In line 50, the words " which will be visible from that street," appear. Why should the City Architect not have the right to object if necessary to a part of the building not visible from the street ? He may have reasons to.

Do you want to give the City Architect more power ?

Why not give him right over the building in addition to the part of it visible from the street ?

He already has those rights. Any person building in Dublin has to submit plans and specifications to the City Architect for his approval. The idea underlying this Bill is that in the new buildings in O'Connell Street there shall be a linking up between one another, so as to have uniformity in the general scheme ; and the Corporation can prevent a man, for instance, building a wall higher than he would be entitled to build it under ordinary circumstances.

You have the words " which will be visible from that street."

That emphasises it, although he has power over the whole.

If you look at line 26 you will see the words, " or at any time to erect a new building or to reconstruct or alter an existing building." These words make that a permanent provision, not merely a provision applying during the present reconstruction. Was that intended ?

The Local Authority claim that they should have that right at any time in regard to these particular thoroughfares. They claim that they should have the right now, and that they should keep that right.

The trouble about it as a matter of drafting is that it is rather outside the scope of this Bill, which is a Reconstruction Bill only, and only intended to apply to those areas which are to be reconstructed.

If a man takes down a building many years hence, this Act would apply ?

That would be right in order to keep it within the scheme.

A definite scheme is now being set up for that place, and the architect has a right to see that in future that particular scheme will not be departed from.

In that street ?

I think that must be the intention.

This is an emergency Act, a temporary matter for the erection of certain houses. Many years hence after the whole street has been erected this Clause, if we pass it as it now is, will apply. Have we the right to put such a provision in an emergency temporary Act ?

We have seen streets schemed out in the eighteenth century on very large and simple designs departed from ever since. There is no question about it that it is very salutary to give some one the right to defend the original design.

I suggest that it be left as it is, and it can be raised on the Report Stage if necessary.

Buildings must be in conformity with certain bye-laws of the Corporation, but these bye-laws would not refer to design.

The bye-laws do not refer to design.

Question : " That Clause 4 (formerly Clause 3) stand part of the Bill," put and agreed to.

I propose :—

Immediately before Section 4 to insert a new Section 4 as follows :

4.—(1) In this Section the expression " site fronting on an improved street " means any plot, the property of the same person or persons, either directly adjoining any land acquired by the Corporation under this Act for the purpose of improving a street, or between which and such land no building intervenes.

(2) If, on the application of the Corporation, the Minister is satisfied in respect of any site fronting on an improved street that for the general scheme of reconstruction of the area it is necessary either—

(a) to remove any existing building on such site, or

(b) to erect a new building on such site, or

(c) to reconstruct or alter any existing building on such site, he may make an order requiring such removal, erection, reconstruction or alteration to be carried out.

(3) Before making an order under the preceding Sub-section in respect of any site, the Minister shall give at least one month's notice to, and shall consider any representations made by the owners, lessees and occupiers of such site.

(4) The provisions of Section 3 of this Act shall apply to the erection of any new building on a site fronting on a new street as if such site were the site of a building which has been damaged or destroyed in the course of the recent disturbances ; and to the reconstruction or alteration of such a building as if such building were an existing building in Upper Sackville Street or Lower Sackville Street (commonly known as " Upper O'Connell Street," or " Lower O'Connell Street " respectively).

(5) Any reconstruction or alteration of a building or any erection of a new building on a site fronting on a new street in pursuance of an order under this Section may be carried out notwithstanding that it interferes with any right to light or other easement, but compensation shall be paid to the persons interested in the land to which such right or easement is attached.

(6) Any compensation payable under this Sub-section shall be—

(a) fixed by an arbitrator under the rules set out in the Schedule to this Act in the like manner as the compensation mentioned in those rules is to be fixed thereunder, and any appreciation in the value of the land to which the easement is attached by reason of the general reconstruction of the area shall be taken into consideration in fixing such compensation ;

(b) paid by the owner of the building by which the right or easement is interfered with and shall in addition be a first charge on such building.

I am very much in favour of this being extended to the whole city if possible. It would be a great benefit if the City Architect had power to direct how all streets should be built.

Would it not be better to give that power in a permanent Bill ?

God only knows when you will get a permanent Bill.

I am afraid we are confined in this Bill to two purposes, " An Act to amend the law as to the erection of buildings and the making and improvement of streets in connection with the reconstruction of areas, streets and buildings in the City of Dublin damaged or destroyed during certain disturbances in the said city in the year 1922, and for other purposes incidental thereto."

I would like those lines taken out.

I would like to ask the Minister if he accepts this.

Yes, we have agreed to the whole of this amendment ; there are a couple of changes that will have to be made in it now. The object of it shortly is that if there was a cranky owner who would not pull down an old shanty of a building the presence of which would destroy the whole effect of the street, it is necessary to have power to compel him to take down such a building, or else to take the property from him ; also in cases where the title is not very good, a person may not be able to rebuild, and this amendment will facilitate in that respect.

What amendment do you wish made in the amendment itself ?

In Sub-section (4), line 1, the words " Section 3 " will automatically become " Section 4," and in the second line of the paragraph the words " an improved street " should be substituted for the words " a new street."

Question : " That Section 5, with amendments suggested by Mr. Burke, stand part of the Bill," put and agreed.