When I first read the section which it is proposed now to amend and saw the word "notice", I was satisfied that the intention of the section was quite clear. I am still of the opinion that it is clear and indeed the advice I have since received would indicate that also. However, in deference to the expressed views of the House that the word should be changed I indicated then that I would have another look at the matter and see what could be done. I believe that the amendment which I now propose is one which will meet in full any doubts in regard to the intent of the section that may have been in the minds of members and I think in every way it will give full meaning to what is regarded as the intent of the section.
Derelict Sites Bill, 1960—Report and Final Stages.
Government Amendment No. 1:
In page 7, line 40, before "a copy" to insert "a notice containing" and in line 41 to delete "a copy of the" and substitute "such".
The amendment seems to be perfectly correct and no doubt it does give specific meaning to the section. It seems to be quite in order.
I had a similar amendment down to this section, having raised the point originally, and it is somewhat amusing to hear the Minister now talking about his first reaction when he read the section. The Minister is now involved in a large-scale face-saving device which is completely unnecessary. The plain fact is that when the matter was first raised it was put on the level that this was a drafting or a printing error. Throughout the debate the Minister, instead of saying that was so, tried to inflate it into something such as we now have which, of course, is quite unnecessary. The section originally read that in the case of all land comprised in the same ownership you were to serve by post a copy of the order on or near the land. That was all right for land comprised in one ownership but in any other case where there would be several owners, you were then to post a copy of the notice on or near the land of each owner. But it is perfectly clear that you had to serve a notice to do the same thing in relation to land owned by divers people as in regard to land owned by a single individual—that was all that was to be done.
The Minister's attitude was that he was perfectly happy with the provisions of subsection (3) in regard to the vesting of this land where there was only the one owner. It was clear. He then comes along and changes the whole thing to provide that a notice shall contain a copy of the order. Of course it is childish to carry on that kind of conduct. There is no need for that. All that was required was the amendment down in my name to put in "order" where it had been left out or where "notice" had been misprinted instead.
Everywhere else in the Bill where a notice is required, this is made clear. In Section 2 you have a notice to be specified; in Section 3 there is "specified in the notice"; I think in Section 7(2) it says "the notices referred to in subsection (1) of this section shall be in the prescribed form." In this subsection (3), to which we are referring, there was no notice specified. We were not specifying as we are doing in relation to the others, all of which establishes quite clearly that the Minister is too stubborn to admit that the word "notice" crept in, in the first place, purely by error and he has not yet grown up to the stage that he can admit that sometimes he might be wrong and that, in fact, there are occasions where he is wrong or at least has to accept responsibility for something that is wrong.
It is very hard to follow the attitude of Senator O'Quigley to this amendment. There was a long discussion on it on the Committee Stage, and I do not think it could be said that the Minister gave the impression that he was trying to meet any suggestion from the Opposition that it was a drafting amendment. It appears to me that, even today, Senator O'Quigley, when discussing this amendment, tried to put words into the Minister's mouth that he did not use. I listened to the Minister carefully and he did not tell us that he was bringing in this amendment because there was a drafting error in the Bill. What he actually said was that he brought it in in deference to the wishes of those who had doubts in their minds as to the advisability of having "notice" in the section instead of "order".
It seems to me that the two amendments mean precisely the same thing, but that Senator O'Quigley is right in claiming that his is the simpler. I should be inclined to support the second rather than the first and I do not really see why it is necessary to incorporate more words. The whole point is covered by the second amendment although, admittedly, the purport of the amendment is certainly the same, but I think in an unnecessarily verbose way.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
This is the Report Stage of the Bill and amendment No. 1 is really designed to meet amendment No. 2.
If Senators will read the debate they will find that the actual wording in the Minister's amendment was—shall I say—dictated across the House by Senator O'Donovan. I remember quite clearly that there seemed to be some argument about this and Senator O'Donovan suggested that the real solution was to have the notice contain a copy of the order. It appears that the Minister has elected to take the phraseology of Senator O'Donovan in his amendment rather than that of Senator O'Quigley. The only conclusion I can come to is that Senator O'Quigley is rather annoyed that Senator O'Donovan's phraseology was chosen by the Minister in preference to his. Since the Minister has decided now to have that amendment I am prepared to accept the Minister's view especially as he says he has looked into the matter.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Amendment No. 2 not moved.
Government amendment No. 3:
In page 8, lines 35 and 36, to delete "by the Acquisition of Land (Reference Committee) Act, 1925".
The purpose of deleting these words from Section 11 is to meet the point mentioned to me subsequent to the discussion in the House on the Committee Stage of the Bill. I think a couple of Senators were responsible for bringing it to the notice of my Department immediately after discussing the Committee Stage. The view that was put to me then was that if it was considered necessary to refer to the Acquisition of Land (Reference Committee) Act, 1925, it should also be necessary to refer to the amendment of the 1919 Act contained in the Land Values (Arbitrations and Appeals) Act, 1960. The view is, in fact, that reference is not really necessary to either one or the other and that a reference to the 1919 Act alone is sufficient in that the 1919 Act will naturally apply and be read as amended by subsequent legislation. The cleaner job really is to delete the mention of the 1925 Act and, then, the addition of a reference to the 1960 Act is unnecessary. It is to meet that case that the amendment has been tabled. The matter was brought to our notice by some Senators who were unavoidably absent during Committee Stage.
I wonder is the Minister right in his argument? Surely the 1919 Act would be read with the 1960 Act? I suppose the amendment does have the effect, in the limited way the Minister suggests, of making the position somewhat clearer. This kind of amendment at this stage highlights the value of having Bills debated in an extensive way, in a more extensive way perhaps than is the normal practice. Some might think the Report Stage a waste of time; one Senator described it as obstruction. It turns out now that the more time given to consideration of Bills, the better the legislation will be.
Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That the Bill, as amended, be received for final consideration."
I raised a matter on Committee Stage but, unfortunately, I raised it on the wrong section. Pressure of business did not permit me to put down an amendment on the appropriate section. I should like now to mention it in a general way at this stage. The Minister will, undoubtedly, have to make regulations and directions will be given to local authorities along certain lines. In the town in which I live, there are many old buildings which would really qualify as derelict sites. I have no interest in any of them. As a member of a local authority, I know that we will be required to serve notice on many people to remove these buildings and make good these sites. Many of these buildings are very high and clearing them will be an expensive business. The cost of clearing may be far higher than their value. I should like the Minister to provide against undue hardship in such circumstances.
We had at one time 25 cornmills. Many are now derelict. It may happen that a man occupies a small portion of one of them for his business, and it will cost hundreds of pounds to level the building and make good the site. We would be required to serve an order on that man and the effect of that order might be to involve him in great financial hardship. I ask the Minister to bear such cases in mind when making regulations.
I think the kernel of the Senator's argument is, in the last analysis, the acquisition of the sites. The cost of clearance would be greater than the value of the site when cleared. I should think that, in that eventuality, the last part of the Bill would come into operation: acquisition proceedings would be taken by the local authority.
That is what I am afraid of.
The operative phrase in Section 4 (1) (b) is "as they think fit." Discretion is left with the local authority. They will not be compelled to recover. The power is discretionary.
Could an aggrieved person appeal to the Minister against the local authority?
I do not think so. It will be a matter for the local authority to clear the site. Having cleared, it will be a matter for them to calculate the cost of clearance and deduct from that overall cost the amount of any grant given. The balance may be sought from the owner at the discretion of the local authority. I should think local authorities will be realistic in these matters. For the common and public good, they will go after a site to have it acquired so that they can clear it, knowing the cleared site will be worth less than the cost of clearance.
That is what I am afraid of.
I would not be afraid because the local authority would have a very good estimation of the situation and they will clear the site, in the knowledge that clearance will enhance the amenities and appearance of the area. I do not visualise them pursuing the owner for the balance of the cost of clearance. They will have discretion in such a case. Indeed, it is because of the type of case the Senator has outlined that discretion is left to the local authority. I believe the interest of any individual concerned will be amply safeguarded in the hands of his local representatives. It is they who will have control.
There is one more point of much public importance. We will now wish to remove these eyesores and derelict sites, and in many places derelict sites of little or no economic value will be removed. The Minister and his officials should bear in mind, in the working of the Act, any cases of hardship that might arise. There is throughout the country an awakening of public interest in regard to beautifying our country by the removal of these eyesores, but I am afraid that in some cases the public authority may not consider the individual.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
This is rather a long question.
It is. However, I have brought the matter to the attention of the Minister and I believe he will bear it in mind. There are many people in his own county who have been very successful in their efforts to beautify their town. The main point is that we do not want to have an injustice perpetrated on private individuals as a result of their efforts to remove eyesores.
When the Senator asked me whether or not there was an appeal when a site had been cleared or acquired under the Act, I replied there was no appeal. It is only fair that I should say that, before the acquisition and the work can be gone on with, there is machinery for an appeal. That appeal will come to the Minister for Local Government and his Department for examination. In connection with that appeal, there would be an estimate from the local authority as to the cost.
That is the safeguard.
If that estimate is obviously one greater than the likely value of the site they are proposing to acquire or clear and it is obvious a certain loss will be incurred by the owner of the property, the Minister and his Department can take certain steps to bring about an agreeable solution of the problem so that hardship will not result.
Thank you.
Question put and agreed to.
Agreed to take Fifth Stage today.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."
At this stage, I should like to appeal again to the members of this House, particularly those who are members of local authorities, for their co-operation in the implementation of this measure and the scheme of grants. I would direct my appeal particularly to those who are members of urban authorities, because it is in our towns and villages that a great deal of urgent work under the Bill and the new scheme of grants may be done. I feel that Senators can be of very great assistance to us in getting this measure and the scheme of grants which is already in operation off to a good start.
I can tell the House that already there has been a fairly good response to the scheme of grants and to this Bill. I believe we will have goodwill, but like all schemes that have been long sought, the implementation of these measures may be delayed or nullified to some extent, if we do not have a united effort. I am appealing to Senators, in whatever capacity they may be able to influence local authorities, to lend us their aid in this whole campaign of clearing our countryside, particularly our towns and villages, of these derelict sites and eyesores. If we all work in that direction, I believe that, when this Bill becomes law and with the assistance of the scheme of grants, a very great impact will be made on the overall appearance of our country at relatively small cost. This will not only be satisfactory to ourselves but of very great benefit indeed to the tourist industry.
Question put and agreed to.
Business suspended at 4.55 p.m. and resumed at 6.45 p.m.