improved by the glib cleveralities which can be used and have been used.

Mr. Murphy

I listened to all this debate and tried to understand the arguments put forward. I took Senator Sheehy Skeffington's arguments seriously and I agree with a great deal of what he said. I do not think, however, I could support the amendment because he has not faced up to the arguments made by the Minister which I think were the same arguments as those which Senator O'Reilly made. In relation to these proceedings, not necessarily in all cases but in many cases, the poorer owners of derelict sites would be unable to avail of the facilities and would have the sites taken over by the local authority. The people who could afford it and who availed of the facilities would develop the sites themselves and the people who had not sufficient money would have the site taken over simply because they were unable to develop it. That would be an injustice to them and no matter what the Senator may say, would tend to be confiscation. I think the provision in the section as it stands, that the compensation should be determined as provided in the section is fairer, and because of that, I cannot support the amendments.

Mr. O'Quigley

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Perhaps the simplest way to decide this matter is if those in favour of amendment No. 8 would rise?

Senator Sheehy Skeffington rose.

Amendment declared lost.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Senator will be recorded as dissenting. The Senator may have a separate decision on amendment No. 9, if he wishes.

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

Yes. I move amendment No. 9:

In subsection (1), to delete all words from and including "the value" in line 29 to the end of the subsection and substitute "twenty years' purchase of the average yearly income deriving from the land acquired over the five years immediately preceding the making of the vesting order."

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Will those in favour of the amendment please rise?

Senator Sheehy Skeffington rose.

Amendment declared lost.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Senator will be recorded as dissenting.

Amendment No. 10 not moved.

Section 11 agreed to.

Sections 12 to 24 inclusive agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Next Stage?

Tomás Ó Maoláin

Next Tuesday.

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

I do not think we have been officially informed why we are meeting on Tuesday rather than on Wednesday. Might I ask the basis for that decision when Standing Orders say that we shall meet on Wednesdays?

Tomás Ó Maoláin

It was suggested that, to facilitate many members of the House who are engaged on Wednesday of next week, we should meet on Tuesday and it was agreed to do so. I take it the House will have no objection.

Mr. Burke

We have no objection.

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

I feel the House should be more widely consulted before we depart from Standing Orders. We have not been told what will prevent some members of the House from being present on Wednesday.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Perhaps the Senator could discuss the matter with the Leader of the House before the end of the tea adjournment. I understand that there was general agreement that the House should meet on Tuesday. There is a possibility that we may have to meet on Wednesday morning also.

Report Stage ordered for Tuesday, January 10th, 1961.

Business suspended at 6.45 p.m. and resumed at 7.45 p.m.

Seanad Éireann debate - Wednesday, 4 Jan 1961