I move amendment 1: In sub-section (1), line 21, to delete the figures "1907" and to substitute therefor the figures "1919."

This amendment is merely to correct a clerical error.

I move amendment No. 2:—

To insert a new sub-section before sub-section 4:—

An Order made under this section may authorise the Corporation to purchase in addition to any lands required for the purpose of widening, opening, enlarging, extending, or otherwise improving a street, such lands as may be required for the purpose of enabling the Corporation to provide and let or sell, with the approval of the Minister, suitable building sites fronting upon such improved street.

The object of this amendment is to give the Dublin Corporation powers to acquire buildings or lands that may be unsightly or likely to cause inconvenience in the building of new streets or the building of new houses, or buildings that may stand in the way of the proposed widening of streets. The Corporation have certain powers, but they fear that if they started to build a new terrace of houses, or a new line of shops, they might come across one owner who might own a very old unsightly building, and who would not be prepared to allow it to be moved back. This amendment is merely for the purpose of compelling such a man, who wants to block, as it were, the beauty of buildings adjoining, to conform, and to give the Corporation power compulsorily to acquire the site or compulsorily to make such a man carry out the work himself.

Will the operations of this amendment be limited to the destroyed area?

The idea is—as I understand—that if in the destroyed area, or close to it, there is an unsightly building likely to decrease the value of the new buildings, to try to get power to remove such a building, or to compel the owners to make the building suitable to the requirements of the neighbourhood.

If the purport of the amendment is limited to the destroyed area, so far as I am concerned I have no objection, but if this clause is one that may have a wide and far-reaching effect, I should ask that it should get further consideration. But if I am to understand from this Bill that the whole of its operations are to be confined to the destroyed area, it would be different.

The Bill is entitled "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," so that it is obvious this amendment applies only to these areas.

Yes, but the statement of the Deputy who moved the amendment would rather leave one to infer that he was going further.

There is a certain amount of ambiguity about the amendment, as drafted. I think most of us would sympathise with the object of the amendment; but, as drafted, it would accomplish a great deal more than what the Deputy intends. I will take the matter into consideration and see if we can formulate an amendment that will meet the Deputy's requirements, but, as drafted. I am not sure but that the amendment does go outside the scope of the Bill.

I am quite satisfied with the Minister's assurance, and ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

I beg to move amendment No. 3 on the Paper:

In sub-section (2) to insert after the word "amount" in line 6 the words "made up of the sum" and to insert after the words "as aforesaid" in line 7, the words "together with any legal expenses necessarily incurred in proceedings under section 5 of this Act."

The object of the amendment is that the advance provided for in sub-section (2) of Section 4 may cover the cost of any proceedings under Section 5 of the Act.

I move amendment 4 on the paper. In sub-section (14), lines 23 and 24, to delete in each line the word "special."

A register already exists under the 1916 Act, and it is not necessary that there should be a special register.

I want to draw attention to the rather drastic character of this section. It appears to give power to the Corporation that in the event of a building not being proceeded with on any of these sites within a period of two years, they are entitled to go in and sell the interest in the site and take other steps in connection therewith. From one point of view that may be very desirable, but from another point of view it may entail very considerable hardship. Take the case of an owner of adjoining premises who may purchase a site for the purpose of extension of premises. It would be rather unfair to compel him to proceed with that extension of premises within a period of two years if the condition of trade did not warrant such an extension. The alternative in that case would be that he would have to give up the site if he did not proceed with the building, and thereby might injure the development of his business in the future. Now that is a case that might occur easily. In fact it is a likely case to occur in some of our leading thoroughfares, and I would ask that the Minister would consider that aspect of the question, and in fact take powers to himself whereby that particular grievance might be considered, and if he came to the conclusion that the grievance was a real one he might take steps to prevent the compulsory powers under this section being given effect to in such circumstances.

The Deputy may rest assured that this section of the Bill will be administered very conservatively and that I will take steps to see that the legitimate interests of owners are not interfered with in any way.

Can we have an assurance from the Minister to that effect, because possibly I am reading the section rather narrowly at the moment, but I am afraid that in the section as it stands he has not got the power to prevent the mandatory powers that I have mentioned coming into operation.

The section says that the Minister "may unless he is satisfied that the rebuilding or restoration will be completed within a reasonable time make an order." That is, surely, giving the Minister plenty of discretion.

If the Minister thinks that it is sufficiently wide of course it is all right. It is a matter that will require some little consideration, and I think the Dáil will agree that it is a very real grievance and one that ought to be carefully considered.

It is obvious that the effect of the section is that after the expiration of two years the Corporation may apply to have the mandatory powers put into force, and then the Minister will consider the matter.

If the Minister has that power I am satisfied.

He certainly has.

I move that this be the Schedule of the Bill.

I beg to move Amendment 5, in Rule 2. line 43, to delete the words "they think" and to substitute therefor the words "he thinks."

This is merely the correction of a grammatical error.

I beg to move Amendment 6, in Rule 6, line 15, to delete the words "one month" and to substitute therefor the words "one week."

In view of the fact that a period of one month is allowed before the Order is confirmed it is considered that a further period of one week within which a petition may be presented against the Order would be sufficient.

I think one week is a rather short time in view of the fact that you have to get the signatures of six persons interested. These persons may be in other countries and the document may have to be sent around a good deal. Even if the persons whose signatures are required are in Ireland it may be difficult to get their signatures in view of the fact that the postal service now only functions once in three days or thereabouts. I think that the time might be extended from one week to a fortnight, and that would be a reasonable compromise.

I am agreeable to have the period changed from one week to a fortnight.

Under the previous rule, Rule 5, a period of one month is given.

Even that may not be sufficient notice. This document will have to be signed by six people. I do not know if the Minister has experience of the difficulty of getting people to sign a document which is sent on to them and of getting them to send it back in time. I suggest that there should be a total period of six weeks, a month in the first instance, and then a fortnight.

at this stage resumed the Chair.

I am prepared to agree to a fortnight.

The amendment, then, is to read: In Rule 6, line 15, to delete the words "one month" and to substitute therefor the words "14 days."

Under Rule 7 I notice that the right to call upon the arbitrator to state a case is confined to the Corporation. It appears to me that the right ought to be extended to the other party as well. Under sub-section (a) of Rule 7, I think the words in the last line, "on the application of the Corporation," should be altered to read "on the application of either party."

That does not apply to the stating of a case. There is no limitation as to who may apply for the stating of a case. It says that in addition the arbitrator may order certain works to be done.

Would it not be only fair that whatever rights are given to one party should also be extended to the other party?

I do not think it is necessary to make any change in it. I think both parties have equal powers under it.

The clause would appear to give to the Corporation some right that is not given to the other person.

The words "on the application of the Corporation" apply to (b); (a) gives the arbitrator power to state a case, and perhaps the words "on the application of the Corporation" should come after (b).

If that is the interpretation of it, it puts a different construction on it. Certainly as it stands here it gives certain rights to one party under (a) that are refused to the other party.

It is purely a clerical error.

The Minister can get it corrected in another place if necessary.

I have to make a suggestion as to No. 8, which says that in determining the amount of compensation the arbitrator is to take into account improvements by reason of certain benefits. That is, that if the Corporation by reason of something it does on the adjoining premises makes the other site of more value, the arbitrator is to take that into account. But supposing, on the other hand, something the Corporation does injures the value of the adjoining site, would it not be only fair that the injurious effect would be taken into consideration by the arbitrator in the same way as it is proposed he should take into consideration the question of the beneficial effect of an improvement?

I do not think it is anticipated that anything injurious will be done under the Bill. I do not think we can very well make provision for anything of that sort or assume that we are going to injure property in any way by any change we make.

Supposing a site is of certain dimensions suitable for buildings of a certain class. If, by an encroachment of the Corporation on that site for other purposes, it is reduced down to very small dimensions, it would be very considerably injured from the market value point of view. In considering a proposal of this kind one must carefully legislate for all interests. This specifically mentions that if an improvement is conferred on the site by the Corporation the arbitrator shall take that into account. It can be seen from what I have mentioned that it is quite possible that the value of a site may be injured, and I want that aspect considered.

We will take that into consideration and see if we can suggest some amendment which will meet the Deputy's wishes.

Very well.

It is perfectly obvious that the word "compensation" means compensation for damage done, and that the section simply enables that compensation to be qualified by being given in part to improvement effected on the adjoining site or on that particular site.