Look at line 54 of this Section at the words " the rebuilding or restoration will be completed within a reasonable time, make an order, etc.," and then at the very end you have the words " within two years after the date of such conveyance." Now, there are two different times applying to the same thing, as far as I could make it out. As against the owner the Minister " may, unless he is satisfied that the rebuilding or restoration will be completed within a reasonable time, make an order, etc." On the other hand, the other individuals are given two years. Don't you think that the original owner ought to get the same two years that the other people are getting ? Instead of putting in " a reasonable time," you should put in " two years " in each case.
SECTION 6.
He gets two years anyway. It is a " reasonable time " after the expiration of the two years.
I do not see that. It seems to me that the only reference in the first part of the Clause is to " a reasonable time," but in the second part of the Clause the matter was governed by the " two years," and they could not come at him as long as it was completed within the two years.
In the first sentence you have the words " at any time after the expiration of two years."
He gets two years and he gets a reasonable time after the two years.
I did not see that.
I propose the amendment :—
4.—Sub-section (4). To add at the end of the Sub-section the words : " save that for the purpose of such application the passing of the said Dublin Reconstruction (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1916, shall be substituted for the passing of this Act."