There is one other little Bill to be disposed of. It came from the Dáil this afternoon. It is entitled "Dublin Reconstruction (Emergency Provisions) Bill, 1925." It consists of four sections. I have looked into it, and, so far as I can see, the main object is to amend the time during which the power under Section 7 of the principal Act can be exercised, that is, power with regard to the hurrying up of building and so forth.
DUBLIN RECONSTRUCTION (EMERGENCY PROVISIONS) (AMENDMENT) BILL, 1925—SECOND STAGE.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
The principal section is Section 2. In July last year an Act was passed specifying a period of, I think, two years in which persons might exercise their right, or wish, to build. During the period, it has happened that very few persons exercised it, and the Minister for Local Government has been pressed to shorten the period. If this section were passed as it stands, after three months the Minister would be enabled to exercise the power which, in the ordinary way, would run for twelve months. In other words, we are cutting off nine months from the two years granted last year. Section 3 deals with the sale of sites in respect of which awards were made. I think it was open to a person to sell a site and not to put in the award. Now the condition is put in, that both the site and the award must be put up for sale. In other words, we are endeavouring to carry out the spirit and intention of compensation in the matter of restoring destroyed property. Where property was destroyed we made a stipulation that, if a local authority were to press for the reconstruction of destroyed premises, that would be a matter to come before a judge. In this case the Minister for Local Government wishes to have a clause inserted which would put an award, or portion of an award, up for sale along with the site. There were, I think, a few cases in Dublin where a landlord got an inclusive rent, that is to say, rates and rent were included in one sum.
Ameliorative legislation was passed in the Oireachtas in the last twelve months which rendered reconstructed premises liable only in respect of one-third of the rates from 1926 to 1933. In those cases it is the landlord who would get the benefit. It was not the intention, when passing that Bill, to give the benefit to the landlord, but to the person in occupation. In this case Section 4 gives that right to the tenant. These are the main points in the Bill. The Minister for Local Government asked me to take charge of it here, although it belongs to his Department.
I protest again against this hurried legislation. I do not, in fact, understand what the Senate is asked to pass as we have not even got a copy of the Bill. I have heard most eloquent protests to-day from the Labour benches against people not performing the duties for which they are paid. Surely, one of the most important duties which we have to perform is to see that the legislation we are asked to pass is properly considered. I much regret the way in which the last Bill was rushed through.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
I think your objection is better founded in regard to this Bill than in regard to the Sugar Beet Bill which was much canvassed in the Dáil and reported in the Press and in the Dáil Reports. This little stranger, however, only arrived this afternoon, and I know nothing about it.
We know nothing about it, and I do not think that we are performing our duty by passing a Bill about which we know nothing.
I support Senator Barrington. I think we should be able to examine this Bill, but we cannot do so unless we are provided with copies. I am not quite satisfied with the President's statement, and I think that some of these clauses need looking into.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
I do not know whether you will take my word for it, but there is nothing concealed in them. They simply involve changes.
I do not understand how the question of rates is going to operate.
I think it was from the Seanad that this came first. What happened was that we left out of consideration the person who is to get the benefit of the remission of rates. Obviously it was the tenant. At all events, I never heard a case put forward except on behalf of the tenant. I have heard of one, but I was told there were others in Dublin, where an inclusive rent is paid, and when these premises are reconstructed the landlord gets the benefit instead of the tenant. In other words, the case made in connection with the remission of rates was, that no matter how amply compensated a person was, the vast majority of people lost money in getting compensation for the destruction of premises. While they were losing money they gave employment. In certain cases they had to put up a considerable amount of their own money, and the premises were usually valued at a much higher price, and, in order to give some sort of relief, remission of two-thirds of the rates was granted. If the intention was to relieve the tenant that intention is carried out here. If there was any other intention I do not believe that the Minister was aware of it, as the Minister had in mind the vast majority of cases, particularly in O'Connell Street, where the rent was paid inclusive of the rates. So far as these particular concerns are affected that is the real meaning of the clause.
Perhaps the President would tell us if there is any real urgency about this.
That is hardly a fair question to put to me, as I am not the Minister responsible. The Minister for Local Government asked me to take the Bill in hand here, but I am not pressing it if there is any question about its not being reasonable.
There is the urgency of re-building.
That is the real point. This offer has been made to get people to build. They have been persuaded in every way. Under last year's Bill we were asked to limit the period to two years, and now it is proposed to take nine months off the two years because the anticipated results have not followed.
I do not wish to oppose this Bill. I have some interest in some of the property, and, speaking for the concern in which I am interested, the plans have entailed our borrowing a very large sum of money. I know that the President is sympathetic towards those with property in that area, and, as I would like to see this particular street re-built, I will not oppose the Bill. In one case I know that it is absolutely impossible for a person to build on the award made. I agree with the provision that a person should not be allowed to sell the site without the award. If there is no great urgency about it, I think that the Bill should get some consideration. As I say, I will not vote against it, as I think it is tragic that that end of the principal street of the capital should be allowed to remain in its present condition, especially as it militates against people trading in that area.
I oppose the Bill going through in this way, the same as I have opposed all hurried legislation. This is a very extreme case, as we have not seen the Bill. The President has stated that the object of the Act as passed some time ago was to help the persons who lived in the re-built houses in those areas. The object was to enable the original owner to re-build, because it was desirable that the re-building should take place as soon as possible.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
Unless there is some urgency about the matter, I think it is a little hard on the House to ask them to dispose of a Bill like this to-day—a Bill that is not in their hands. Of course the Bill was circulated five or six days ago, but the Senators did not attach much importance to it, as they waited to see how it emerged from the other House. It has emerged without alteration, but they could not have anticipated that. Senators have not got the Bill in their hands, technically speaking.
I received mine this morning.
The only section about which there could be any question whatever is the one as to alteration of date. It has been explained by the President that this question of rates can only apply to an infinitesimally small number of persons in Dublin. Since the Act of 1898, the agreement under which the landlord pays rates, is illegal; therefore this could only apply in the odd cases the President has referred to. It is necessary to make an amendment in the Act as it stands. I understand it merely transfers the benefit of the reduction on rates or valuation for these years to the person who has paid money. That is all that is required. I do not think the Seanad requires much time to think over that.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
I do not think it is so limited as that. I took a great interest in the case as to whether these contracts were legal or not. I was told afterwards that there were rows of houses held under an agreement of that kind.
Perhaps it only refers to the destroyed areas.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
I think that is so. I think the President said that the Fourth Section would have no operation save in regard to the destroyed areas.
No. Only as regards the remission of rates.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
It would be limited in that case.
The remission was in respect of newly-constructed property.
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
The motion is: "That the consideration of this Bill in Committee be postponed."
Is it not against Standing Orders?
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
It is, even for the Second Reading. We are not entitled to go into the Second Reading without a suspension of Standing Orders.
It is only a question of proceeding with the Bill now or to-morrow. In view of what the President has said, it would be foolish to postpone the Bill until October.
I move the suspension of Standing Orders to enable this Bill to be put through all Stages.
I second.
What becomes of the original resolution?
AN CATHAOIRLEACH
Senator Colonel Moore has called my attention to a proper point, that we were not entitled to enter into the Second Reading to-day unless we suspend Standing Orders. That is what it is proposed to do now. If you do not agree to suspend Standing Orders automatically the Bill passes away from us.
Standing Orders suspended.
Motion—"That the Bill be read a Second Time"—put, and agreed to.