Joanna Tuffy (Dublin Mid West, Labour)

I thank the Minister for amendment No. 17. He deals with an issue I raised when I was a Senator when we were discussing this Bill. I also raised it on Committee Stage. I made the point that while various remedies were available to the building owner, if he or she did not put right the damage there was only a provision whereby the adjoining owner could get costs through the courts. He or she could not get the damage remedied to which the costs were applicable.

I am grateful the Minister has taken on board the issue I raised and that he has tabled amendment No. 17 to address it. We put a great deal of work into this legislation in the Seanad and at the Dáil select committee. There is much talk to the effect that amendments are never accepted by the Government. I saw a television programme where a former Minister said that amendments from the Opposition were no longer accepted by the Government. That is not true. This case shows that the Minister is taking on board a point that has been raised by the Opposition and he is dealing with it in an amendment, and I acknowledge that.

However, in amending section 44(4), the Minister has now created a situation whereby if the building owner fails to make good the damage, then the adjoining owner can apply to court for the building owner to do works to undo the damage. The Minister has removed the provision whereby the building owner could, at his discretion, offer compensation to the adjoining owner. I make this point in case it is an error on the part of the Minister.

The situation now is to the effect that if the building owner fails to make good the damage within a reasonable time, then the adjoining owner may apply to the court for an order requiring the damage to be made good. On such application, the court may make such order as it believes fit or, as provided for in the subsection already, the adjoining owner may recover such costs and expenses or compensation as a simple contract debt in a court. The possibility no longer exists for the building owner to offer compensation in lieu, instead of making good the damage. That was written into the legislation before but now it has been changed. While the Minister has dealt with our issue, something which had previously been written into the legislation has now been taken out. Perhaps it does not matter. Perhaps it is implicit that the building owner could offer compensation.

See this speech in context