With reference to clause 2, I would like to say that I am in favour generally of this Bill passing, but I do not like to let it go through without issuing a moral injunction to the Minister for Local Government that, in some cases at least, he should exercise very great care in putting part of this into force, for there are hard cases in that area, where some men may not be able to build until an opportune moment, or until an opportune financier comes along.

Is it powers under clause 2 you are speaking of?

Yes.

Of course it is a big change to make. These men had two years in which to build, and they are losing nine months by this Bill.

With reference to Section 4, where a landlord receives an inclusive rent under a lease, presumably that same rent will continue to be paid when the premises are reconstructed. That rent was fixed on a certain valuation, and when the premises are reconstructed the valuation will be very much increased. Has the landlord to pay rates arising out of that increased valuation?

It has been already decided that a contract on such a lease as that is void.

Automatically?

Yes, under the Local Government Act which says that the obligation to pay a rate has to be on the tenant. The tenants will have to make a fresh bargain. That is my opinion without expressing it as an infallible opinion.

Is the landlord free to resume possession? I do not understand the position.

It is not easy to understand the position, as it is very complicated. The only thing I can tell you is that the House of Lords decided in an Irish case, Bradshaw v. McMullan, that every contract since this Local Government Act, under which the landlord had payment of rates imposed on him, was absolutely void and of no effect.

This is a matter, I think, on which we should have more information. Apparently the whole contract is not void, only a certain portion. Are the old agreements affected by this, or are they to be revived?

The landlord is still liable under a contract of that kind to pay what is called the poor rate, but he is not obliged to pay the other rate. Otherwise the contract remains as it was.

Then the landlord is only responsible for any increased poor rate arising out of the revaluation of the premises?

The old poor rate.

Senator Brown is talking of an ancient poor rate, not of the consolidated poor rate that is now paid.

I think it is very unsatisfactory to be legislating in this way when we do not really understand what we are doing.

The only case I heard of was the one I mentioned, that is where the landlord receives an inclusive rent. It was our intention to give the tenant the benefit of that remission. The remission has not materialised yet, and has not come into operation. That is the one case that was brought to my notice. I was told there were others, but I do not know A case might happen in this way. A house is used as a shop with apartments upstairs. The landlord may let the shop for £100 or £150 a year, and pay the rates himself. He may let each floor above at a compounded rental. In that case, each one of the persons in possession wants to get the benefit of the tenancy. I am not saying that that is an exact description. It may not be the case—I think that it is not. I know of this one case in which an entire property was held by one person. As far as I could learn, he lost everything. He is now driving a taxi-cab or something of that kind, and this is the only benefit this particular tenant can get out of any of the Acts which we have passed for compensation.

It appears to me that if the landlord has to pay the poor rate on an enhanced valuation, he is entitled to any remission of rates that may have been given under recent Acts. I do not see any justice in giving the tenant the benefit of the remission if he has not to pay the rates. I now formally move the deletion of the section.

We have not got the Bill before us, and we do not know what we are deleting.

I do not see any urgency about this particular Bill. There is nothing in it that could not be cured in a couple of months.

The Minister told me that he was desirous of getting it through.

I suggest that we meet to-morrow morning at 12 o'clock to consider this Bill.

I formally move that the further consideration of the Bill be postponed until to-morrow at 12 o'clock.

I second.

We will now take the last item on the Order Paper, the motion in the name of Senator O'Neill.